Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Why We Must Stay in Afghanistan

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 31, 2009

By Marie Cocco

Editor’s note: For an alternative point of view, read this, this or this.

We will never forget, say the bumper stickers, which often bear the image of the smoking Twin Towers superimposed across the red and white stripes of the flag.

But we have forgotten. Or at least we have forgotten that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, demanded that we go to war in Afghanistan.

This war flares anew, and every day seems to reach some new marker—the most deaths in any year for American and international forces, a tally of U.S. casualties for August that makes it the deadliest month. Public weariness deepens. CNN recently found a precipitous drop in support for the war effort. The Washington Post uncovered a more troubling sentiment: A slim majority now says the Afghanistan War isn’t worth fighting. 

This is alarming, and inexplicable.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
In less than two weeks, the dusty pit in Lower Manhattan that is now a construction site will again serve as hallowed ground, as families of the dead gather at what is, for most of them, their loved ones’ grave. New York will hear the doleful sound of bagpipes, and the city will fall silent as the names of the dead are called one by one. The Pentagon ceremony will be less publicized, but no less poignant.

I have often been repulsed by the politicization of 9/11, and by any effort by either political party to gain advantage from its commemoration. Maybe now, though, we need this reminder because too many forget.

They forget why we are in Afghanistan—because it was there in a faraway land of poverty, tribal animosities and historic hostility toward outsiders that a sophisticated terrorist network was allowed to take root, to flourish and plot the spectacular attack. Afghanistan today is once again such a caldron.

That George W. Bush botched the effort there is tragic. The then-president duped the nation into believing that an invasion of Iraq was necessary to the fight against terrorism, and devoted far more resources to war there than we expended in the crucial war in Afghanistan—a historic blunder.

But it is no excuse for making another calamitous mistake now.

The flagging public support for the Afghanistan effort, Georgetown University terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman says, is a consequence of the Iraq distraction and public fatigue with that war. “Combine that with the economic downturn, the fact that there hasn’t been a serious attack since 9/11, and a sense of complacency sets in—which to me vitiates the lessons of 9/11,” he said in an interview.

President Barack Obama pledged during his campaign to redirect American resources from Iraq to the effort to wrest Afghanistan from the Taliban’s tightening hold and from the grip of the poverty, corruption and regional lawlessness that enabled al-Qaida to make the country a haven. To abandon Obama’s nascent strategy there before seeing if it can work is folly.

And it would be a betrayal.

The activist, liberal Democrats who powered Obama to the Democratic presidential nomination last year based on his opposition to the Iraq war are the ones who are souring most quickly on Afghanistan, polls show. In May, an early indicator of liberal discontent emerged when the House voted on a war spending measure that 60 members—most of them liberal Democrats—opposed. “I don’t think the president can assume that he is going to have the support of the American people in Afghanistan,” says Lee Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former member of Congress from Indiana. The dissent in the House, Hamilton says, is a “clear danger signal.”

Obama has been hearing much grousing—some of it from me—from core supporters who are upset at the course of health care legislation, his detainee policy and other issues. These troubles fade when seen in the context of a failure in Afghanistan and a more problematic Pakistan that could emerge from a precipitous American withdrawal.

“You can make the argument that we’re in way over our heads, that we’re in a quixotic quest—except that there is still al-Qaida,” Hoffman says. “If we don’t succeed—and success for me is stabilizing Afghanistan and fixing Pakistan—we’re looking at another 9/11.”
Obama needs to jolt us out of our complacency, and soon. The Bush administration’s fear-mongering was distastefully political. But sometimes we really do have something to be scared about. If we’ve learned anything from 9/11, we should understand that time is now.
   
Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 8, 2009 at 11:35 pm Link to this comment

Omniadeo,

The Washington Post is now another Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican servitor, like the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 8, 2009 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

“The WashPo is the best evidence for the success of Operation Mockingbird and its children.”Omandiedo

Could you explain? Then show the relevance? I also disagree with your premise. No more than already exists but I don’t know of any so-called “leftists” who also support the war but they are out there and need to be shown the error of their ways. Our gov’t isn’t anymore so good luck in getting them to listen to us. I am all for it.

Not everyone can be put into neat categories so stop trying to do so. We all won’t measure up to someone. We can take some disagreement, can’t we? Can’t you?

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, September 8, 2009 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment

Excellent point, omniadeo !...

Henri

Report this

By omniadeo, September 8, 2009 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

The remarks about Cocco below leave out a central point: she is identified and positioned as a “liberal” columnist. Because she types out uninspired feminist column inches and calls for health care, we are supposed to see that you can be liberal and still want to kill those scrappy, scary little brown terrorists in the far away Hindu Kush. She and her ilk are bit players in the attempt to split the anti-war sentiment between left and right so that the wars can go on. Obama is the main player.

The WashPo is the best evidence for the success of Operation Mockingbird and its children.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 6, 2009 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

OK, I will try.  Right-Wing conservative EXTREMISTS

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 6, 2009 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

OK, I will try.  <b>Right-Wing conservative EXTREMISTS</b.  I still have to put caps on extremist, because they are extreme. 

Thanks.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 6, 2009 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

Italics-,< i> then the words then </i > no spaces, I did this to deactivate them for bold use the “b” for both use both in sequence, not in the < >. However I can’t get it to underline so far. It will take more time but it could better give emphasis to a running theme in your writing. [html controls] I see Henri already explained with greater brevity.

If she was doing for “columly” a play on calumney, it failed because it was straight forward without contrast or letting us in on the ‘joke’ so-to-speak.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 6, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

M Henri Day:
‘Anarcissie, if your description of Ms Cocco’s articles is correct, one can indeed wonder why the editors of truthdig persist in publishing them. Indeed, one can’t help questioning what seems to be their inordinate fondness for, rather than beetles, columnists from the Washington Post….

The reason might be monetary, that is, they got a good deal on content from the Post.  Of course this would not explain why the editors of TruthDig think they have to publish it.  Cocco’s work seems like old-time columny (as we might call it), where ideas are put forward imagistically (“dusty pit… hallowed ground…”) but with no pretence of evidence or logic—indeed, little evidence of any information at all.  I usually avoid Cocco, but having been present at the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and greatly inconvenienced thereby, I felt inspired to reply to its use, yet again, to advertise imperialism, and to flog the folk for growing weary of their masters’ crimes.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, September 6, 2009 at 4:30 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, if your description of Ms Cocco’s articles is correct, one can indeed wonder why the editors of truthdig persist in publishing them. Indeed, one can’t help questioning what seems to be their inordinate fondness for, rather than beetles, columnists from the Washington Post....

MarthaA, this site allows one to display a phrase in bold or italics by prefacing it with b or i inside <> and adding /b or /i inside <>, respectively, immediately afterward….

Henri

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, September 5, 2009 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

In-fighting among folk who perceive the true danger is
one goal of the cabalist pimps. Induce as many
distractions as possible from the theme in subject. The
old adage, “divide and conquer.” dr.b_helthi

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 5, 2009 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

You have bold, and others have bold, but for some reason or other I do not have any of those choices whatsoever.  All I have is caps.  Perhaps you could clue me in as to how to use bold, and I will, instead of caps, but currently there is nothing displayed on my screen that gives me that choice.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 5, 2009 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

Are you deaf, dim, dumb and blind? Didn’t I already answer your query. Which is more than I can say for you and your sophistry in the round. Ever heard of HUAC? If not look it up, it will look familiar to you, as you do it yourself.

Night-Gaunt said:  “Will no suffice for you?”

MarthaA asked:  “Are you a part of a Right-Wing boiler room?  Yes or No.”

Why can’t you just say Yes, or No?

Okay the definitive is no. Now back to the subject at hand?

Anarssissi, Ms Cocco‘s arguments are simply the standard talking points of the reich wing press. Distorted, carefully parsed and narrowly viewed to present a complete picture as-it-were from their ideological perspective. But are in fact incomplete in toto. As expected from that area of thought. The article would have made sense if she had then analyzed what was wrong with those statements of “fact.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

MarthaA asked:  “Are you a part of a Right-Wing boiler room?  Yes or No.”

Why can’t you just say Yes, or No?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

MarthaA asked:  “Are you a part of a Right-Wing boiler room?  Yes or No.”

Why can’t you just say Yes or No?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 5, 2009 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

M Henri Day:
‘I fear that the truthdig editors have done Ms Cocco a great disservice by publishing the above article. Not because in it she advocates that the US should continue its criminal and costly - and ultimately vain - aggression against that country, but because she here is unable to marshall a coherent argument to support her position….’

Coherent arguments are not her métier.  I have yet to see her present one for anything.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 5, 2009 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Before I answer forthrightly, again, what have I said that would lead you to such and erroneous conclusion that I am a “RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST” in any way? [For me SHOUTING doesn’t improve the content of my words, also there are other means of emphasis like bold, italics & bold-italics can do wonders. It takes longer but it is worth it for the 5 or so hours a day I am on the computer.] Nor do I need a modern equivalent of HUAC either. I can’t type that fast so for me one persona is enough for what I have to say. My content of my writing should be sufficient for you. I dare say here you can find every comment I’ve ever made. If you want to. Just compare me to NightHawk who is a regular right winger (these days) from what I have seen. We are very different.

We must stop our bickering over petty differences and find out our common need and forge an alliance from that and work to get it first. By my reckoning we don’t have too much time. It is only an estimation as I am the ultimate of outsiders and have very few friends. [I wish I did get paid for this.]

We must leave Afghanistan now! Does that answer your question?

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, September 4, 2009 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

I fear that the truthdig editors have done Ms Cocco a great disservice by publishing the above article. Not because in it she advocates that the US should continue its criminal and costly - and ultimately vain - aggression against that country, but because she here is unable to marshall a coherent argument to support her position. If, as it would seem, the editors are attempting to construct a reputation of disinterested journalistic objectivity for themselves by publishing the article (while at the same time distancing themselves from it by linking to articles espousing a very different course), they should have seen to it that the article met received standards before putting it online - it is most unfair to allow Ms Cocco to make an egregious fool of herself on this site….

Henri

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 4, 2009 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

Night-Gaunt said:  “Will no suffice for you?”

Try saying NO and find out, since you haven’t said NO, which causes me to wonder why you would make an answer like that, after all you can be seven different names—and it appears that for every one RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST person’s email, there are six more that are that person under another name, as each individual can have seven different names and if they have more than one e-mail one person could account for the whole RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST contingent on this blog.

Sophist lead the herd to go over the cliff like lemmings, but sophists step aside so they won’t go over the cliff, then go back to get another herd.

Are you a part of a Right-Wing boiler room?  Yes or No.

If you want forthright answers, you must first ask forthright questions that are not couched in subjective sophism and propaganda to destroy meaningful political dialog.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 4, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

Will no suffice for you? I am miffed you think I am that arch joker Ozark Michael, he has his schtik and I have mine. [He’s very good at it too.]

He is religious, I am not. I would think the different way we express ourselves would be enough. I also post on other forums like OED, DU, and Smirking Chimp if you care to track me down. He in other places. My name is slightly different, no hyphen, but it is still me. The black, horned, faceless, bat-winged night creatures that tickles and stings as it carries you away on monstrous voyagings. As H.P.Lovecraft said in his poem of the same name.

Now how about responding to some of my queries. So far you’re as stubborn as Ozark Michael & Truthnotlies have been.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 4, 2009 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

NightGaunt,

Are you OzarkMichael?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 4, 2009 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

You still manged to use many words in your stilted robotic way and still didn’t answer the obvious question about yourself in a more clear meaning. As to your other drivel it doesn’t apply to me unless you want it to. Then if I did come across like you say please illustrate, because I have no love of the violent black/white romanticism of the National Socialists or any like them we have here? I prefer to work together for our common goal.

However empty accusations are useless, akin to blanks, all sound and fury but without the bullet to make a permanent impact. A show without substance.

I am against those who perpetrate war on others and a different kind of war against ideas here. The more people who have their say the more chances we have, the larger the mind so-to-speak we have to draw on. The greater the experience and intelligence quotient we all have to utilize.

MarthaA do you believe some kind of Civil War II is in the offing here? If so can you give any details as you see them?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 4, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

YOU are parroting subjective accusatory assertions used out of context; which is what Hitleresque sophist propagandist disturbers are PAID to do, and OzarkMichael is fulfilling his mandate as a Hitleresque RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST SOPHIST disturber. Are you also a Hitleresque RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST SOPHIST disturber?

Report this

By omniadeo, September 3, 2009 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

“It is pretty obvious that the invasion of Afghanistan was carried out for reasons of domestic politics—to salvage Bush’s reputation after the worst security lapse in recorded history…” - Anarcissie

Beg to differ. It is pretty obvious that the war in Afghanistan, along with other wars e.g. Iraq and Palestine, were the end; the Bush administration was the means. Not the other way around. Even if one does not agree with me that the 9/11 attacks were carried out with intentional assistance by US insiders and members of other Western intelligence networks—not “failures” but successes!—the record on Aghanistan clear, anyone who is serious about controlling the world, will want it sooner or later. Oil is the most important part of the story now, but joined to Pakistan it is also a wedge between Russian influence and Chinese influence. Has been for a long,long time. The Bush’s and Cheney’s of the world are hired to make that happen. It’s not an afterthought.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 3, 2009 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

We know why MarthaA is giving her non-answer answer in her obfuscatorial sophistic way. We have the answer but it dare not leave her lips in the light of day, or this forum. I won’t say it because MarthaA should be the one. It is her point of view. Let me tell you MarthaA, the road you want to take will be the hardest and the least likely to succeed. By then it will be too late and they will do the same to you first. They have such skills honed over 50 years so they can take you on. Legal means as we still have give us a modicum of a chance. But not your way.

I am afraid that one or more calamities will continue to occupy our time while the real sharks do their dirty work in the dark. They have much experience in that too. Never underestimate your opponent. And as Nietzsche warned about when you take on monsters, just don’t become like them.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 3, 2009 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

Marshall:
‘By Anarcissie, September 2 at 6:26 pm #

“the U.S. government will have to conquer every country in the world”

Pretty far fetched statement - we have smaller operations in a number of countries where extremist groups have established a significant presence but Afghanistan was unique as the only state fully devoted to funding and hosting AQ.  Leaving now would simply repeat that scenario.’

Don’t be silly.  The funds for al-Qaeda (to the extent that it exists as a coherent entity, which is pretty doubtful) would be coming from people who have money, like Saudi Arabia.  The 9/11 folks didn’t plot and train in Afghanistan; they plotted and trained right here in the U.S.  This is assuming you believe the official stories, which is always a dubious proposition.

It is pretty obvious that the invasion of Afghanistan was carried out for reasons of domestic politics—to salvage Bush’s reputation after the worst security lapse in recorded history by executing a World War 2 - style “victorious” war—and now has some bearing on the general ruling-class interest in dominating the Middle East and its oil.  Please, let’s not have yet more fairy tales about this wasteland or that being a breeding-ground for terrorists.  The whole earth is a breeding-ground for terrorists.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 3, 2009 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST obfuscatory subjectivity by sophist OzarkMichael.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 3, 2009 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA is serious when she plans to take Republicans out and shoot them til they no longer wiggle.

So I asked “What if Democrats object to your plan? What will happen to them?

MarthaA answered: The fullness of time will tell for certain, but right now, I think it is too soon.

Oh MarthaA what a mysterious answer!  But dont be shy, MarthaA. You will give Democrats a chance. And then if the Democrats dont shut up they get a bullet in the head too.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

It was the Russians that got to Hitler first.

I agree with you firefly, I wish the Bush administration had not got the United States bogged down in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, but they did, I just hope the Obama administration will look for a way out instead of a way to stay.

Report this

By firefly, September 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

Reporting in the Washington Post recently, Chuck Hagel has put forward his two cents worth. He is correct in talking about a 20th century approach to a 21st century problem and while he quite rightly claims that America had completely forgotten what war is about and its consequences, Europe hadn’t and hasn’t. Europe remembers war well.

During WWII, Europe lost 18 million people (both soldiers and civilians), Russia lost 27 million (both soldiers and civilians). In contrast, America lost 450 thousand (mostly soldiers). Civilians in America don’t understand war and Hollywood has a way of glamorizing it and of course, making Americans the heroes. Most Americans have no concept of what it is like to live with bombs raining down on you day and night, to live without food, shops, water and warmth or security. When Americans sneer at Europe for being ‘weak’, they have no concept of what they are really doing. The fact is, America didn’t ‘win’ WWII single handedly. It was a joint effort. The Russians were the ones to march into Berlin and liberate that city. The Russians would have been the ones to capture Hitler, if he hadn’t committed suicide. They would have made them the true winners!

The point is, America has got to stop thinking of itself as better than anyone else, it must stop the mantra – we are the greatest nation on earth and therefore can solve the world’s problems, eliminate human beings (the Taliban and Al Qaeda) that we don’t like (isn’t that what Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were doing?).

I think its time for a little humility. Time to resolve issues by communicating and not through weapons.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

More subjective assertions and obfuscatory sophism from OzarkMichael, who is following his mandate as a RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN SOPHIST, this is what they do.

Report this

By Marshall, September 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, September 2 at 6:26 pm #

“the U.S. government will have to conquer every country in the world”

Pretty far fetched statement - we have smaller operations in a number of countries where extremist groups have established a significant presence but Afghanistan was unique as the only state fully devoted to funding and hosting AQ.  Leaving now would simply repeat that scenario.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 3, 2009 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

The fullness of time will tell for certain, but right now, I think it is too soon.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

So it looks like Mr. O has lost the sort-of-Left on Afpak, as well as the bailouts, the economy in general, domestic surveillance, and a number of other important issues.  What’s next?  Or rather, what’s left?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 3, 2009 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA said: How come you keep fiddling that tune.  If everyone voted for a president that was a Green, and got him in, he would still have to work with the Democrats and Republicans, who would block everything he wanted to do, if it was against their agenda.

For those who dont know, MarthaA is hinting at a different sort of solution that doesnt involve voting. Let me explain by quoting her some more:

We should have laws passed that make this kind of sophism (by that she means conservatism) illegal, so that what happened in Nazi Germany cannot happen here in the United States and it won’t if we have laws that criminalize YOUR’S and HITLER’S type of sophism, so that we can give those who practice Hitler’s type of sophism a fair trial and then either imprison them or take them out and shoot them til they no longer wiggle.

death to the republicans! What MarthaA wants to do to Democrats who wont play along is anybody’s guess.

Maybe MarthaA could clarify? Why dont you explain it MarthaA?

What if Democrats object to your “laws”? What will happen to them?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

truedigger3,

How come you keep fiddling that tune.  If everyone voted for a president that was a Green, and got him in, he would still have to work with the Democrats and Republicans, who would block everything he wanted to do, if it was against their agenda.  Why? — because the United States does not have any 3rd or 4th Political Parties in Congress that are legislated as institutional Political Parties equal with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; these two parties are an institution.

Next time you go to Congress or check an encyclopedia to look at the seating arrangement in the House and Senate or check the sites at the bottom of this post, see if there are three or four different columns of seat groupings. THERE IS NOT.  If, there were FOUR Political Parties, there would be five aisles, three middle aisles and one aisle on each side, because additional leadership would have to be provided; but there are ONLY two Political Parties, one aisle in the middle and one aisle on each side; one Political Grouping is the RIGHT and the other Political Grouping is the LEFT; there are no other Political Party Groupings, ONLY single individuals seats for different Political Parties, within one or the other of the two groups, without any support from their own political party in Congress.  Congress would have to do some rearranging if the United States actually had 2 more political parties.

I keep reading political literature showing two additional political parties, and it is garbage, there are only TWO; all other supposed Political Parties can only elect an individual to keep “one seat warm” and will have to go along with the agenda of either the Democrats or the Republicans because that one seat will be either in with the Democrats or with the Republicans that make the decisions as to what legislation actually gets voted on—- NO OTHER PARTIES.  There is NO Progressive Party and NO Independent Party; but there are SINGLE positions without party leaders, other than Democrats or EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS — NO other Political Party has leadership in Congress;—Why is this so hard for people to understand?

http://www.peo.gov.au/students/now_hor.html#what

http://senate.gov/artandhistory/art/special/Desks/hdetail.cfm?id=11

Report this

By aquarius7251, September 3, 2009 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Well… just got through watching CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.

$4 Billion of US Taxpayer money spent on contracts in Afghanistan, with hundreds of millions of that going to… you guessed it - THE TALIBAN!

What’s wrong with this picture?

But let’s stay in Afghanistan eh, Marie Cocco? Are you working for the CIA or something? Are Bush and Cheney paying you to write this drivel?

Whatever… in a way, I’m glad you did, because it’s given a lot of angry Americans an opportunity to voice their protest.

Keep ‘em coming people - by this time next year, maybe there’ll be ZERO support for us to stay in Afghanistan and fight that senseless war that transfers our hard earned dollars to greedy pockets.

Report this

By omniadeo, September 3, 2009 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

aquarius7251,

I believe you just hit on a very interesting point: ALL the the small parties have a vested interest in smashing the Demrepublocratic party. A coordinated alliance to campaign on the “vote for anyone but…” theme might just have some force. If I were, say,  Libertarian (I am not by the way) I need to see the advantage in getting my lefty coworker to vote P&F. If I am a Green, I should be encouraging to my Ron Paul leaning Republican neighbor.

Smash the “3rd party votes are meaningless” vice grip on the electorate and it could have an effect, BUT…

As long as the Major Media is controlled by 5 corporations with deep ties into the Oil/Intelligence/Arms machine, it will be tough.

Report this

By aquarius7251, September 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

Truedigger - you’re quite right - this two party system is a total sham to make us think we have a choice.

Well - we do have a choice, and wouldn’t it be great if we could convince a substantial majority to vote for ANYTHING BUT a republican or democrat next time round.

I’m sure at the end of the day, independents, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and whoever, will also become corrupt because unfortunately, power does corrupt, but at least it will give the blues and reds a heck of a shock.

I’m glad to see I’m not alone - that in fact there are probably hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands who feel the same as the majority of people that have commented on this article.

War for profit and imperialism MUST STOP! And only “we the people” can make that happen. We need to stop being so damn complacent and take to the streets in our hundreds of thousands and even millions - like they did in Iran maybe???

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

truedigger3,

“The is no difference whatsoever between the Democrats and Republicans regarding working for and serving the oil barons and the rest of big money/businesss.”

The difference is that the REPUBLICANS are Nobles and the Democrats are Nearly Nobles.  The Nearly Nobles have declared a NEW CLASS trying to disavow being a part of the Common Population, but a rose by any other name is still a rose, and their NEW CLASS is still the Nearly Nobles of the Common Population.  They are separated from the Common Population, but nothing like the same; Nearly Noble Democrats are actually genteel (have to work) proletariat and genteel (have to work) proletariat Republicans are called lumpen-proletariat, like Pat Buchanan, who is a “wanna be” Noble, that Hitler would probably kill if Hitler was really in power, because he is too much of a toady and doesn’t appear to me to be an Aryan Goth.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, September 3, 2009 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

What would Dennis Kucinich have done?

Report this

By truedigger3, September 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

diamond wrote:
“The oil barons are above the law and those who work for them like the Bush’s and the Cheney’s of this world are also above the law. On the other hand, it’s always open season on Democrats and Obama knows it.”
____________________________________________________

The is no difference whatsoever between the Democrats and Republicans regarding working for and serving the oil barons and the rest of big money/businesss.
Both parties are identical in their foreign policy and in regard to the so called “war on terror”.
In deomestic policies, there are minor cosmetic differences and make believe bullshitting as Obama has shown.

Report this

By diamond, September 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

‘Tame Afghanistan’ Archie1954? America and its friends have ground Afghanistan into the dust.  And for what?  In the first instance, so they could give the Soviet Union the finger and if possible bring it down. And now?  Invading Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11, any more than the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, which was essentially a movie scripted by the neo cons. Iraq floats on an ocean of oil and Dick Cheney gave a speech to the Oil Institute in London in the mid nineties openly stating that the United States could not maintain its position as the world’s number one power if it didn’t get its hands on ‘Persian Gulf Oil’.

Furthermore, gas and oil deposits (the eighth biggest in the world )have been found in the Caspian Sea Basin and the west wants to run an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan and (take note) Pakistan. This has been in the works since at least the nineties. Instead of giving up their addiction to oil and war the people who run the United States (and I don’t mean the American people) have decided to fight to the last bowser and oil tanker. Rust buckets sail the seas full of oil and are only ever one miscalculation away from disaster. Exxon, now Exxonmobil, devastated an entire community and its wildlife and the livelihoods of many of its fishermen, never cleaned up the oil spill when the Exxon Valdez spilled tons of oil into the sea in 1989 and in 2008 had its $5 billion dollars punitive damages bill reduced by the Supreme Court to $507 million dollars. The oil barons are above the law and those who work for them like the Bush’s and the Cheney’s of this world are also above the law. On the other hand, it’s always open season on Democrats and Obama knows it.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, September 3, 2009 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Participants in the NAZI-oriented “think-tank” that invented the term,“Al-Quaida” are still laughing at Americans for believing in their facade. So is the family Bush, as they shuffle their stolen billions around in various european and off-shore banks, profits from their illegal contracts with the bin Laden family. The scoresheet of Russia :: USA for the last thirty years is much cleaner on the Russian side. Russia has lost territory via CIA subversion, guided from the White House. Many people dont know that when Sakashvilli was required by the White House to invade South Ossetien, he had 34 US soldier
advisers “at his side.” The NAZIs did a good job of taking over the US gov., in the 1950s, with the help of zionists, who control the Federal Reserve, planned and initiated the banking industry
“bottom-out.” It hasnt ended, folks!  dr.b_helthi

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, September 3, 2009 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

What??

“we have forgotten that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, demanded that we go to war in Afghanistan”

NO!! Marie Cocco, the attacks on the trade towers demanded that we consider how much hatred we are generating in the World as an Imperialist country.

Like idiots, we did not listen to those demands and instead proceeded to generate even more hatred around the World for our unjust Imperialism.

Report this

By johannes, September 3, 2009 at 12:02 am Link to this comment

The Whitehouse first where helping the terrorist against Russia, and now they are fithing the same terrorist armed by them selfs, how can you be so stupid.

If the USA and followers will win this war they have to kill them all, and te most terrible thing is they are capable of just doing this.

Report this

By paul bass, September 2, 2009 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

what utter bullshit…

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

Yes their is still the franchise called “Al-Quaida” and they are in Waziristan, Pakistan. Though you can call yourself it too if you want. Many have even if they have no direct affiliations to it. You don’t fight this with wars and occupations. You use police work then bring in the guns to arrest or kill them. A disproportionate response makes the USA and any other country stupid and evil enough to commit even greater atrocities and terrorism to “fix” it. A robber is in a building full of people, a missile is used to destroy the building and kills 58 men, women and children. The USA blames the accused “terrorist” of living in an apartment full of innocents. He is condemned posthumously for an added crime.—A good thing, no? It happens for real right now.

Our drones are killing innocents right now, mostly wedding parties and funerals. When will our criminals working their terrorism in our name fighting terrorism will be brought to justice? The UN won’t touch them and is scared white by the idea of trying.

“What is needed now is a people’s revolution, a soft glove, non-violent takeover of this countries power structure.”Photoshock

Too late it is already happening now and Obama is just the most recent agent of that high end Cabal just like the last one. He just has a better demeanor in front of the camera. Same fascist goods by incremental creep. So it will need to be a counter revolution with many strikes against it. Implemented by those same ones who locked up the two party only system we have right now. Break that and you would have a chance. Too bad on their probable time table it is way too short. Once we hit the crushing part of the Great Depression they will step in as the new beacon of sane pious order and militaristic discipline. Most will join with eyes wide open. Who wants to starve and maybe get raped and eaten? No one. They know this and it will be a transition that will be the fastest part of their decades long plan. Ingenius in an evil Machiavillian way.

Marie Cocco your talking points are almost word-for-word from what Fixed News was giving out recently. Now why is that? Your new masters? You turned to the more lucrative dark side? If not you are just helping them for free.

Herewegoagain, we have put the women of Iraq in that same position they weren’t in before 1990! And how about our allies like Saudi Arabia which do it too? Are you for going into there as well? It is a mess you don’t fix by killing hundreds of thousands and go on to brutalize and kill millions more. Research and think about it some more.

”...possibly coopting Cindy Sheehan as well..” where is this crap coming from FolkTruther? Where do you get this passing such unsupported poisonous memes to destroy others who could have helped? I can see the fascists doing it just as one of many tools to weaken the opposition, but Ms Sheehan lost to that tool Pelosi anyway.

Here’s historian Robert Paxton’s definition of fascism:

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Fits our Dominionist cabal to a tee. Not the Taliban as much. That is what they are all about. Democracy and republics are verboten to them and their strict dictatorial Calvinism. Everything is preordained and there rich and powerful are blessed. You can guess who are cursed.

Report this

By firefly, September 2, 2009 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

“The politicians and leaders who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organizing legalized mass murder.” Quote by Harry Patch.

Report this

By firefly, September 2, 2009 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

There are two factors that baffle me that are never considered in these discussions:

Firstly, the Taliban are essentially Afghan people (albeit pretty nasty violent people with a desire to keep women under religious control and who wish to impose their dogma on other Afghans), with supporters from other countries especially Pakistan. Al-Qaeda is essentially Saudi run and inspired, with growing support in other Muslim countries. They are not a nation state, nor a race of people.

These are both ideologies.

Going to war with an ideology, would be like going to war with the Republicans (some may equally say, a pro violent (war) group given to religious control of women’s rights, who also wish to impose their dogma on other Americans). Republicans have their foreign sympathizers too (some are even vocal supporters – as in the case of British MEP, Daniel Hannan).

If another country decided to invade America based on the fact that George W Bush is a Republican, and that other country (shall we say Spain?) decided that because Republicans had committed atrocities by illegally invading Iraq, Spain now has a justification to uncover and destroy all Republicans.

What would other Americans say about this I wonder? Why does no one consider that while many Afghans dislike the Taliban, they are more likely to prefer their own devils than foreign imposed ones?

Secondly, the question of Saudi Arabia – a particularly extreme and non-democratic nation that (like the Taliban) oppresses it’s women and commits some pretty disgusting and heinous crimes and most importantly is the root cause of Al-Qaeda and terrorism.

Afghans are largely poor, and the money poured into the training camps and madras’s, is petro-dollars, largely funded from Saudi Arabia.

For those who love and justify war, there’s hypocrisy in not invading SA.

Personally, I don’t believe that violence is the answer. I think you change people’s minds through soft power, but that’s me.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 2, 2009 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Truth vs Falsehood,

I agree with your 9/1 5:33am post.  The United States should never have attacked Afghanistan in the first place, as there is no evidence whatsoever of guilt of the Afghan people. But there is of Saudi Arabia, but that’s different, of course. If we continue following the RIGHT-WING and keep sinking money into continued attacks on Afghanistan, the United States will be even further destroyed.  We need to bring our troops home—all of them.

Report this

By mike112769, September 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther and Anarcissie: First, Folktruther, you are way off base calling me names. At no point did I endorse attacking a damned thing. As the world recognises a “Superpower” as generally anyone that could destroy any other country with relative ease, well, I’d say we can still do that. Not that we should, but could. Everyone keeps talking as if America has been written off. Well, don’t count on it. Are you one of those who are secretly happy that America’s having problems? My point was we’ve done all this in the Mideast without really breaking a (figurative) sweat on the national level.  At no point in any of my posts have I EVER endorsed violence. The only thing wars are good for anymore is causing decades of hatred and resentment towards the victor. Not to mention the added karmic bonus of mass slaughter on our hands. As far as calling me “a homicidal maniac”, well, blow me, you idiot and quit being so quick to point fingers. Get your facts straight before you go off half-cocked in righteous indignation.

Anarcissie: I admit I wasn’t clear on that point. Not all poor people are terrorists. What I meant was every terrorist group in the world claims to be oppressed by someone, thereby forcing them into acts of terror. The only way to make the terrorists happy is to cure all the world’s physical problems (poverty, hunger,disco,etc). Then we would just have the god issue to fight over, until one side finally wins. There, world peace. But, some of these groups have a real grievance. To whom do they turn when their government is killing them? There are some groups out there who are labeled as being terrorist by their governments when they are not. There is not much difference between being a terrorist and being just a thug. The main ones seems to be who your political enemies are, and how badly a government needs to scare its own people. We should never have stopped treating terrorists as anything other than coomon criminals, then we couldn’t have declared wsar on them.

Basically, the war in Afghanistan is a needless tragedy that is not helping America in any good way.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, September 2, 2009 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment

Fascism, pronounced /?fæ??z?m/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology. Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.

I hate quoting Wiki but this sounds more like the US than Afghanistan.

Robert Scheer advocates immediate withdrawal and thats a solution of his that I agree with.

The tribes and ethnicities which make up Afghanistan would no longer have the rallying point the presence of the Americans give them and would soon keep each other and the Taliban in check.

Report this

By aquarius7251, September 2, 2009 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

WriterOnTheStorm,

Fascists with nukes? What about “democrats” and/or “republicans” with nukes - who believe they have a God-given right to use them to impose their beliefs and ideals on other nations who also have their “God”, even if he’s not the same God we worship?

The bottom line if you have any faith whatsoever in our American constitutuon, is that while we believe in freedom of all kinds (whether we still have those freedoms or not), we are arrogant enough to deny other countries their freedom to define their own destiny.

These United States did not come about because some other country invaded us and imposed a form of government and a code of ethics on us! We shaped our own destiny.

Yes - I am as worried as you are about fanatics with nukes or any other weapons, but let’s face facts. If we are over there, killing them, why should we expect them to not retaliate in whatever way they can?

If we were NOT over there, and they attacked us, we would be quite justified in expecting the WHOLE CIVILIZED WORLD to back us in whatever retaliatory measures we feel justified in taking.

Come on… do we or do we not have the mightiest military in the world? Do you not think that together with the intelligence agencies we have, this military is quite capable of defending us right here at home?

No - there is no justification for a continued war in Afghanistan. We rose up against the British and won our freedom. If Afghans and Pakistanis don’t like the Taliban, they should do the same. It’s not up to us!

Afghanistan, Iraq and trust me - if we allow it to continue, eventually Iran as well… these wars are all about the money, and when the corporations and the military industrial sector have milked every last penny, do you think they will save the USA from financial ruin?

I think not.

Report this

By Tex Shelters, September 2, 2009 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

No thank.

Why not peace.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, September 2, 2009 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

As happy as I am for any and all ‘tame two-leggeds” who reach the perimeter and are able to practice what
TaoWalker calls the Tiyoshpaye Way (I think I’m actually beginning to understand what that means), it doesn’t
really change the fact that, for the sake of all the lives lost or about to be lost in Afghanistan, we must have this
debate about US goals in that region.

Even if 90% of us “return to the wild”, the apparatus would go about it’s business as though our existence was
merely an inconvenience. Oddly enough, when you analyze the apparatus, you find that it’s smallest component
is people, some of them not much different than you or me. Their opinions make a difference.

To put the Afghanistan problem in perspective, I never put stock in the now fading “troofer” movement, though
it should be observed that the Bush administration exploited the situation in a manner one might expect if it
were behind 9/11. The subsequent invasion of Iraq was nothing more than an imperialist adventure. And it is
transparent that al Qaida, in it’s current incarnation in the American imagination at least, is the bastard
brainchild of some basement thinktank over at Langley.

But amidst this unholy farrago, there was one positive outcome, one little success: we had severely curtailed a
violent fascist movement in Afghanistan. And don’t roll you eyes like I just pulled a reductio ad hitlerum. I’m
not using the term fascist rhetorically, the way commentators use it when they want to sound like they know
something you’re too dense to figure out for yourself.

Here’s historian Robert Paxton’s definition of fascism:

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or
victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed
nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic
liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.”

By this definition, the Taliban are classic fascists. This is no Vietnam, where US involvement was driven by
irrational fears of communism in bed with unscrupulous capitalists interests. This is a group of people that for
once, really do compare to Nazis. I was relieved to see them go. But now, some of those boys, and a slew of
fresh recruits, are holed up on the Pakistani border poised to spread their brand of hate in not one, but two
countries, one of them with WMD (for realsies).

It’s a clusterf**ck of the highest order, and while I’m not suggesting I have any solutions, it’s clear that most TD
commentators, as well as Robert Scheer, who advocates immediate withdrawal, don’t have many answers either.
Maybe someone smarter than me can step in here and tell me why we don’t need to be concerned about the
possibility of fascists with nukes.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 2, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

Marshall—if we go by your theory, then the U.S. government will have to conquer every country in the world, and institute a totalitarian state at home, since terrorists can hatch plots anywhere.  It doesn’t seem very practical, considering the U.S. is already going broke.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, September 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

By Marshall, September 2 at 7:49 pm #

1.  The elections in Afghanistan are a farce, worse than those held in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000.

2.  The Taliban is a nationalist party like the Republicans who were against womens right to vote in the U.S. 100 years ago.  Besides this is their culture and should not be subject to Americanization at the point of a gun.

3.  AQ is a figment of the imagination.  “The Base” is a database of paid operatives of the CIA and other intel agencies (Mossad), likely Eric Prince and his posse Black Water.  The Taliban actually ended opium production during their reign, however the free enterprise system which the U.S. adheres to demands excessive profits and the freeflow supply of heroin meets that demand.

4.  Afghanistan posing a threat to Pakistan, now there a stretch. 28 million Afghans vs. 180 million Pakis.  I’m sure the Pakis would take care of the situation should and if it arose.  No U.S. help required.

In any case the justification for the U.S. in Iraq, Afghaistan and Pakistan doesn’t exist and is a waste of taxpayers capital to be there.  Aside from oil piplines from Turkmenistan and a shitload of heroin this place should be left to the people and goats who decide to make it their home,

I would rather the U.S. send them schoolbooks, welldrilling equipment, seeds tractors and cement mixers all made in America.

Report this

By Truth-versus-Falsehood, September 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

By aquarius7251, September 2 at 7:51 pm #

Marie,

No - we must NOT stay in Afghanistan. They (terrorists) are over here, because we are over there! You probably heard Ron Paul say that (or not).
==============================================
Thank you aquarious7251 for you beautiful rebuttal of Marie Cocco’s weird and backward ideas. Yours was short, precise and to point!

Report this

By aquarius7251, September 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

Marie,

No - we must NOT stay in Afghanistan. They (terrorists) are over here, because we are over there! You probably heard Ron Paul say that (or not).

Your article starts by reporting the most deaths in any year for American and international forces. Well hello… maybe if American and international forces weren’t there in the first place, a hell of a lot of lives would have been saved!

Please tell us why the so-called richest, most powerful nation on earth cannot adequately defend it’s people and territory RIGHT HERE AT HOME?

The war and all the foreign bases we maintain ( in more than 138 countries) cost us - the American people, a STAGGERING amount of money every year while more than 50 (known) members of congress rake in obscene profits from their investments in the military industrial sector, and more than 47 million Americans have no health insurance, and millions are losing their homes. Go figure!

I appreciate every single thing that our heroic men and women in the armed forces do - but that does not mean it’s right! They are misled, misinformed and manipulated by those in power that stand to profit most.

It’s time we realized that American imperialism is FAILING - time we brought our troops home, time we left international affairs to the organization we established to deal with international affairs - the United Nations.

And like many others that have commented, I live in eternal hope that 9/11 will one day be proved to have been an “orchestrated” terror attack to manipulate wars in Afghanistan (where we have an oil pipeline} and in Iraq and Iran, the only two oil producing nations that refused to sign Kissinger’s oil “treaty” in the 70’s.

Please Marie - do some more research and thinking before you write articles like this. The wars MUST STOP for God’s sake!

Report this

By Marshall, September 2, 2009 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

By Tex Shelters, September 1 at 12:32 pm #

“Challenge to the author: give me ONE reason to stay, a real reason. An actual goal that can be achieved.”

Let’s imagine a scenario where we leave Afghanistan.  I and many other see the following likely sequence of events:

1) The Taliban overthrows the current elected government by force.  UN is no match and withdraws.
2) The Taliban establishes itself as the country’s formal government as it was before 9/11.  (civil liberties stripped from women, etc…)
3) Taliban begins to allow AQ to reestablish training bases and further funds its operations with increased poppy sales abroad.
4) Afghanistan begins to pose a threat to neighboring Pakistan as it increases support for AQ insurgents attempting to overthrow Pakistan’s govt.. 

Now, with this scenario in play, we have numerous consequences and several possible outcomes; all of which are bad.  A conventionally stretched but nuclear Pakistan goes to war with Afghanistan.  Outcome includes possible use of nukes.  Or Pakistan’s govt. falls to Taliban/AQ who inherit a nuclear arsenal.  And/Or Afghanistan training camps begin planning and hatching 9/11-like plots against other countries, except bigger.

Regardless of the scenario, the larger fact is that a Taliban-run Afghanistan will become a major global threat; of this there is no question and we’ve already seen it happen.  As such, it would have to be dealt with again. Preventing it from reaching this point, despite the money and troop losses, is far preferable to having to go back in later after the country is an established threat (or has already carried out a major attack).  This would mean we learned nothing from history and would undo much of the accomplishment to date of relegating AQ mostly to the remote hills of Pakistan.

You also asked for a goal: At a minimum, preventing a Taliban resurgence is a worthy interim goal.  But a more concrete goal would be similar to what we’re trying to do in Iraq: minimize violence long enough to allow the govt. to establish military and police self-sufficiency, then withdraw to bases under a forces agreement to provide support until we’re able to withdraw altogether.  Unfortunately as Afghanistan isn’t an oil economy, this may require ongoing arms and financial support after we’ve gone.

Despite the sentiments of some on these boards, there are bad groups in the world that don’t respond to negotiation, don’t exist simply as the result of U.S. folly, and must be dealt with directly.  Allowing them to gain a foothold only magnifies and spreads their corrupt ideologies.

Report this

By Archie1954, September 2, 2009 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

America had one good chance of taming Afghanistan and muffed it 7 or 8 years ago. There is no second chance so forget it. It simply is not going to happen. You might say there are too may spent lives and too much money under the bridge now to recreate that possibility. Certainly the Taliban are as nasty a group of perverts as you will find anywhere but don’t forget they were a group organized and funded by the US to begin with to help fight the USSR in Afghanistan and later unleashed on an unsuspecting Afgani people. They however did not attack the US on 911, Al Queda did that, another group of nasties formed and supported by the US. America by not thinking ahead and by not including the welfare of small poor nations in its great game, it is really the author of its own destruction. Also America is by far the greatest purveyor of terrorism in the world today. Just follow the CIA plots, Cheney’s assassination squads, the School of Americas for teaching terrorism if you don’t believe me. You might say the chickens have come home to roost.

Report this

By GcRuZ, September 2, 2009 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

As a native NY’er I have not forgotten 9/11.  I have never accepted the conclusions fostered by the administration and trumpeted by the media as to who were the perpetrators.  I don’t believe in the evil bogeyman bin Laden.  These 9/11 justified wars are unconscionable.

Report this
oldog's avatar

By oldog, September 2, 2009 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

Protection from another 9/11 is better achieved at
our borders, and with intelligence gathering (and
sharing!) around the world.

We were attacked on 9/11 by a criminal gang, not by
Afghanistan or Iraq. We have allowed bin Ladin and
al-Zawahiri to operate freely while we kill local teenagers that had nothing to do with that attack in
New York. This has been ignored in our myopic concept
of only nation-states being powerful enough to
challenge us.

The cost in American money and lives as well as the
resentment of our invasive presence that swells
insurgent recruitment far out-weight the meager gains
from our army’s presence in foreign countries.

When our own infrastructure demands serious infusions
of capital, why are we pouring it into rebuilding
countries half-way round the world?

We have fallen into the habit of thinking our
military might can move a social agenda around the
world, when all it does is destroy lives and
property.

And, most importantly we have no right to invade and
occupy foreign countries without provocation.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, September 2, 2009 at 3:26 am Link to this comment

No, NZDoug, you’re not stupid. Even Ron Paul has said that if the USA not only ended the Afghan and Iraq wars, but also ended its imperialism, shut down its foreign bases, brought everybody home, repudiated its entangling alliances (especially the one with Israel), brought the Military-Industrial Complex to an end, etc., this country would have all the money it could ever want for its domestic programs.

America’s weakness is that its Elites think it can do anything and everything; I have a feeling they’ll soon learn such is not so.

Report this

By NZDoug, September 2, 2009 at 1:47 am Link to this comment

I think USA could make the world a better palce by spending bucks helping
Americans as opposed to blowing up people who they dont like at any given time
as its bad for “Hearts and Mindz.
Call me stupid…..

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, September 2, 2009 at 1:25 am Link to this comment

The article by Ms. M. Cocco -reference my previous
note - .
There is also the group of patriots who were in the
process of revealing insider information that would
have fingered some of the NAZI-types who were
responsible for 9-11. Their airplanes were blown out
of the sky, similar to JFK,Jr, and others.
Last year, I sent some of the info located at
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
to a German scientist acquaintance. He responded,
“Doc, certain German families have always known the
true identity of the 41st U.S. president.”
Too few Americans are aware of “Operation Paper-
Clip.” Then there is still the increasingly smaller
percentage who say, “our government wouldnt do that
to us.” These naive folk dont believe that the
alleged “swine-flu-innoculation” contains “sleepers”
that will be rendered “live” by another alleged
innoculation in the not-too-distant future.
dr.b_helthi

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, September 2, 2009 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

This article by Ms. Cocco reminds me of patriots who
high-tailed it away from the CIA,NSA,FBI & related
NAZI-type organizations.
BUT.
Some of them failed to publicize or “store for
release upon their sudden death” information that
would have lengthened their lives, had they done it.
Some of them have been tracked-down, intimidated
into “shut-upness or else”. Several have experienced
“or else,” an electromagnetic-frequency-engendered
cardiac arrest, a few have died five minutes after a
hand-shake with a former co-worker, and some are
strapped with a device that requires “replenishing”
every “24-72 hrs. by their former boss.” Then, there
are a very few who committed “suicide” by stabbing
themselves up to 32 times with a knife. I still pose
the question, how many did it take to hold the
Brit., Dr. Kelley while another slit his wrist, or
did they drug him first, or had they already killed
him when they slit his wrist?
I can only say, “wake up, Marie Cocco.” dr.b_helthi

Report this
martin weiss's avatar

By martin weiss, September 1, 2009 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

social justice is the foundation of public health.

good living answers what good killing never can.

ending black markets would put trillions of dollars into the tax base and save trillions on defense and imprisonment, crime and all its ramifications.

war is not helping anybody but organized crime.

make love, not war.

Report this

By teadrinker, September 1, 2009 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

If Dick Cheney ever comes close to giving legally damming evidence for any of his atrocities, the group he works for will surely do him.

Report this

By teadrinker, September 1, 2009 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

Marie Cocco has not done her homework on 911. She should research scientists and experts who have spoken out and questioned 911, like Steven Jones (among others), Pilots for 911 Truth. Ms. Rocco, have you researched April Gallop? She was in the Pentagon with her daughter, while The Dick was in the White House ordering fighter jets to NOT take any action against the incoming airliners. Bush was reading bunny stories to children Do you know she’s suing The Dicb? Have you read the contents of her lawsuit? Is it too painful or fear-engendering to read? If you chose to investigate and ask questions, would your boss fire you? Too many questions remain; but for them to address 911 and ask serious questions is a no-no, and journalists do have to earn their bread and butter, so they write safe articles that can create dialogue. Then, everybody’s happy, in a kind of a warm and fuzzy way; however, don’t delude yourself for one minute that we really live in a Democracy. Did we really have national security laspes or was 911 staged or allowed to happen? Americans should doggedly pursue these questions and persist until they get answered.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

mike112769:
’... The “war on terror” cannot be won as things are now. To eliminate terrorism, you must get rid of the underlying problems that cause it. Until famine and poverty are vanquished, there will always be people who feel that the only way to be heard is to commit atrocious acts of violence. ...’

If that were so, then the poorest countries should yield the most terrorists per capita, and the richest countries the least.  But this is not what we observe.  The terrorists who are accused of having perpetrated 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are far from being the poorest countries in the world.  Osama bin Laden comes from a very wealthy family, some of whom are supposedly friends of Bush.

I’ll suggest something different.  Terrorism is a form of war—the form of war waged by the weakest parties.  More powerful parties engage in guerrilla or regular warfare.  The point of terrorism is the same as that of guerrilla or regular warfare, however: to force someone else, through violence or the threat of violence, to behave differently.  In many cases terrorism is connected with the desire to end actions or situations which the terrorists believe constitute invasion, occupation, and colonization.  This is to be expected because human beings are territorial trooping primates and react viscerally to invasion by foreigners.  Because the people of the Middle East did not have the power to resist the U.S. invasions much by means of regular or guerrilla war, they have resorted to terrorism.  Anti-U.S. terrorism, or some other form of violent resistance, will continue to emanate from the Middle East as long as the U.S. ruling class insists of invading and occupying other countries in that region, either directly or by proxy, which, if you count the British legacy, the U.S. has been involved in for more than a century.  It may even persist for a while if the U.S. withdraws, but it will surely persist if the U.S. remains.

Don’t expect Cocco or anyone else from the Washington Post to recognize this obvious fact, however.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 1, 2009 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

Martha said to me: I have clearly demonstrated that YOU, OzarkMichael, and the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST MOVEMENT from the time of Goldwater (1976) through Reagan, Bush I, Bush II to the present have been and continue to use sophism and propaganda of the same type used by Adolph Hitler…

Notice that MarthaA has rolled conservatism together with fascism so she can criminalize conservative dissent. In the process she destroys free speech but for her thats a small price to pay:

We should have laws passed that make this kind of sophism illegal, so that what happened in Nazi Germany cannot happen here in the United States and it won’t if we have laws that criminalize YOUR’S and HITLER’S type of sophism, so that we can give those who practice Hitler’s type of sophism a fair trial and then either imprison them or take them out and shoot them til they no longer wiggle.

You will have to shoot a lot of people MarthaA. Maybe 30% of the population of the USA. Where did you get these ideas? Why cant you just tell us?

Report this

By Folktruther, September 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

Mike seys:

  ‘As far as all of this talk about America fading away as a superpower goes, the technical word for that is “bullshit.” If we had the same resolve as our enemies, no country on Earth could stand before us. Look at what we’ve done with a severely divided country. Imagine the carnage we could wreak upon the world if we all pulled together. “

Well, you are certainly right there, Mike.  Why if we all pulled together we could slaughter hundreds of millions of people, billions maybe, if we put our backs into it.  Indeed, with nuclear weapons we don’t even have to unite, our leaders could massacre at random, blowing up the capitals of the world. 

It is apparent tht your idea of ‘power’ is killing a lot of people. My idea of it is getting people to do what you want to win power conflicts.  It is my conception I used when I said the US is rapidly losing world power.  It is true that this would be bullshit by your conception, since the US still retains the means for mass slaughter. 

Your conception, and I say this with all due respect, is politically that of a homicidal maniac.  But it may be quite common among the American people, and even more so among American political leaders.

Martha, thank you for your reply.  Your view is that the US will lose power whether we stay in Afghanistan or leave, so it doesn’t much matter whether we stay or leave.  Again, I think that this implication would not be rejected by a large fraction of the American people.  That lots of people would be killed in the meantime by staying doesn’t apparently enter into your decision.

I see I have been focused on the wrong aspect of the American worldview, its irrationality.  I should be focusing on its immorality.  American political values are morally perverted.  Americans are so inured to violence that we accept the notion of homicidal policy as a matter of course.  Killing is as American as cherry pie and appears natural and normal to many Americans.  this is part of the respect Americans have for their military, whose function is to kill people or threaten to kill.

This taste for blood is legitimated in the Jewish Bible, the Old Testiment, where the Sacred massacres madated by the Lord is celebrated along with the Holy atrocities.  the legitimacy of bloodshed was probably instilled in Americans by the US founding on ethnic cleansing of Indians. Killing Indians to steal their land being called Defense.  And in enslaving African-americans.  a large number died in the slave trade and they could only be kept in line by the fear of death and other punishment.  The linching of Freed slaves continuing the tradition.

It is apparent that homicideal racism is a major political principle in the unconscious of the American people, now being caried out in Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism.  Certainly bombing large parties at weddings, funerals, villages and homes has evoked no outcry from the left at this mass slaughter.  And then torture and rape would tend to follow naturally from the original priciple, keeping Amereican Safe and Strong.

Mike and Martha are not merely dingbats, they are homicidal dingbats.  And this murderous racism has apparently been instilled in all of us.  So when we are threatened by 9/11, our first reaction is to want to kill somebody.  Anybody.  And just think of the carnage we could inflict if we all pulled together to keep American Strong.

Report this

By yours truly, September 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since our government has no intention of ever leaving Afghanistan (nor Iraq), imploring it to act on our behalf to end these wars seems futile.  So why not do it ourselves by way of online people to people negotiations.  How?  Well, for starters - Hey out there, Taliban &/or al Qaeda members, in exchange for troops out now, would you be willing to disavow acts of violence against us?  If so, please say so on the Internet.  If troops out now won’t suffice for you to renounce violence, what other conditions must be met before there’s peace in your part of the world?  Perhaps the peace process we engage in could begin with a one day moratorium, like what happened one Christman day during WW I, whereby allied and German troops put down their weapons and actually played a game of football?  Look forward to hearing from you on this subject, the sooner the better, what with so many lives being wasted.

Report this

By mike112769, September 1, 2009 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

First: Don’t bash TD for posting this. There are several other dissenting articles highlighted in red above this one. I applaud their fairness in posting this.

Second: Please understand that America COULD win the “war” in Afghanistan if we didn’t mind seeing the piles of corpses it would require for us to do so.

Third: The “war on terror” cannot be won as things are now. To eliminate terrorism, you must get rid of the underlying problems that cause it. Until famine and poverty are vanquished, there will always be people who feel that the only way to be heard is to commit atrocious acts of violence. They are mostly correct. Nobody in “authority” really cares what happens to the little man. If the Haves are willing to let the Have-nots starve to death, can we be surprised if the Have-nots take it personally? Even if we were to get rid of hunger and poverty, what about the violence done in the name of a god? How are we ever to reconcile our differences? I don’t think we ever will, but I’ve been wrong before. Americans need to realize that the world isn’t always a safe place. 9/11 was the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocents that really shook America to its foundations. The thing that gets me is that America didn’t really seem to care much about terrorism until it happened here. The only thing that surprised me about 9/11 was how long it took for someone to do it to us.

Fourth: As far as all of this talk about America fading away as a superpower goes, the technical word for that is “bullshit.” If we had the same resolve as our enemies, no country on Earth could stand before us. Look at what we’ve done with a severely divided country. Imagine the carnage we could wreak upon the world if we all pulled together. There are a lot of people in this country who seem to think America SHOULD go down for “the sins of our past.” These people need to live in some third-world country for a while. They may then understand just what America is for. Since the fall of the Soviet Union America has done some disgraceful things, at home and abroad. We are rapidly coming to a point where WE THE PEOPLE must decide how this country continues. Should we uphold the principles of freedom, or should we simply let the banks keep milking us (and our great-grandchildren) while our new robber barons send us off to die like the cattle we seem to be? WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who will decide if America fades into history. No other power on the planet can make us.

Report this

By SteveL, September 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

“ A slim majority now says the Afghanistan War isn’t worth fighting.
This is alarming, and inexplicable.”

Please go read the history books about what has happened to countries that invaded Afghanistan.  Then get back to us.  Yeah I know all we have to do is tweak the tactics we will succeed.  Yeah right!

Report this

By diamond, September 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Not only was 9/11 a fake terror attack, so were the bombings in London in July 2005.The UK government claimed the bombers caught a train from Luton at 7.40am which would have arrived at Kings Cross station in good time for them to board the tube trains. But the 7.40am train did not run that day. It was cancelled. The UK government then claimed they caught the 7.25am train from Luton, but that train ran 23 minutes late that day. Either way the so-called bombers could not have got to King’s Cross Station in time to board the trains on which bombs exploded on 7/7/05. If they had caught the 7.25am train which ran 23 minutes late they would have arrived at King’s Cross Station at 8.23am- much too late to board the required tube trains.

According to Paul Watson who was on one of the trains and survived the explosion, the metal floor of the train was bent upwards by the blast, proving the bombs were planted under the trains. He was interviewed on the BBC about this and there are photos showing the floor bent upwards as he described. Other passengers who described the blast said there was an electrical surge before the bombs went off. Bombs can be triggered by electrical surges.

The red double decker bus that was blown up was mysteriously diverted into Tavistock square in front of a medical centre before the bomb exploded, for no reason anyone has ever been able to explain. This bus did not run to Tavistock Square.

Visor Consultants Managing Director, Peter Power said, interviewed on ITV and BBC, that on the morning of 7/7/05 his crisis management group ran a mock terror drill at the identical time, based around the identical rail stations where the bombings actually took place.  He also ran a drill of an above ground explosion at the same time on the same day. Peter Power also took part in a ‘Panorama’ program in mid 2005 on the BBC in which a panel discussed the scenario of a terror attack involving three bombs at railway stations and another blast in a ‘road vehicle’. The odds of a drill like this coinciding with an identical terror attack are astronomical : over a period of ten years, one in, 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,
ooo.

According to a report in the ‘New Zealand Herald’, a New Zealand journalist working for Reuters in London said two of his colleagues looked out the window of their Canary Wharf building and saw police shoot two men ‘wearing bombs’. This story also featured on Sky News - once and then never again. According to other witnesses ‘there were limbs everywhere’ after the police shootings.There are those who say these men were two of the so-called bombers (patsies)who missed their train, being disposed of.

The poor saps in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting the wrong enemy. Their enemy is back home, taking away their freedoms in the name of fighting fake terror and imposing a global economic system no one wants -except the rich. J. Bronowski stated in his documentary TV series ‘The Ascent of Man’ that, ‘There is an age-old conflict between intellectual leadership and the civil authorities.’ He was right and I can assure you, we let the civil authorities win at our peril. I don’t think Marie Cocco understands any of this, which makes me wonder why she’s writing an article about why we must stay in Afghanistan when she doesn’t even seem to know why we’re really there.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, September 1, 2009 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

It all comes from what we hear and see.

I haven’t met 1 person who supports our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, not one.

Less than 10 years ago there were 54 independent news and media organizations now there are 6.

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/

We must examine the motives of these organizations to really determine how “free” our press, TV and radio really are.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael,

If you are not interested in practicing Hitleresque sophism and EXTREMIST propaganda, why would you be concerned about LAW and ORDER to regulate SOPHISM and EXTREMIST PROPAGANDA? 

Why would anyone at all be concerned about LAW and ORDER to regulate Hitleresque SOPHISM and EXTREMIST PROPAGANDA, if they were not USING Hitleresque SOPHISM and EXTREMIST PROPAGANDA?

No reasonable person would want a RIGHT-WING Hitleresque Regime to emerge here in the United States, ushered in by Hitleresque SOPHISM and EXTREMIST PROPAGANDA; would you?—- Yes or No.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, September 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

Some of you know me. I am a conservative Christian, I disagree with you guys often. It has always been a good thing that we are free to argue. Now and then I write a little praise of Truthdig for allowing me to write here. They have never sensored me in the least. Kudos to them!

Unlike Truthdig, some people dont like free speech.

I noticed that MarthaA had seven questions. She likes free speech for herself.

I have only one question.

First, I am going quote something that MarthaA said about my posts:

We should have laws passed that make this kind of sophism illegal, so that what happened in Nazi Germany cannot happen here in the United States and it won’t if we have laws that criminalize YOUR’S and HITLER’S type of sophism, so that we can give those who practice Hitler’s type of sophism a fair trial and then either imprison them or take them out and shoot them til they no longer wiggle.

My one and only question for MarthaA: Who put that sick imagery in your head?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther,

Whether we stay in Afghanistan or whether we leave Afghanistan our country has still destroyed its world power status by deindustrialization and financialization, it took the RIGHT-WING EXTREME with their SOPHISM AND EXTREME PROPAGANDA against the LIBERALS about 40 years to destroy our nation’s economy, but in the name of SHORT-TERM PROFIT, instead of REINDUSTRIALIZATION, they worked diligently until they managed to get the job done and never lost track of the fact that “GREED is GOOD” if you’re a RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST, but maybe not so good for all of you, other people, NOT sitting on a cushion.

Not being a world power should not keep the United States from having health care for their citizens, after all, CUBA has single payer health care.

Against our will, WE THE PEOPLE bailed out the capital of the capitalists RATS, now the RATS will desert the sinking ship and swim over to the ascendant Asian economy, leaving WE THE PEOPLE here to pay the price for saving their stinking capital.

Afghanistan is not as great a loss as Great Britain’s jewel in the crown, India, but the process is the same and will have the same result for the United States as with Great Britain.

Report this

By dihey, September 1, 2009 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA. You wrote: If America, the United States, is going to stay in Afghanistan or any other nation in pursuit of that nation’s resources, the subdued nation must share EQUITABLY in their own resources, rather than as has been done through out the history of the world.

Indeed! In fact, the Geneva Convention on Warfare stipulates that the occupying forces (meant to be both singular and plural) cannot take more of the occupied country’s resources than strictly needed for their own use and must pay for it. What the Geneva Convention demands is therefore even stronger than equitably sharing. The concept of sharing does not occur in the Geneva Convention at all.

Report this

By C-Mal, September 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

Pure propaganda!

Nice going Ms. Cocco. You have revealed yourself to be a complete shill for the military-corporate death complex. Please spend your paycheck wisely.

Our presence in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Iraq and elsewhere) was, is, and will always be completely based on lies. We have no right and no justification for being there. Obama is no different from Bush on this point, as Cindy Sheehan has inconveniently pointed out.

Oh, and by the way, more disturbing than the image of two smoking towers is the image of THREE towers collapsing into their own footprints at free fall speed. THAT is disturbing. But far be it for Ms. Cocco (or TruthDig generally) to actually put evidence ahead of propaganda.

Report this
OldUncleDave's avatar

By OldUncleDave, September 1, 2009 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

9/11 was an inside job, the “new pearl harbor” the rulers wanted to justify trashing the Constitution and taking this country down to road to a corporatist totalitarian police state. 
US military’s presence in the middle east has nothing to do with protecting this country, it’s all about lining the coffers of the corporate oligarchs who have ruined a once great nation.

Report this

By C-Mal, September 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pure propaganda!

Nice going Ms. Cocco. You have revealed yourself to be a complete shill for the military-corporate death complex. Please spend your paycheck wisely. 

Our presence in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Iraq) was, is, and will continue to be based on lies. We have no right and no justification to be there. Obama is no different from Bush in this respect. The best course of action can be summed up in four words: Get the hell out!

Oh, and by the way, more disturbing than the image of two smoking towers is the image of THREE towers collapsing into their own footprints at freefall speed. THAT is disturbing. But far be it for Ms. Cocco (or TruthDig generally) to actually put evidence ahead of propaganda.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, September 1, 2009 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

Gee.  Marie Cocco must be crazy, right?  I know this must be true because she merited 3 posts from Folktruther.  But I think it goes a bit deeper than that.  I believe Ms. Cocco is just penning the frustration that has been building up among the electorate since the US moved troops to Afghanistan. 
    Face this fact: a modern “army” is designed and trained to fight some other army - not an amorphous gaggle made up of literally hundreds of loosely organized ragtag gangs, spread out in remote mountain villages.  Our police have yet to clean up the drug gangs here in the US or along the Mexican border. 
    This is not a “war” that can be “won” by conventional means.  If the US had stuck to the original goal and taken out Bin Laden and Al Qaeda when it had them tied up in Tora Bora, back when the Northern Alliance was on our side, things would be drastically different.  But Cheney and W had other plans.  Now for the true quagmire ........

Report this

By Folktruther, September 1, 2009 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

No Martha, it isn’t any of those things.  The US is a failing state trying to hold on the remnants of its world power by military means, since its neolib economy is no longer competitive in the world.  When the US withdraws from the Afpak war, in defeat, it will relinquish its leadership of Nato and the West.

It is very dangerous for a polity with an obsolete power system to relinguish power.  The withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan helped perpetrate the destruction of the Soviet state.  The US ruling class wants to prevent this from happening until they can loot the population some more.  And that is the function of Obama, to refurbish Bushism with the help of troth organs like truthdig and the Dem party.

War is about power, Martha, and all foreign policy is domestic in crucial ways.  The Gop-Dem bipartisan coalition is funded by the ruling class to mobilize their ends of the population for the power interests of the ruling class. that is what Marie is paid to do and she is doing it.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Gmonst:
’... I think terrorism is best prevented by international cooperation, good intelligence gathering and police-work. ...’

The first step in the prevention of terrorism is not doing it.

Report this

By Zack, September 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Every comment here rejects the author’s neo-con fear mongering and tired old lines - thankfully! She’s spouting the same crap we got from Bush. “Stay the course” “Protect America” etc. etc. We are wasting blood and treasure feeding the military industrial complex. Afghanistan didn’t attack us, and I truly wonder who really did attack us. Even if Al Queda attacked us - they can never destroy “America” - that is our prosperity and way of life. Only our government, acting in concert with the will of the people, can destroy this country by curtailing freedom in favor of militarism and socliasm.

Report this

By kindGSL, September 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I was glad to see her story here because I knew she would finally get outed. Is
neocon too harsh? She is sliding in that direction.

The whole idea she is some kind of liberal or progressive is pure nonsense.

She is just another warmongering, believe anything they tell me reporter, not even
worth the manly haircut she is always in desperate need of.

Rachel has her on all the time to pontificate on things she knows nothing about.
How droll.

Frankly, her opinion is something I can do perfectly well without. And her
reporting… like I said, her opinion is something I can do without.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, September 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Marie,

Please explain your statement: “If we don’t succeed—and success for me is stabilizing Afghanistan and fixing Pakistan”

I have seven questions:  What in the world does that mean?  How much time will it take? How many lives will be sacrificed?  What are we fighting for—- FREEDOM as a trope?—or the right to loot Afghanistan and all of the surrounding area of their natural resources so that we can bring them back to this country without benefit to the people that live in Afghanistan and the surrounding areas?  Could it be the OIL in the Caspian Basin?  Do you think?

Report this

By ocjim, September 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

Marie,from a traditional frontal war perspective, we should stay in Afghanistan. In a grown-up global society, we need intelligent decision-making that understands that no matter what you do in other cultures like Pakistan or Afghanistan, it is going to be wrong. The Taliban leader, Omar’s rise to power sounded a great deal like George Bush’s delusion that God sent him to rule. In spite of the Taliban’s ruthless and bloody rule, Afghans want the Taliban back over our puppet government and our presence. Many elements in Pakistan still favor the Taliban. We will never understand this. The big argument for any role is to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of al Queda. Other than that there will always be training areas for terrorists, and they will be encourage more without a sane united effort by us to defeat terrorism

Report this

By M, September 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is no such thing as “Al Qaida” and the so-called “war on terror”. The tragic events of 9/11 and the fear-mongering that followed were perpetrated by our own government as a false flag event to sucker the American public to accept illegal wars in Iraq and Afganistan (not to mention the shredding of our constitutional rights to further the imperial agenda of globalization). We should get out of Afganastan as soon as possible, abandon our support of opium production, the continuted supression of its people and the rape of a country for its resources.

Report this

By Commune115, September 1, 2009 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

Cocco is a joke. She bashes the Bush regime but recycles its same fear tactics. Afghanistan is a situation that will only get worse precisely because we’re choosing to deal with what amounts to clandestine terror cells, some probably not even based in Afghanistan, through mass, imperial warfare. The Afghan people simply DO NOT WANT US THERE. I suggest Cocco read Alistair Horne’s “A Savage War For Peace” about France’s disastrous battle in Algeria, or just check out the Russian scholarship on its own Afghan adventure. What Cocco proclaims and suggests borders on the delusional.

Report this

By Folktruther, September 1, 2009 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

US imperialism is a BI-PARTISAN imperalm.  The Dem leaders and truthers are just as bloodthirsty as the Gop leaders, but with a kinder-gentler rhetoric.  When you support THE LESSER EVIL this is what you support, expanding the Afpak war and sending an endless amount of troops to kill, torture and rape Afpaks, who are ethnically about 50 miillion Pusthans.

The Washinton Post, the NYTimes and Truthdig all support increasing this war, as does Dems supporting Obama.  There is no money to pay for medical care, or social security or infarstucture because disposible taxpayer money is used to increase militry spending, as Obama is doing.  Just as Johnson increased the Vietnam war, destroyng the War on Poverty.

The difference is that this war is obviously lost.  the generals who are not fighting it say so, and you don’t have to be a general to understand it.  The Nato Coalition of the Willing will gradually shrink here as it did in Iraq, and the US will have to devise a face saving way to admit defeat, as it did in Vietnam.  the US population need not support even a low intensity war if this is deja vue all over again. The lies of Marie are exactly the same as the lies of Bush.

But the Dems have destroyed the anti-war coalition by coopting its leaders, and possibly Cindy Sheehan as well.  Martha’s Vinyard is not a place where the masses of people assemble.  To revitalize the anti-war left, it is necessary to break with the Dems and Obama.  Or perhaps to form a real anti-war Dems, by which is meant the anti-imperialist Dems.  and oppose the Dem leaders, including the fake anti-war Dem leaders.

Report this

By omniadeo, September 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment

Tao Walker, I was starting to feel tempted to post and argue with the other domesticated about the state of the barbed wire, when I read your post. You intervened, and I thank you, sir, for your sanity.

Report this

By TAO Walker, September 1, 2009 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Trying, however sincerely, to come-up with some sensible explanation for the degraded and disintegrating CONdition the virtual-world of “civilization” is in today (including the deepening cesspool of institutionalized idiocy cleverly called “AfPak”) is to take a one-way ride on a merry-go-round spiraling into chaos and oblivion….so long, that is, as the effort is made entirely from inside (or aboard) the damned CONtraption itself.  Whatever it was that prompted Ms. Coco to plunge off the ‘deep-end’ here, the tone of her piece has more than a tinge of panic about it….and also much of the “misery-loves-company” ethos that informs just about all of what passes for ‘public’ discourse these days.

What the domesticated peoples lack so far, in their desperate hunt for some sound ground from which to orient their selves in the midst of exponentially increasing CONfusion, is working knowledge of their actual defining CONdition….which is, in a word, DOMESTICATION.  Without that understanding, and a recovered sense of the viable alternative to their shared plight, any-and-everything they attempt by-way-of remediation is doomed to only worsen their predicament.

So those here who really want a Way out of this toxic mess might want to devote their precious attention to getting together where they actually live-and-breathe everyday to help each other in that direction.  Beating-up on a frightened “individual” like Ms. Coco here (who seems resigned to her entrapment, and Stockholm-syndromed into “loving” the apparatus of her captivity, as well as her jailers du jour), while easy and CONvenient, is a sheer waste of the wonderful gifts of Life Herownself.

It may turn-out that the ruinous physical CONsequences of ten thousand years of murderous MAD abuse by our tormentors, with the half-witted help of their tame two-leggeds tools, will be more than She and us and All Her Children Our Relatives can stand.  It’s a dead certainty, though, that it’ll be better to reach that point as free wild natural Peoples, than as the CONdemned inmates of a “global” prison run by psycho- and socio-pathic gangsters.

The Tiyoshpaye Way, The Way of Living Organic Community, remains open to all.  What’s more, all the real obstacles to walking it lie entirely INSIDE those hapless “individuals” now milling lost in-fear apart from it….in their received CONceits, their cherished beliefs, their captive imaginations, their CONtrived “individual”-ity itself.

The tormentors, of course, know full well how fragile and tenuous is their hold on their Human “livestock.”  So they must plow more and more of their own dwindling “energy” into keeping the CON going….an excercise in FUtility.  THE END is already in-sight.  We see it clearly from here in Indian Country.

HokaHey!

Report this
anaman51's avatar

By anaman51, September 1, 2009 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Whether or not we belong in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban at this point is irrelevant. What we need to remember (History teaches!) is how the Soviets fared in a similar situation. How many American lives is it going to be worth to continue? What will we gain? What will we lose? It’s a new day, and perhaps a new look at the problem, with eyes wide open, is called for.

Report this

By Sam, September 1, 2009 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Truthdig has done us a great service in providing us proof that there are fools out there writing crap for fools who want to believe it, concerning the futile money pit Afghanistan. I mean, look at these comments: This is always where the creamy center lies, and this creamy center has a nice nostalgic deliciousness to it that we would not have experienced elsewhere. And about Obama—in the current state of our nation, I think a very benevolent marionette is better than the recent other kind. Did you expect him to ever really cut the strings? Not yet, friend. There’s money to be made in human sacrifice, you know. By that, I mean WAR.

Report this

By Mike B., September 1, 2009 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow. I had no idea Ms. Coco had such contempt for us. I have read many of her articles here on Truthdig, and most seemed sane and progressive. She seemed to be a reliable voice for the oppressed and disenfranchised.

But she obviously suffers from a disorder I will call 9-1-1 derangement syndrome: incapacitating anger mixed with self pity stemming from the 911 attacks that makes rational thought and human decency impossible.

In this state, torture of “them” for what they did to “us” is perfectly appropriate, and only “activist liberals” (enemies of “us”), don’t see it that way.

In this state, expansion of the war into Iraq and now Pakistan is perfectly acceptable, and those Iranians better watch out! (Perhaps Ms. Cocco has had a change of heart RE: Iraq, but I am certain from this screed that happened only because the invasion was handled “incompetently.”)

In this state, continued military intervention in AF-Pak leads to victory, withdrawal leads to defeat, and anyone who doesn’t see this is an “activist liberal” (America hating, Terrorist sympathizing traitor who has “forgotten”).

For people with this syndrome, every day is September 12, 2001, the day after America The Good was wrongfully attacked by “them” from “over there”, and no price is too high for vengeance.

The problem is, here in the real world, vengeance makes for bad policy. We’ll be fighting in Afghanistan until we have a president with the courage to take on the 9-1-1 D.S. crowd. Of course, this president is one of them.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook