Welp, Tweety just nailed Sheehan again with Afghanistan.

[Guaranteed]

He threw a few questions at her about whether or not we should have invaded Afghanistan, how we were supposed to get bin Laden without invading.

Why we're throwing in Afghanistan with Iraq, I have no idea.

Very, very bad move. Totally destroys everything we've got going.

[tsuki]

1. Why did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, I remember - to get Osama

Bin Laden. Did we get him? No. If we were unsuccessful in Afghanistan, why did anyone think we would be successful in Iraq?

[malaise]

2. Nailed her??

You're not serious. She was very effective. She does not support the slaughter of innocents.

[Guaranteed]

4. He asked how we were supposed to get bin Laden

without invading.

He was going EASY on her.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. And so, we have Bin Laden locked up where?

And the Taliban chief, and the egyptian guy with the glasses?

Seems to me that the invasion was largely a waste of time and a failure, considering what the main goal was. However, if the goal was to kill a lot of people and pave the way for a pipeline, then we had a real solid victory for sure.

[jonnyblitz]

30. if we only could get osama by invading..where the fuck is he?

so much for that theory..

[LisaL]

64. The same way we "got him" with invading? What exactly did

we accomplish? Nada, zilzh, zero?

[Crunchy Frog]

71. Well, invading Afghanistan sure doesn't seem to have helped us

get him so far. I find it unbelievable that we've been there nearly 4 years and we still haven't got Bin Laden, and the death rate of our soldiers just keeps going up.

At the time we invaded, I thought it was the right thing to do. Now I'm wondering if it wouldn't have been better just to send in a special ops team in there and take care of it that way. Of course, we wouldn't have gotten the Unical pipeline that way.

[Im with Rosey]

3. I have to disagree

That was clearly not the strength of her arguement, but I thought she recovered well and made her point. She was able to comment that the inspectors were allowed and that WMD was a lie.

[Guaranteed]

6. He let her go.

I think he was trying to point out a problem with the approach that the anti-war movement is taking.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

9. WTF do you SMELL???????

HUH?


Cuz, lemme tell ya- Protesting the IRAQ WAR is one thing. Telling people we shouldn't DEFEND OUR COUNTRY????? SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.

And it won't fly. EVER.

In fact, it RUINS the movement we had going against the Iraq War.

[G_j]

12. forget that the Taliban offered to turn OBL over to a third country. n/t

[The Magistrate]

43. That Was A Very Amusing Moment, Sir

And the straight face the bearded fellow maintained while saying it was priceless. It was not serious, of course, and no one, from the speaker to his listeners, ever thought otherwise. The thing was merely an attempt to posture and delay, part of the ritual of the business.

[Atman]

45. Are you deliberately speaking in extreme hyperbole?

I can't believe what I'm reading!

"it RUINS the movement we had going against the Iraq War.

It was one woman on one television show for five minutes. She might not have been on 100%, but the only thing she seems to have ruined is your perspective on reality! I was very impressed with this MOM in her tennies and t-shirt standing up to a BushCo paid shill. You should be, too.

[stillcool]

5. What its it that we've got going? n/t

[Guaranteed]

8. An anti-Iraq-War movement. nt

[stillcool]

14. Like tweety is going to help out with that....

Sorry for being extremely cranky....but what part of corporate media do people not get? Still after all this time expecting to get an apple from a pear tree....it is Not going to happen. In the meantime, while non-news occupys minds the crimes enacted by our government continue to be covered up. I wish we had media, but we are it now, and there's so much more to concern ourselves with than what Cindy thinks we should have done in Afghanistan.

[Guaranteed]

16. He pointed out a very serious weakness that needs to be fixed.

He actually did it in a very nice way.

[stillcool]

17. What weakness?

That the people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. That we don't know sh*t about what our government does? That weakness?

[Guaranteed]

18. That our country has every right to defend itself.

We weren't "waging war against the people of Afghanistan."

Civilians did get killed, but we needed to either get Osama bin Laden into our custody (as opposed to another country's custody), or kill him.

People that think we should argue against the idea of going into Afghanistan (as opposed to how it was carried out), are living on Mars.

That thinking hurts us, badly. BADLY. It destroys our credibility, in particular with regard to Iraq.

[stillcool]

27. Credibility?

In hindsight what good did bombing the sh*t out of Afghanistan do? No type of thinking "Hurts"...only "NON-thinking" hurts. Consider how you know what you think you know....and then consider another source for your 'knowledge'.

[saskatoon]

32. "going into Afghanistan"?

Well don't you recall. our people had him cornered in BoraBora at the very beginning AND THEY LET HIM GET AWAY! Where in hell have you been!

[The Wielding Truth]

37. If we had really skillful and intelligent leaders who cared for

this country they would have combined forces with interpol pulled strings with UN connections set up an internal Al Qaeda sting and snagged the leader, sent aid to the desperately poor Afghani families so they would not need the Ha-mas schools to feed and school their children in fundamental hate ridden Hamas, and developed an independent natural renewable energy. It can be done if that was your aim. War is the answer of the desperately stupid or fearfully devious power driven selfish.

Peace is a lot harder than war and you know how hard it is for * to be President - let alone work for world unity.

HOW DID WE GET HERE! SING OUT CINDY - EVERY NOTE MY NOT BE PERFECT BUT WE NEED YOUR SONG!

[The Magistrate]

49. You Make An Excellent Point, Mr. Loony

That the thing was botched does not alter the position. Attacking Afghanistan was widely and wildly popular among the people of the United States, who understood quite well it was the territorial locus of the force that had attacked our country. Left opposition was not based on sound prediction of futility in the effort, as much of the opposition to the Iraq invasion has been based, but on a mix of pacisfism, apologetics, and naivite about the oil business, with one or two darker strains not worth explicit mention. Opposition on this basis leaves the left poorly positioned to criticize the badly botched outcome.

The situation concerning Iraq is much different. That country posed no threat to the United States, and had hosted no attacks against it. The people were systematically lied to; the invasion was projected for domestic political advantage and fulfillment of dreams of empire nurtured long before the pretext for it seemed to come to hand; there were obvious difficulties with the project clear to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the region and its history. What was predicted widely on the left would occur in consequence has occured and is now occuring. The people of the United States are coming around to broadly share our views concerning it, though perhaps not yet our favored remedies for it.

[Guaranteed]

57. Now THAT'S a good post. nt

[Frederik]

56. I'm one of those people

You're the one who's living on Mars. You obviously have no idea of what a war is or what it entails. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden, if provided evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and that Saudi Arabia's crown prince Abdullah was involved in negotiating that extradition at the time when Bush decided it was a better idea to kill goat-farmers and wedding guests than to get Bin Laden. It cannot be denied that the Bush administration deliberately let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, so "getting Bin Laden" was apparently not a motivation behind the slaughter of the innocent citizens of Afghanistan.

[moddemny]

62. "You also seem to be ignorant............

..... of the fact that the Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden"

Ahahahahaha, some posts on DU blow me away, you almost sound like a gullible Bush supporter.

[librechik]

58. well, yes, except that I think Bush did 9/11, not Osama

so how do we defend ourselves against that? Afghanistan is innocent in that scenario, as innocent as Iraq.

Not that the Taliban weren't evil--They deserved to be punished for blowing up the Buddhas, for example--but not 9/11. I don't think there were even any claims that any of the hijackers were Afghans. In fact, I don't think there was any prosecutable evidence that Bin Laden did it, if the truth is known. We only have Bush's word for that, and I can't remember one time he ever told the truth--except when he said he couldn't think of one mistake he ever made. That rang true.

and if Bin Laden escaped there, isn't the more intelligent response an intense diplomatic and police offensive? Sending the army there after weeks of preparation and advance warning was ridiculous. It was like swatting a fly with a shotgun. A big clumsy slow shotgun. We should have used intelligence and stealth to catch Bin Laden. Or a bigger bribe than the one that's out there.

I have a hunch that saying we favor the Afghanistan attack could blowback and hit us in the butt as hard as Iraq did. If the truth ever comes out. It's just politically impossible to say you were against the Afghanistan war right now, that's all.Later we may know more, but for now, we have to say we are in favor of Afghanistan, but not Iraq. To do otherwise is what hurts us badly, even though the truth may hurt us later.

[LisaL]

65. Are you joking? We needed to get OBL? Then WTF is he?

We invaded and we didn't get OBL. So, WTF did we invade?

[RSchewe]

68. Iraq going badly doesn't need the help of Afghanistan. Besides, she

never said that we should not have gone after Osama Bin Missing.

The arguement, generally speaking, that the people that have been killed are only a result of the search for Bin Laden and his follwers is simply not true.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Let's not forget the torturing going on in Afghanistan as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1245236,00.html

Going into Afghanistan and focusing on Osama is one thing, but recklessly killing civilians in many different parts of the country and ambiguously linking every casualty to the search from Osama is criminal.

Until this day, the search for Osama has been the excuse for every criminal activity committed by this administration and they would love to have a perpetual Boogeyman to get their way politically.

There is a lot of nuance related to this issue and the fact that a country gets attacked is no excuse to disragard the human rights of people of another country.

I wonder how the poppy business is doing these days in Afghanistan...

[Elidor]

70. The left are the only ones with ANY credibility left regarding Iraq

I'm not too worried about being harshly judged over what my fellow lefties have to say, especially since those who would judge us are the conservatives and their mindless psycophants, who all conveniently forget how incredibly wrong they've been about EVERYTHING under the sun.

Must we really waste time worrying what fiends and greedheads think of us? They will always spew their nonsense so long as there is no one right there in their face to give them what for. If today's nonsense doesn't work out for them, they'll be back with a new line tomorrow.

One of the things about the left that makes us better than Them is that we don't march in lockstep. We represent a broad spectrum of thought, not a narrow mindset, rigidly enforced.

As for Osama's Continuing Adventures in Afghanistan, that hasn't worked out too well, has it? We blew it big time at Tora Bora, perhaps deliberately so, and now we have a choice between warlord's and opium on the one hand or the cursed Taliban on the other. Oh yeah, and Osama's still free! Yay team!

It's pointless to say at this point whether or not we were right to invade Afghanistan. The only point still operative is that we had a chance and we fucking blew it, bigger than shit. It's been a clusterfuck of epic proportion, and if it hadn't been overshadowed by the sequel in Iraq, there would already be congressional investigations to determine How We Fucked Up So Bad.

I hope this doesn't sound like a rant directed at you, BullGoose. It's not. I'm just making a point that has been rolling around in my mind for a while now.

[moddemny]

61. "That the people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11."

You seem to forget many of the people in Afghanistan wanted to get rid of the Taliban. The Northern Alliance wanted our help.

[stillcool]

67. i really do not think the history...

of what our government has done in Afghanistan is the issue. However, the reason why our government has been involved in that area of the world, has nothing to do with what the 'people' may want.

[lateo]

10. Of course we should have invaded Afghanistan.

But, when you compare the two wars what do you see?

In Afghanistan, we didn't commit the numbers of troops to the ground we needed. As a matter of fact, we allowed the Northern Alliance to do most of the grunt work with us giving air support to them.

Then at the battle of Tora Bora, where Osama and crew were supposedly hiding, we only committed 3 dozen special forces troops to "smoke him out".

But look at the invasion of Iraq. We massed 160 thousand troops at the border and went gang busting across the desert and laid siege to Baghdad.

We should have done that in Afghanistan...you know...where the people were that attacked us.


But as you and I know...that wasn't their real goal to begin with...

[seabeyond]

13. we should have finished the job in afghanistan, given our resources

stay put. we didnt. we left them only for taliban to come back

would repugs let dems off the hook if we committed resources and lives to go after the man who ochrastrated taking down the two towers and we just walked away, to start a totally new, and non connected war

i think not

[lateo]

46. Exactly.

And the Dems should be beating the repubs over the head with this fact every day. Not to mention the fact that now Iraq is a terrorist's Wal-Mart now.

[RSchewe]

11. How so? I saw the end but missed that part. What was this nailing point

he made? From what I saw she seemed to be making well thought out answers, whether you agree with her or not.

[Guaranteed]

15. He was very civil, as was she.

He clarified the point that she had made on a previous show of his that she was against the Afghanistan War. He asked how we were supposed to get bin Laden without invading. She said that she wasn't against getting bin Laden, but that we were waging war against the people of Afghanistan.

It was a weak answer, but he didn't press it. He moved on.

I think he's just trying to point something out- maybe we're not approaching this correctly.

[RSchewe]

28. I think that answer is exactly right. You can agree with going after...

Bin Laden in Afghanistan and even the Taliban that was harboring him,but you can't go raiding people's houses at will. This all has nothing to do with the search for Bin Laden. Where these raids have been occurring have been ambiguously been linked to the search for Bin Laden or his supporters. This is an attack on the people of Afghanistan and the so-called sovereignty of the country. There is a lot of nuance that people seem a little too quick to overlook. These details are many times the difference between innocent people being killed or not.

The fact that there is a government there now should have the burden of the responsibility of policing the people in their hands and not of the US forces still in Afghanistan. In my opinion, people need to get their asses in the remote areas of Pakistan and the mountainous region where he is most likely to be, that of course assumes that he is still in that part of the world today.

[gratuitous]

19. And invading Afghanistan was warranted . . . how?

First, where is Osama bin Laden? I don't know, and clearly neither does the Bush administration. Did bin Laden have anything to do with the September 11 attacks? I don't know, but I do know that the administration says he did. I haven't seen any of their evidence for that assertion, though. They promised the American public a thorough exposition of that evidence, but it's never come out.

The attacks of September 11 were crimes. Monstrous, murderous crimes. Evidence against the planners should have been developed, the surviving planners identified, and the world community recruited to apprehend and bring the perpetrators to justice. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United States could have summoned help anywhere and everywhere. Instead, the Bush administration used it as a lever to implement their corrupt foreign policy and try to bring the PNAC vision of an American empire into being.

Bush put the kibosh on efforts by Congress to track capital as it whizzes electronically around the world, out of sight and out of accountability, because too many of his political benefactors rely on that anonymity to increase their profits and to escape unwelcome scrutiny of their unscrupulous practices. Stopping the money flow for Al Qaeda or whatever group was responsible for the September 11 attacks would have quickly marginalized them and put them out of business. Instead, the bin Laden family fortune continues to buy cover for Osama.

By treating the attacks as an act of war, Bush committed the United States to an open-ended obligation to send troops all over the world. Naturally, we couldn't do that, and after sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, we basically depleted our military capabilities. Now, North Korea continues its bellicose way with impunity, Pakistan continually pimps the United States with its naked corruption and open assistance to terrorist groups, and practically all of Europe stands aghast, unwilling to help the United States in its self-immolation but powerless to stop us.

Invading Afghanistan was a ham-handed attack by an administration that only knows how to use one tool: the hammer. Unsurprisingly, when that's the only tool you know how to use, every problem looks like a nail. The only consolation we can reasonably look forward to right now is that when we finally quit hitting our thumbs, it will feel so good to stop.

[Guaranteed]

20. That approach will never, ever work.

All you're going to do is hurt us with that.

[gratuitous]

24. Yeah, I know

Actually having a casus for your belli is anathema to our national myth of redemptive violence. No way that's ever going to change, and we shouldn't even try.

[Guaranteed]

25. Actually, it wasn't "redemptive." It was PREVENTIVE. nt

[Zhade]

51. Nice.

You get it.

[jonnyblitz]

33. good post.

:thumbsup:

[saskatoon]

35. All about Afghanistan

AFGHANISTAN

Are you crazy US man
What you doing to Afghanistan---
You get your orders from your Koran?
Tell me so I understand---
Tells you killing children are the ways
To spend with Allah all your days
To spend eternity with your Lord
He tells you this in Holy Word?
My little girl she has no legs
Her little brother he is dead.
When your B-1 Bombers first come here
Dropped cluster bombs---
Such things to fear!
They last for many years untold
Their evil genie to unfold
When our children go to play
In this land so far away
They happy run in childish scenes
One step and blown to smithereens
This time ---one Saudi you come to kill
Turn majestic mountains into hills
Rape our land, moonscape maker you
Devastations what you grew.
Many years ago you come to our land
Sent Stinger missiles to aid our stand
Sent money and arms in steady flow
To defeat the Russians you hated so.
We fought your fight, brought them down
The you were nowhere to be found
Our land laid waste, thousands dead
Crippled, starving where then your aid?








P.2
What you doing to Afghanistan
You don’t own the world US man
Many, many years have gone
Your country stolen from red men
Herded like cattle to barren land
You have much blood upon your hands.
Where bomb next US man
Iraq, Syria and Iran?
I think you’re crazy US man
Going to get yourself a new Vietnam.
If your not crazy you’re a fool
The world’s not going to let you rule
Will your people follow you like sheep
Your killing, maiming plans to keep?
Will your people sell their souls
For the sake of rich man’s oil?
You sow you reap---time coming when
You going to reap a big whirlwind
You foolish, foolish US man
Remember well Vietnam!

Copyright © 2002 by G. M. Stevenson
[e-mail]

[Pastiche423]

38. Excellent post, gratuitous

I would like to see the White Paper Powell promised the world, that would prove who the perpetrators of September 11, 2001 were.

It is now over four years later and we still do not know who it was.

If we din't know then and still do not know now, why did we bomb and continue to bomb Afghanistan?

[davidinalameda]

21. hello, two completely different issues here

the Taliban government of Afghanistan aided in 9/11

we know that and people supported the invasion of Afghanistan

but Iraq is a completely different story!

[Guaranteed]

23. Yes, and we need to keep them separate. nt

[RSchewe]

29. True, but that depends on the characterization of what she said.

I would have to hear it myself. But from what I understand, she sounded like she made a pretty accurate statement.

[Frederik]

59. Not the Taliban

"the Taliban government of Afghanistan aided in 9/11"

Just as with Saddam, there is absolutely no evidence that the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. You're confusing the Taliban with al-Qa'ida. Though I find it probable that the Taliban had a good idea of what was being planned, the Taliban didn't attack America.

[Connie_Corleone]

26. That's her own friggin' opinion.

That doesn't mean she's speaking for everyone who is against the Iraq war, but may support the war in Afghanistan.

[leftchick]

31. She did just fine

What do you think she said wrong? tweety was his usual pain in the ass but she handled him very well.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GOPAgainstGW]

36. Sheehan supports NO Key Democratics. This really hurts!

I saw the huge thread of DUers blasting the Dems for not showing up to support the Sheehan anti-war rally last weekend, but how could they when on Hardball, this evening (9/27/05), Sheehan she supports no key Democratics. Not Bill Clinton, not John Kerry, not Joe Biden, ZERO!

SOOO, what is this women, and this anti-war movement doing to help get BushCo thrown out of office and key Dems into office? I mean am I missing something here? Isn't that what it's about and why we are here at DU?

I mean, when John Kerry came back from Vietnam and protested the war, he had Ted Kennedy and key Democrats behind him AND John Kerry scared the hell out of the Nixon Administration and made a difference in stopping that God forsaken war that killed and injured over 8 million people in Vietnam/Southeast Asia.

Does Cindy Sheehan think she can stop this God forsaken Iraq/ME war by herself and without key political support? I'm sorry, that just stupid.

Just My 3 Cents

------------------------

To All People That Want Immediate Iraq/ME Pullout- Please Read & Respond

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4899871&mesg_id=4899871

[Toots]

41. No it isn't about Democrats, it is about Democracy, right and wrong.

She is not being political or "Playing Politics" she is serious as a heart attack. Too bad you can't understand that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. No key Democrats have given her an ounce of support

other than Conyers. Yet you expect HER to support THEM?? That makes no sense.

Cindy wants immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Hillary favors leaving our soldiers there. So do many other Dems. If Cindy came out in support of Hillary or other Dems who do not agree with immediate withdrawl of our troops, Cindy would come off as a hypocrite.

[Postman]

39. Bush has failed in Afghanistan too.

He let Osama escape at Tora Bora.

Cindy Sheehan is not a spin doctor trained in political shicanery.
She can't be expected to be perfect in her oratory in arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan. Her son was killed in Iraq. She is protesting that injustice and the lies that led to it, to which the MSM like Chris Matthews ignored.

To try and hammer her for weakening the "movement" is ludicrous.

Everyone knows what the score is in regards to the lying bastards of the Bush administration.

The real hurdle is how do we rollback the fascist takeover of the vote so these criminals cannot steal another election.

[Wind Dancer]

40. Nailed Sheehan again?

Cindy Sheehan stated the events that happened on 9/11 should have been treated as a crime instead of a war attacking innocent Afghanistan people. Isn't that how the first attack on the World Trade Center was handled?

Cindy expressed her views eloquently, no confusion and to the point. You happen to disagree with her opinion. Tweety DID NOT nail her at all.

[Atman]

42. Oh, please...Sheehan was brilliant

She's a mom of a soldier killed by Bush's lies.

He's a professional interogator.

She held her own beautifully. The few times she didn't seem to have the right answer, she still came across as genuine, something Chris has never done. Have a cocktail and calm down. Not only didn't Cindy "totally destroy everything we've done," she didn't even dent it.

[bpilgrim]

47. there are LOTS of reasons WHY we FAILED in Afghanistan

trying to play the game within the narrow confines of the M$M constructed cartoon world view, we loose or get nailed, whatever, but when we get beyond the sound-byte, we win.

"Very, very bad move. Totally destroys everything we've got going."

:eyes:



peace

[ruggerson]

48. Some of you are forgetting

that we were attacked by a group that had very close ties to the then-government of Afghanistan. The Taliban supported, protected and gave safe haven to Al Qaeda.

Thus it was entirely appropriate to defend our country against an attack by a group so closely tied to the leadership of a sovereign state.

We were going after both the Taliban and Osama, without whom the attacks against us would not have occurred.

Of course, Bush fucked up this invasion too and let Bin Laden slip away.

But it doesn't help us, nor does it move the Anti Iraq War movement forward, when Cindy Sheehan does not even admit that it was appropriate for us to defend ourselves against an attack on our own soil.

It lets the press marginalize her.

She deserves better than that and so do we.

[Zhade]

52. Funny how we've never been shown the proof of those allegations.

NT!

[bpilgrim]

53. you r forgetting that we DIDN'T get OBL - killed thousands of innocents

are still fighting there today and by most accounts the taliban and their supporters are growing AND defeated the Soviet Union before us.

the best way to deal with UBL was via commando and intel.

but this isn't about UBL now is it, it is about establishing a military presence in the ME and central asia and the elite are getting called on it.

get used to it.

peace

[Wind Dancer]

55. Huh?

"She deserves better than that and so do we."

Cindy Sheehan is doing just fine so I do not understand why you continue to attack the peace movement Cindy supports. You do not speak for me or Cindy so your quote is inaccurate.

[Zhade]

50. He'd have to be right to have "nailed her".

He's not. We SHOULDN'T have invaded Afghanistan.

Gone after bin Laden as a criminal? Yes. Invaded and bombed civilians in a laughable attempt to do so militarily? No.

As soon as I see the incontrovertible evidence that bin Laden personally directed the attacks and that the Taliban refused to hand him over - evidence that does not come from, say, the Pentagon - I'll reconsider my stance.

[YouthInAsia]

54. Cindy Sheehan is neither a politician NOR a spokesperson. She's

simply A PERSON who is protesting this war. people tend to forget that and so does the newsmedia. Why question her on foreign affairs??

[zbdent]

60. OBL was never in Iraq, Tweety

Of course, with propaganda, you don't have to be right to be Right . . .

[LisaL]

63. By the way, where is Bin Laden?

Since we don't know where Bin Laden is, WTF did we invade Afghanistan in a first place?

[LynneSin]

66. Oh, when did we get Bin Laden

I know that many of us including myself, were not objected to going into Afghanistan.

[LisaL]

69. I didn't object it either. Because we were supposed to

get Bin Laden. But there is no sign of him, so I am sure now it was just another lie.

[Guaranteed]

72. Kick nt