- Jeffrey Toobin: In McCain’s Court
- Pentagon Announces Troop Deployments Of 42,000 To Iraq, Afghanistan
- Why Republicans Might Attack Iran Before the General Elections
For example, one of the strongest scenarios among neo-conservatives is based on the hypothesis that in the case of any military attack against Iran — even a limited air strike — the greatest beneficiary among the three presidential candidates would be John McCain. The reason for this is that the American people’s first priority would become national security instead of the economy, and since there might be a “perception” that McCain would deal with foreign policy issues better than economic ones, he would have a stronger chance of winning in November.
- Clinton Puts Up A New Fight
Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. “The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head,” she said. “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.”
(My aside: No racism? REALLY? Yes, there has been sexism on the part of the media, the pundits, some Obama supporters and bloggers. But to say there’s been NO racism? That’s just a lie.)
Might he really be a “maverick” when it comes to the Supreme Court? The answer, almost certainly, is no. The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement. With the general election in mind, McCain had to express himself with such elaborate circumlocution because he knows that the constituency for such far-reaching change in our constellation of rights is small, and may be shrinking.
Today is the day that Barack Obama will tip over the majority of pledged delegates. He will need less than 100 total delegates for the nomination. I would once again encourage the women profiled in the last article to consider the facts in the first article.
Bill Frist actually has it right. It’s just that it comes about five years too late.
Frist Draws Criticism for Comments On Taliban – washingtonpost.com
Frist, who was traveling in Afghanistan, said Monday that Taliban fighters are too numerous and too popular to be defeated. “You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government,” he said. “And if that’s accomplished, we’ll be successful.”
You’re going to have to trust me on some of this. During the occupation by the then-Soviet Union, it became clear that the Soviets would not be able to hold Afghanistan for a couple of reasons. First, it is a country steeped in tribal traditions. It is a nomadic culture, fragmented and localized. The nature of leadership in Afghanistan begins and ends with the leaders of the different tribes. They have no use for any kind of centralized government outside of the cities, so when the Taliban comes and hands them weapons and says “defend your sheep”, they are acting to defend their sheep and if the one who threatens their sheep is Russian, or American or whatever, they’ll defend in small, ever-moving ways.
Second, Afghan terrain is treacherous. If you do not know it and were not born and raised there, you are at a serious disadvantage. There are areas so remote that reaching them involves days-long hikes on foot on paths that will make the hair stand up on the back of your neck.
This is why it was stupid for Bush to send troops to Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden. We still had ways to reach out to the Taliban. We ARMED the Taliban when the Soviets were there. The Soviets tried bombing Afghanistan into oblivion and still ultimately conceded defeat. But instead of learning from their mistakes, Bush was determined to repeat them. And repeat them he has, and then compounded the error by dropping the entire issue like a lead balloon.
Frist is right, in theory. I don’t know that there is a pathway toward building any kind of meaningful dialogue with the Taliban now, in light of the Bush Administration’s untrustworthy and dishonest approach toward
the Middle East in general, and Afghanistan and Iraq.
(edited to correct my erroneous geographical reference…Afghanistan and Iraq are not in the Middle East)