Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wow: Obama administration says “Taliban must take legitimate role” in Afghanistan
The Gateway Pundit ^ | January 22, 2010, | Jim Hoft

Posted on 01/22/2010 5:14:56 PM PST by ColdOne

For all that our boys have fought and died for, we’re now giving legitimacy to the same enemy we went there defeat? Imagine how our troops overseas must be feeling about the news that their Commander in Chief wants to legitimize the very enemy they’re trying to defeat. Sad…

NY Times - The United States recognizes that the Taliban are now part of the political fabric of Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here on Friday, but the group must be prepared to play a legitimate role before it can reconcile with the Afghan government.

That means, Mr. Gates said, that the Taliban must

(Excerpt) Read more at gatewaypundit.firstthings.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: appeasers; morons; obama; obamorons; surrenderjunkies; taliban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: ColdOne
This man is just Awful...

Spilled milk.

21 posted on 01/22/2010 5:34:30 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Obama ally Jodie Evans met with the Taliban and then relayed messages from Afghanistan to Obama last fall.
22 posted on 01/22/2010 5:36:22 PM PST by kristinn (A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

It is his plan. A few months ago I read in an India newspaper the administrations plan is to give money to the Taliban to put down their weapons. Buy them off.. Yeah this will work!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a fool


23 posted on 01/22/2010 5:37:18 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
He truly is delusional....

He's focused IMO.

Everything he has done to date since he has been in the Oval Office has promoted "CHANGE" for America as we know it.

24 posted on 01/22/2010 5:37:52 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Code Pink post. I read that.. This man is just awful.. Anything else I say may get me in trouble!


25 posted on 01/22/2010 5:39:49 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

That man says nothing that his boss hasnt preapproved...

Damn them all...


26 posted on 01/22/2010 5:45:22 PM PST by Crim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Well, at least now I won't be caught totally off-guard when a State dinner for Mullah Omar is held at the White House.
27 posted on 01/22/2010 5:47:46 PM PST by Shqipo (Palin/Thompson 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

If this were 1944 he’d be saying what...that the NAZI’s would need to be part of the new Germany?

What a FREAKING - COMPLETE - FOOL!!


28 posted on 01/22/2010 5:51:37 PM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

This man Obummer is one of them. He will have us under Sharia Law.

We better wake up before its to late.

Join the Brown revolution.


29 posted on 01/22/2010 5:55:09 PM PST by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialst States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Has to be a false report.

This is simply unbelievable.

30 posted on 01/22/2010 5:56:53 PM PST by Touch Not the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
What's he going to say next? That communists should have a legitimate role in the United States?

Oh wait, he doesn't need to.

31 posted on 01/22/2010 6:05:04 PM PST by C210N (A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
How can we even be thinking of treating these creatures like they’re “legitimate”? The only explanation he must be one of them!
32 posted on 01/22/2010 6:08:59 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Ugh! I’m about to lose my lunch!


33 posted on 01/22/2010 6:16:51 PM PST by FrdmLvr ("The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Any comment from NOW yet?


34 posted on 01/22/2010 6:35:16 PM PST by bergmeid (Gas up the truck and pedal to the metal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; blueyon; Farmer Dean; AmericanInTokyo; pepperdog; autumnraine; expatpat; R0CK3T; ...

Of interest:

There is nothing called the ‘moderate Taliban’

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/mj-akbar/the-siege-within/There-is-nothing-called-the-moderate-Taliban/articleshow/4390292.cms

The Times of India

12 April 2009, 12:44am IST

If necessity is the mother of invention then politics is often the father. Barack Obama has invented a phrase that did not exist on January 20, the day he became president. Anxious to win a war through the treasury rather than the Pentagon, he has discovered something called the “moderate Taliban” in Afghanistan. Joe Biden, his vice president, has found the mathematical coordinates of this oxymoron: only 5% of the Taliban are “extremists”.

Welcome to Obama’s first big mistake.

The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not simply against some bearded men and beardless boys who have been turned into suicide missionaries. The critical conflict is against the ideology of a chauvinistic theocracy that seeks to remould the Muslim world into a regressive region from which it can assault every aspect of modernity, whether that be in political space or the social sphere.

Washington has a single dimension definition of “moderate”: anyone who stops an active, immediate war against the US is a “moderate”. Let me introduce him to a couple of “moderate Taliban”. They are now world famous, having been on every national and international news channel these past few days, stars of a video clip from Swat. Two of them had pinned down a 17-year-old girl called Chand Bibi, while a third, his face shrouded, lashed her with a whip 37 times on suspicion of being seen with a man who was not her father or brother.

Obama should record the screams of Chand Bibi and play them to his daughters as the “moderate” music to which he wants to dance in his Afghan war.

These Taliban are “moderate” by the norms of the Obama Doctrine: they have come to a deal with America through Islamabad. Pakistani troops are not engaged in their medieval haven, nor are American Drones bombing their homes. All that remains, one presumes, is that they are placed on the Pentagon payroll as insurance of their ceasefire.

Perhaps, in their desperate search for moderation, Obama and Islamabad will promote the denial being manipulated into public discourse. The unbearable Swat-lashing video is now described as fake. It would be nice to know the names of the actors who played such a convincing part in the filming of this ‘fake’. Chand Bibi has “denied” any such incident. Sure: but was any doctor sent to check the scars?

Such compromise with ‘moderation’ has also taken place next door, in Afghanistan, under the watchful eye of American ally Hamid Karzai. He has just signed a family law bill which compels Afghan women to take permission from their husbands before going to a doctor, seeking education, or getting a job. The husband has become complete master of the bedroom. Custody of children can only go to fathers or grandfathers; women have no rights. A member of Afghanistan’s upper house, Senator Humaira Namati, has called this law “worse than during the Taliban (government). Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam”. It makes no difference to the Taliban, of course, that the Quran expressly forbids Muslim men from forcing decisions on their wives “against their will”. Karzai’s justification is the usual one: politics. He wanted the support of theocrats in the election scheduled for August this year. Under pressure, there is talk of a review but no one is sure what that means.

If it’s democracy, it must be “moderate”, right?

One can understand a post-Iraq America’s reluctance towards wars that seem straight out of Kipling. But we in the region have to live with the political consequences of superpower intervention, and the casual legitimacy that Obama is offering to a destructive ideology will create blowback that spreads far beyond the geography of “Afpak”.

Benazir Bhutto and the ISI did not create the Taliban in the winter of 1994 for war against America. Its purpose was to defeat fractious Afghan warlords, and establish a totalitarian regime that would equate Afghanistan’s strategic interests to Pakistan’s. The ISI conceived an “Afpak” long before the idea reached the outer rim of Washington’s thinking. Pakistan worked assiduously to widen the Taliban’s legitimacy and would have drawn America into the fold through the oil-pipeline siren song if Osama bin Laden had not blown every plan apart. In some essentials, things have not changed. Pakistan’s interests still lie in a pro-Islamabad Taliban regime in Kabul. The “moderation” theory is a ploy to provide war-weary America with an exit point. India’s anxieties will be offered a smile in public and a shrug in private.

History is uncomfortable with neat closures. Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan are what they were in 1994: the former
is much stronger, the latter substantially weaker. The fall of Kabul to the Taliban this time could be a curtain raiser to the siege of Islamabad.

There is nothing called a moderate lash, or backlash, President Obama.


35 posted on 01/22/2010 6:37:18 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

I wonder it the new MA Senator and others will still praise the President’s position on Afghanistan.


36 posted on 01/22/2010 6:54:11 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thank you for the link..... I just have to wonder, this guy is bad news.


37 posted on 01/22/2010 6:59:57 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

I am only part way through the threads tonight. I believe my head is exploding.


38 posted on 01/22/2010 7:01:42 PM PST by hal ogen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Well, as you may know, I do not like 0bama. However, to be fair and consistent, National reconciliation in Afghanistan has been talked about by General Petraeus and by General Ordinario since 2006.
39 posted on 01/22/2010 7:05:39 PM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or are you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Well noted. To me it is the overall picture.. One thing alone may not be big (well yes it is) But need to be fair , I agree.


40 posted on 01/22/2010 7:13:37 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson