Lee Whitnum: Let's give Afghanistan back to the Taliban

Afghanistan--another bogus war (4.00 / 1)

Although I obviously think the Taliban treatment of women is deplorable, I have nothing but scorn for the implication that our marines are in Afghanistan on some sort of feminist women to "liberate" them. The reality is that women are denied education in places all over the world, including Saudi Arabia, and the United States is not invading Saudi Arabia on some quest to save those women. In fact, the Revolutionary Association for Women in Afghanistan (RAWA) strongly opposed the invasion of Afghanistan as it has made the condition of women worse.
See:
http://www.commondreams.org/he...
and
http://www.commondreams.org/vi...

The United States/Saudi Arabia "protected" Bin Laden for years when he was working for the CIA and against the Soviet Union and yet if Soviet Union invaded the U.S. on the grounds that it was "protecting" a terrorist, nobody would have thought that was justifiable.

The reality is that the war in Afghanistan is just as bogus as the war in Iraq and has nothing to do with capturing Bin Laden or saving Afghan women and everything to do with securing the vast oil reserves of the Caspian seas. If anything it is the government's interest to continue to keep the spector of Bin Laden alive so that it can continue to justify its imperialist adventures.

See:
http://www.commondreams.org/vi...
http://www.commondreams.org/vi...

As for Obama, I'm disappointed that he does not have a more honorable and honest position on Afghanistan--such a position would require him to admit that the United States owes the people of Afghanistan massive reparations and humanitarian aid. If Bin Laden is, in fact, in Afghanistan such humanitarian aid would play a role in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people motivating them to WANT to help us...but bombing them will only inflame them and help Bin Laden.

But I understand why Obama takes the position that he does--if he doesn't seem adequately committed to using violence to further our imperialists interests, then Americans are just to think he's a "pussy". I just hope he is not as militaristic as he sometimes comes across and that his advisers will have a more sensible approach to Afghanistan once he takes office.

Here are some good articles on Obama and his position on Afghanstan:

http://www.commondreams.org/ar...
http://www.commondreams.org/ar...
http://www.commondreams.org/ar...

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 16:02:10 PM UTC

Obama's position on Afghanistan and Pakistan (0.00 / 0)

I share your concerns. I think, or would hope, that Obama agrees with you too. His policy is a lot more complex than the press indicates. It involves a lot of "soft" measures too:

The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid [...]

Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope.

But because the Taliban uses terror tactics to disrupt these measures, security forces are necessary for a certain amount of protection. The Afghan ambassador agrees with Obama's plan to increase troop levels, with the ultimate goal of putting Afghans in charge of their own security by training and equipping Afghan police and soldiers.

Sometimes the press highlights Obama's tough talk and doesn't mention the soft stuff.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think I get it (0.00 / 0)

Whitnum is running to the right of Shays,

In order to win the primary against Jim Himes.

Which I guess makes her a LIEbercrat?

---

by: notcho @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 17:03:05 PM UTC

In the print edition... (0.00 / 0)

...none of the L. Lee insanity showed up on the front page.

So while Vigdor did (finally) report on her anti-Semitic and generally looney rantings, the front page is all about Lee, with even the potshot at Jim making it right before the continuation.

So they're still trying to work it so that she appears as a credible candidate.

I did also note that she said she doesn't think we've lost any of our civil liberties, which ought to put paid to any wrong-wing talk that she's somehow from the "far left wing."  Fact is she's from the David Duke/Tom Tancredo wing of the party.

Where's that wing again?  Oh yeah, it's a solid part of the GOP.

---

by: D for Demsbetta @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 21:05:09 PM UTC

Yeah the part when she said we hadn't lost any civil liberties (0.00 / 0)

was when my jaw hit the floor.

I thought I'd heard it all from Ms. W, but when I heard that I was like: "HELLO?!! Have you been AWAKE the last eight years?"

---

by: saramerica @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:34:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Breathtakingly biased (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read Vigdor's article stating that the two candidates "sparred".  Sparred?  Whitnum, about twelve minutes in, became a raving lunatic!  Yet Vigdor, once again, reported the debate as if it was just a normal, spirited debate between two normal- sane- candidates.  In fact, the News 12 moderator was beside himself!  He was trying to get Whitnum to stop reading a newspaper article, he could barely contain his astonishment when Whitnum said that his question about the loss of civil liberties was "too vague" and refused to answer before finally bruskly retorting that she didn't think we'd lost any of our liberties.

Now let's keep in mind that it was Sarah Littman's column exposing Whitnum that motivated GT/Advocate's publisher John Dunster to fire Littman.  Check out the incredibly out-of-touch report by Vigdor of this debate, and his failure once again to debunk the Whitnum's lie that Jim Himes went to Israel on an AIPAC junket, and try to figure out how Vigdor is still employed there, but Sarah Littman was fired.

Incredible.  

Dunster refuses to even comment on Sarah's firing, let alone announce it in print, even though at least two reporters from other publications have contacted him and managing editor Jim Zebora.  Their failure to justify what they did, let alone inform their readers, leads one to think that something more is going on here.  Clearly, they are choking on their own rationale for firing Sarah Littman- that her having hosted a "meet-and-greet" for Jim Himes violated the paper's objectivity.

Take a look at the broadcast of the debate, then read Vigdor's article, and tell us what you think about GT/Advocate's "objectivity"!!

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 15:18:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...and nice picture, GT (0.00 / 0)

Gotta love the way they takes dozens of pictures, but somehow the one that makes the Dem candidate look the goofiest is always the one they run.

That's not snark, either.  Their photographer is genuinely fed up with them making her look like she can't take a decent shot.

---

by: D for Demsbetta @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 21:10:45 PM UTC

The silver lining (0.00 / 0)

If Whitnum insists on challenging Himes in a primary, then she may just help Himes candidacy along by giving him more free publicity in the 4th CD. Also, by juxtaposing her unbalanced self against an already strong candidate, I think on the balance Lee Whitnum's candidacy only helps Mr. Himes.

I'm sure Maura is guiding Himes' campaign through this "primary" superbly.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 00:19:24 AM UTC

Hey, can we get Schwartzie at the Q to poll? (0.00 / 0)

I want to see a poll from Schwartzie at the Q with a simple Himes/Shays matchup and then a CFB¹/Shays matchup. Then I would like to see where the Times/Advocate decides to publish the results.

Now, I know that this would be a name recognition type poll, but I would also love to see a CQ or Cook Report that shows how they would call the 4th with each matchup as well.

¹ Crazy Freaking Biatch - or your favorite equivalent. And no, I'm not being mean, I am just calling 'em as I see 'em.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:13:50 AM UTC

no money to raise money (0.00 / 0)

The goofiness never ends.

We did not fundraise. There was no budget for it. But, I've been assured by Democratic groups that if I win the nomination, money will be provided to beat Shays. Still we'd love some donations.

---

by: mikect @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:58:59 AM UTC

What The Deuce Was She Thinking? (0.00 / 0)

Whitnum's website says "the debate went well. Himes canned, vague answers are no match for Lee's knowledge"

---

by: JD @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:01:37 AM UTC