2009.03.31
Discuss Tuesday's editorials
Getting back to al-Qaida
Obama hopes to take care of critical business left unfinished by the U.S. diversion into Iraq.
By increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, President Obama is taking a risky but realistic approach to the continuing threat presented by a resurgent Taliban and by al-Qaida, still enjoying a safe haven just across the border in western Pakistan. You remember al-Qaida. The architects of 9/11. Intelligence sources say its leaders continue to plot attacks on the U.S. from the forbidding mountainous tribal region straddling the two countries, safely out of the way of Afghan and U.S. forces.
Read more.
Ask Boy Scouts to clean up
Jamboree won't ruin Rockbridge County.
A debate over the Boy Scouts of America's jamboree boils down to two numbers.
22,000 -- The population of Rockbridge County, where the Boy Scouts want to hold its gatherings after 2010.
240,000 -- The number of Scouts and support personnel who might attend.
RSS feed 
Obama's new friends have some issues:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/afghanistan-president-signs-law-to-legalise-rape-14249973.html
"In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers"
Signed into law as well. Welcome to the new world, ladies.
Comment by Henry — March 31, 2009 @ 9:28 am
So I guess there go my big plans to relocate to Kabul.
And this isn't a "new world"...it's a very very old one.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Obama's new friends? I think you're stretching things a bit Henry.
Comment by HCS — March 31, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Actually the UN description sounds similar to that cult in Texas that had their kids yanked last year.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I guess that just shows that religious nuts are everywhere, in every religion, and efforts must be taken to make sure they can't influence the rule of law, lest we wind up with things like that passing.
Comment by Other John — March 31, 2009 @ 10:47 am
These are Obama's allies in Afghanistan now.
Kristen, actually it is new. It used to be that we rejected these old notions. The post 9/11 Afghanistan government even rejected these notions until just recently. But now Europe and even Canada are starting to embrace them. It was wrong to do that to blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia but acceptable to do it to women in Afghanistan. Don't believe me? Let's hear how the White House responds to this "change". Cue the crickets.
Comment by Henry — March 31, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Amen Other John, well put.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 10:49 am
OJ
Really? Funny, I don't see this type of behavior accepted in traditional Christian/Jewish/Unitarian churches. Not only that, our laws in this country punish things like rape, child marriage and kidnapping.
If I remember correctly, the women in the cult in Texas were arrested and many of the men are in prison. That sure doesn't sound like "accepting" to me. So I don't see the parallel.
Comment by Henry — March 31, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Henry..they are not us. They don't actually care what notions we "reject".
I am always amazed by Americans who think that the goal of the rest of the world is - or should be - to be more like Americans. Sorry but I still don't see the point.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 11:08 am
It might help if you read my post. I said religious nuts are everywhere, in every religion. That does not mean that I think every religion is nutty or that most of the practitioners are nuts, only that if you look hard enough (or sometimes not so hard) you'll find people who have this sort of backward thinking.
Comment by Other John — March 31, 2009 @ 11:16 am
In addition Henry, I hardly think it is Obama's responsibility to take issue with what law another country passes even if it is clearly (to us) a backwards law. I am sure that many of our laws seem backwards to other countries...could you imagine if those other countries attempted to interfere with our passing of our laws? I am consistently and always a bit confused as to why some think it is somehow our mission or responsibility to ensure that the rest of the world has laws that match up with our belief and legal system.
And yes Henry perhaps Obama has taken up talks with some of these leaders in the name of fighting terrorism but that hardly means that we are supportive of other things they may or may not do. Nor does it mean that it is any of our business of some of these unrelated things they may or may not do.
Comment by HCS — March 31, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9-11. Why is Obama invading them and killing innocent children?
Comment by Kevin — March 31, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Not entirely sure Kevin but I think we were already in Afghanistan before Obama was elected.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
I'm sure you know this, Kevin, but the Taliban ruling Afghanistan were full partners with al-Qaida, whom they offered safe harbor and who used Afghanistan as a safe headquarters and training ground to plan, prepare and execute the 9/11 attacks.
And please don't suggest that Saddam's nonexistent ties with al-Qaida were in any way equivalent. The facts simply don't back up that contention.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 31, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Kevin, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression that the invasion of Afghanistan took place prior to Obama becoming commander-in-chief.
Comment by Allen Bunch — March 31, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Is it possible that some people still believe that Iraq was behind the attacks on 9-11? That could explain some of the confusion.
Comment by Allen Bunch — March 31, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Kristen,
Didn't you hear? Obamna promised to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Dan,
So Afghanistan officially attacked us? That's news to everybody.
Comment by Kevin — March 31, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
I don't recall writing that, Kevin.
Nope. Just checked again. That's not what I wrote. Maybe you should reread it, too.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 31, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
And Kevin...I STILL think Bush put us in Iraq. Disagree?
Comment by Kristen — April 1, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Dan, You also adjusted my original contention. No way you can dance around the fact that the official government of Afghanistan did not attack us on 9-11. So why is this warmonger sending 10,000 more troops there? Is it because he wants to kill innocent women and children?
Don't you see? Republicans put up with this for eight years.
"There were no WMDs."
"Yes, but, there is evidence they were hidden, moved or disguised."
"Still there were NO WMDs found."
"Yes, but there were some vials found in a scientist's home and many unmarked drums which inspectors said likely contained deadly chemicals for warfare"
"Doesn't matter. There were NO WMD'S found that were ready to be deployed at that particular moment".
"Yes, but WMD's were only onr of many reasons for the war. What about Saddam's verified plan to lauch a nuclear program? What about the fact that he had ample opportunity to allow UN inspectors to verify he was clean, but instead jerked them around or kicked them out? What about the fact that terrorists trained in Iran and that Saddam was a benefactor of the worldwide terrorit netork?"
"No. The actual physical presence of WMD ready right then to be deployed was the single premise for the entire war. If WMD weren't out there sitting in a field in full view for the inspectors to find, marked 'THESE ARE WMD' with the launch button marked in the 'ON' position, then then it doesn't count. It makes the war invalid and Bush a liar."
Now it's your turn to deal with that, Dan. Except in your case, nobody in the media will be manufacturing a flimsy case trying to take him down.
Comment by Kevin — April 1, 2009 @ 7:56 am
Kristen
What we have to ask is WHY Obama is invading and occupying a sovereign nation. I thought that would only create more terrorists and diminish respect for us around the world.
Comment by Kevin — April 1, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Kevin,
Your contention is ludicrous. Obama did not invade Afghanistan; Bush did - with the support of the American people and the global community. I know what you are attempting to do, conflate Iraq with Afghanistan, but it just doesn't work.
There are many reasons we remain in Afghanistan - with the approval, by the way, of the Afghan government.
You can keep trying if you wish, but I won't spend any more time banging my head against this particular brick wall.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 1, 2009 @ 9:26 am
I think Kevin is playing devil's advocate here and trying to stir up a reaction. Dan's right...no point in cooperating with it.
Comment by Kristen — April 1, 2009 @ 9:34 am
I think you both are wrong Kristen and Dan.
Bill Clinton invaded Afghanistan by bombing
pill factories.
This could all be over if Bill Clinton, A DEMOCRAT,
would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance
He blew it now we have to work harder and have more American dead soldiers
because of a Democrat president.
I see the same thing in Obama.
Comment by HERB KREBS — April 1, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Kristen,
Putting the shoe on the other foot can be uncomfortable, can't it?
Comment by Kevin — April 1, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Kevin...
Putting the shoe on the other foot may not be nearly as uncomfortable as your trying to pull both feet out of your mouth. Your logic (or lack thereof) isn't floating very well.
Herb...What you might want to do is to take a look at the ties between G.H.W Bush and the BinLaden family as well as all of the Saudi Oil ties. I'm not convinced that it was perhaps Bush 41 who let the cat out of the bag.
Comment by Will — April 1, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Kevin..not really.
And Herb....FYI those "pill factories" Clinton bombed were in Iraq not Afghanistan. What you claim to see in Obama...I have no remote idea.
Comment by Kristen — April 1, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Kristen
The pill factories were in the Sudan or Somalia I think. Iraq was the baby milk factory IIRC
Comment by Henry — April 1, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Henry...
Just remember...Saddam was a baby once.
Comment by Will — April 1, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Yea Will,
So was Obama and now look what that is getting us.
A mountain of debt, that we will never see reduced.
A unsafe nation and a bunch of tax cheats
in his cabinet.
Sounds like the man I want running this nation.
Comment by HERB KREBS — April 1, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Herb...
Please don't tell me you're trying to compare Saddam to Obama.
I don't see the nation as being any more or less safe than it was 8 years ago. Eight years ago, we had a mountain of debt (although not what we had at the end of those eight years) and everyone was hollering about the debt burden on our kids and grandkids. Well, just remember, we were someone's kids and grandkids at one time or another and they sure as heck didn't help us.
Comment by Will — April 1, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Both Saddam and Obama were babies once
Comment by Henry — April 1, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Well... except that they attacked and cancelled any threats to our people back then and were pretty much supported whole-heartedly by our countrymen...
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — April 1, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
I bet Herb was a baby once too. (just joshing you Herb don't get bent out of shape)
Comment by Kristen — April 1, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Both Saddam and Obama were babies once
Comment by Henry — April 1, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
And why were we not told about this BEFORE the election?
Comment by Kristen — April 1, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Hey, if we're all getting down to brass tacks, who's responsible for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda having a place to live in the first place? Ronald Reagan. Thanks Ronnie!
Comment by scott — April 1, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Kristen...
Believe it or not, I was a baby once...or so I was told!
Have a good evening everyone!
Comment by Will — April 1, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
FYI scott, Afghanistan did in fact exist before President Reagan.
Comment by marked man (mark) — April 1, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Mark,
Where did I say Afghanistan did not exist? I didn't. I said "who's responsible for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda having a place to live..."
The Taliban as we know it, came from mujahideen Pashtun warriors that were weaponized by the US Government during the 80's cold war to fight off insurgent USSR. The weaponized Pashtuns then rose to power in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan, and took their fundamentalist (and radicalized) islamic stance. In 1994, they began to take over the country. In 1996 when they captured the capital, they became the government that directly supplied Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda a safe haven in which to base their terrorist activities.
Now that I'm done schooling you on extremely basic Afghan history of the past few years, I'll remind you that we did the same thing in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran conflict. We weaponized Saddam Hussein. In fact here's a great picture of him with Donald Rumsfeld from 1983. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00791/rumsfeld-hussein-19_791932c.jpg
So when I said what I said, I meant what I meant. I didn't mean that Ronald Reagan created Afghanistan. Obviously I'm not that stupid.
Comment by scott — April 1, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Wow scott, sure am glad I wasnt 'schooled' at any school of yours.
Apparently "The [Afghan] mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[3] and Reagan administrations" - Wikipedia
Others have tried to blame Reagan for Carter's shortcomings, its ok, we understand.
BTW when you said what you said, i interpreted it as "Who's responsible for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda having a place to live in the first place?"
Not, "Who's responsible for them living?"
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — April 2, 2009 @ 7:58 am
"Your contention is ludicrous. Obama did not invade Afghanistan; Bush did"
Upping the troop count by 10,000 qualifies as an invasion by any measure.
"There are many reasons we remain in Afghanistan - with the approval, by the way, of the Afghan government."
Didn't we also have approval of the Iraqi government to remain there? I thought we did.
Comment by Kevin — April 2, 2009 @ 8:43 am
"Your contention is ludicrous. Obama did not invade Afghanistan; Bush did"
Upping the troop count by 10,000 qualifies as an invasion by any measure.
No, it doesn't . Dropping 10K troops into Canada would be considered an invasion. We've been in Afghanistan for years now, and all Obama is doing is reinforcing an existing position. The "invasion" tag was scooped up by Bush2.
Comment by Kristen — April 2, 2009 @ 9:20 am