Posted on 10/02/2006 3:29:40 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
Edited on 10/02/2006 3:49:15 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Bill Frist: "I’m currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled, “Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov’t.” The story badly distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.
First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.
Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.
National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority … but America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry into Afghanistan’s government. "
Related thread: U.S. Senate majority leader calls for efforts to bring Taliban into Afghan government
Here is the rebuttal, but if you chose to believe the AP instead......
Democratic October SURPRISE !!!
How does any politican insure that the MSM won`t distort their views? Interested to read your response.
thanks
You can't "ensure" this, probably. But by speaking as clearly as possible, you can reduce the chances of it, you can reduce the amount of it, and you can have a stronger defense for yourself when it happens to you.
MSM distorts all politicians views. If they are Republican they try to make them look like raving lefty moonbats. If they are Demonrats they try to make them look like moderates.
Vote Republican. Nothing else trumps this basic credo.
But Frist is one of that form of Republican that I find unnecessarily ineffective.
These pious, passive, pussies have no idea the nature of the enemy we fight.
Who are the enemy?
They are ruthless, anti-American, evil, despicable vermin who conspire to kill you, your family and your friends right where you sleep.
They are media propaganda experts, and delight in our sputtering respectful rebuttals, while they spew serial outrageous hypocritical accusations.
They delight in our unilateral adherence to Marquess of Queensbury rules of engagement, while they plot to slit our throats.
They are the enemy.
They are Democrats.
Quotes taken out of context are standard practice in the media, I was dismayed (not surprised) to see so many knee-jerk comments in reaction to his comments.
"We thought anyone in their right mind would choose freedom over oppressive theocracy. "
we being the US government; to me trying to force republican government on those countries is likely to have the same result as it would have in most if not all of europe up well into the 17th century if not later - they will vote in theocrats and despots.
There is a reason the US has in the past and present (egypt, pakistan, saudi arabia, kuwait and the gulf states, jordan) been happy with secular despots or with monarchies in the middle east - they keep control of their populace and pursue foreign policies much more favorable to the US than popular wishes would have them do, or than any conceivable alternate government form would.
"They are a group of people who had their tribe divided in two by the British, and they want a say in the government they have to live under. "
the british 'straight line on a map' approach has been a factor in more trouble in pak/india, ME, and africa than any other similar decision I can think of.
serious question - did the british intentionally put rival/enemy tribes in the same country, divide tribes, etc., in order to make post-colonial governments weak or otherwise have them hindered?
the western media talks about 'the taliban' a lot.
in modern afghanistan, what exactly is 'the taliban' outside of the cnn synopsis world?
Knee jerk? On Free Republic? Gee whatever do you mean? It is nothing short of amazing how everyone sits here and waits for clarification. Had it been a non-litmus test passing "RINO". OMG! 1500 posts all on fire!
I think it's fine to bring in the conservative element and try and politicize their efforts. Better than what we have now, a non-stop guerilla war. The fastest way to moderate radicals is to make them responsible for trash pickup. Yeah it's simplistic but you get my drift. Having Hamas win in the Palestinian territories is good stuff. A radical group made into a government has a hard time hiding behind their actions.
People that cry about the ME electing despots and radical fundies fail to understand these people will be held accountable for their inability to provide for their people. It also makes it a lot easier to identify an enemy when the people vote them into power.
Good for you! I did it a few years ago - here are a couple of tips that may or may not help:
1)Don't try to picture yourself as a non-smoker. Don't try to picture yourself not smoking after eating or not smoking while talking on the phone, or not smoking while driving.
If you start to think "How will I be able to drive for 2 hours without smoking" - PUSH the thought out of your head and just tell yourself to get through the day. Don't let yourself think about it.
2) Get yourself a babyfood jar and fill it with cigarette butts and water. Keep it with you at all times. Anytime you think you want to smoke - pull out that jar, unscrew the lid and take a big whiff. Believe me, you won't want a cigarette after seeing and smelling that jar.
Good luck - I know you can do it, because if I (who smoked 2 packs of Kools a day for 20 years and never wanted to quit, never tried to quit and had no intentions of ever quitting), if I could quit - anybody can!
"moderate Islamists?"
That's a new one!
I believe the group is somewhat quantifiable, in that it held office. To be honest I'm not sure if it's a religious sect or something closer to a political party. I would suspect it's more the former, with political involvement. The one thing we do know, is it's a violent sect.
thanks. I have wondered how many of the events involving combat with taliban as reported by the media are mainly tribal feuds being worked out, with the losing side being against the government (and US by extension).
{hangs head in shame}
I'm so sorry! I don't know what I was thinking. Please don't make me watch Keith Olbermaniac as punishment, and I swear, it'll never happen again! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.