• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

In my day, never was longer.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Bark louder, little dog.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Hopes High in Afghanistan

Hopes High in Afghanistan

by John Cole|  December 8, 200511:08 am| 83 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs, War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

Afghans are optimistic about the future, and this poll has some pretty stunning results:

Four years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans express both vast support for the changes that have shaken their country and remarkable optimism for the future, despite the deep challenges they face in economic opportunity, security and basic services alike.

An ABC News poll in Afghanistan — the first national survey there sponsored by a news organization — underscores those challenges in a unique portrait of the lives of ordinary Afghans. Poverty is deep, medical care and other basic services lacking, and infrastructure minimal. Nearly six in 10 have no electricity in their homes, and just 3 percent have it around the clock. Seven in 10 Afghan adults have no more than an elementary education; half have no schooling whatsoever. Half have household incomes under $500 a year.

Yet despite these and other deprivations, 77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction — compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.

The entire poll is here. The number that shocks me is the 87% supporting the US led overthrow (which places 87% of Afghan citizens firmly at odds with left-wing icon Cindy Sheehan***).

At any rate, it is difficult to tell what the polls mean, and optimism is not the same as thinking things are going well, but those who think things are going in the right direction certainly seem to be in the majority. Or then again, maybe they are just stoned on all the smack they are producing.

*** Sorry for the latest Sheehrection™. I couldn’t resist. The upside is that this gives several of you the opportunity to tell me what an awful person I am. Again.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Fiscal Insanity
Next Post: One Bad Dude »

Reader Interactions

83Comments

  1. 1.

    Marcos

    December 8, 2005 at 11:32 am

    War in Afghanistan = Good
    War in Iraq = Bad

  2. 2.

    Tractarian

    December 8, 2005 at 11:32 am

    You’re not an awful person, John. You’re simply pointing out what most of us already know – that Cindy Sheehan, though portrayed in the media as the prototypical anti-war Democrat, actually represents only a tiny (but vocal) sliver of the American population.

  3. 3.

    Capriccio

    December 8, 2005 at 11:39 am

    It’s not that you’re awful, JC, it’s just that you’re…well, fixated. Aren’t there enough Lefties afoot spouting opinions that drive you bonkers and who haven’t, you know, actually lost a kid to your goddamn war?

    Long, long past time for a new punching bag, John…and Christmas is coming.

  4. 4.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 11:44 am

    Marcos Says:

    War in Afghanistan = Good
    War in Iraq = Bad

    Notwithstanding all the Afghanistan ‘quagmire’ predictions from many on the left, coupled with their warnings on how the muj were such fierce warriors who had bested the Soviets, Afghan winters would result in so many US soldiers coming home in body bags, Protest marches (remember those? yes, Afghanistand was protested)etc. Notwithstanding those predictions from the left which were wrong and wildly overstated, why is war in Afghanistan = Good, but War in Iraq = Bad ?

  5. 5.

    Brad R.

    December 8, 2005 at 11:45 am

    Circumstances in Afganistan allowed us to implement a smarter post-occupation strategy than in Iraq. We immediately got the UN to help set up an interim government (a real interim gov’t, not the pathetic Iraqi Governing Council that was made up of people who hadn’t been in the country for the last decade), we intentionally allowed Afghanis to take care of basic security needs (and this did mean allowing warlords to run their militias, but so be it), and we kept United States presence to a minimum, mostly relegated to hunting down terrorists.

    And honestly, this was a damn good strategy, but one that couldn’t have worked in Iraq, IMO. Rummy and the neocons simply had no idea how completely devastated Iraq was after a decade of sanctions and two major wars- they were buying Chalabi’s BS about how Iraq was secular, had a strong middle class, etc.

    And John- Cindy is nuts, but I’ll give her a pass since she, you know, lost her son and all.

  6. 6.

    Brad R.

    December 8, 2005 at 11:47 am

    Notwithstanding all the Afghanistan ‘quagmire’ predictions from many on the left, coupled with their warnings on how the muj were such fierce warriors who had bested the Soviets, Afghan winters would result in so many US soldiers coming home in body bags, Protest marches (remember those? yes, Afghanistand was protested)etc.

    Oh. My. God. Darrel, the Afghanistan war had about 90% public support, the most of any war since WW II. The only people seriously protesting it were the hard-core lefties at Berkeley, who are clearly a eensy-weensie minority among the left. Por favor, find better strawmen.

  7. 7.

    Perry Como

    December 8, 2005 at 11:52 am

    Hopes High in Afghanistan

  8. 8.

    Marcos

    December 8, 2005 at 11:57 am

    Notwithstanding those predictions from the left which were wrong and wildly overstated, why is war in Afghanistan = Good, but War in Iraq = Bad ?

    Afghanistan was justified because Bin Laden was there and he was the one behind 9/11. The Afghan war was planned well (Pentagon had the plan drawn out long before 9/11). We used local allies to win the war and had a lot of support from outher countries going in. Things seem to be looking up.

    Iraq was sold as protecting us from WMDs. That didn’t pan out so then it was spreading democracy. Now Iraqis are democratically electing a Shia dominated Islamic state, which is kind of playing into Al Queda’s strategic goal. Iraq planning short-sighted, the implementation was incompetent. Now we’re paying a heavy price, and things aren’t getting any better.

    Yes there were people protesting the Afghan war, but they were much less than the people who protested the Iraq war. The country was united going into Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much. Might have something to do with people not liking being misled.

    In short:

    War in Afghanistan = Good
    War in Iraq = Bad

  9. 9.

    MN Politics Guru

    December 8, 2005 at 11:58 am

    War in Afghanistan = Good
    War in Iraq = Bad

    I completely agree with that. Why was Afghanistan acceptable and Iraq wasn’t? Because Afghanistan actually had ties to 9/11: remember the Taliban? It was clear that Afghanistan itself was never going to bring the terrorists to justice, because it was run by terrorists, so in order to protect the U.S. we needed to intervene, which we did. The only bad thing about Afghanistan is that as soon as Iraq came on the horizon we pretty much dropped the ball on reconstruction. It’s great that the Taliban was overthrown, but we could have done better than a country that is still run by warlords outside of Kabul.

    Contrast that with Iraq: no Taliban, no links to 9/11, no links to terrorists, no WMDs, no serious way of hurting the U.S. So do you see why Iraq is Bad and Afghanistan is Good?

  10. 10.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 12:04 pm

    The only people seriously protesting it were the hard-core lefties at Berkeley,

    And the NY Times front page article on Afghanistan “quagmire” by Johnny Apple.. but point taken. Afghanistan had more support than Iraq, but the invasion of Iraq was supported by a large majority here at that time, 60% to 70% depending on the time of polling.

    In Afghanistan, as Brad points out, we intervened on a small scale by helping a domestic faction, Northern Alliance, and, with some UN support, have largely left the Afghans to work out most of the details. Don’t forget though, that a significant percentage of leftists however, complained that we “abandoned” Afghanistan and told us we needed to significantly increase troop levels there (according to them, we didn’t have adequate troop levels to pursue Osama or to properly re-build the country). Early on, they blamed Bush that Afghanistan wasn’t in better shape.

    These same lefites then turn around and complain that the large number of US troops in Iraq is causing resentment of us as “occupiers.” I think that’s a prime example of wanting to have your your cake and eat it too, wouldn’t you agree?

  11. 11.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 12:07 pm

    And the NY Times front page article on Afghanistan “quagmire” by Johnny Apple..

    That’s your evidence? A single article by one person?

    Darrell, you’re a fucking moron–seriously.

    but the invasion of Iraq was supported by a large majority here at that time, 60% to 70% depending on the time of polling.

    Uh yes, because the Administration deliberately misled us about the threat Saddam posed.

  12. 12.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 12:12 pm

    Now Iraqis are democratically electing a Shia dominated Islamic state

    Except that your fundamental point is false. Iraq’s govt is not an “Islamic state”, but governed by a secular constitution which protects human rights and gives rights to minorities.

    Iraq was sold as protecting us from WMDs. That didn’t pan out so then it was spreading democracy

    WMDs were one of over a dozen justifications given to invade Iraq. Saddam had violated his 1991 terms of surrender countless times over a 12 year period, he was a known sociopathic whackjob who had invaded his neighbors and launched missiles into Israel. And most importantly, he had tons and tons of unaccounted for WMDs. And that fact is not in dispute by anyone

  13. 13.

    Perry Como

    December 8, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    according to them, we didn’t have adequate troop levels to pursue Osama

    And they were proven wrong, considering the speed with which we have captured Osama.

  14. 14.

    Krista

    December 8, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Another way to look at it is who the allies were during each of these wars. The US had a lot more allies during the operation in Afghanistan, did they not? The whole thing just had a lot more support, domestically and internationally. It was when focus was shifted to Iraq that people started to look at each other and go, “Umm…maybe not such a good idea.”

  15. 15.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 12:15 pm

    Uh yes, because the Adminiabout the threat Saddam posedstration deliberately misled us

    Tell us, Disenfranchised whackjob, specifically what did the Bush administration “deliberately mislead” us on?

  16. 16.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 12:17 pm

    And they were proven wrong, considering the speed with which we have captured Osama.

    And more troop levels in Afghanistan was just what was needed to capture Osama in Northern Iran.

  17. 17.

    Perry Como

    December 8, 2005 at 12:22 pm

    And more troop levels in Afghanistan was just what was needed to capture Osama in Northern Iran.

    If he was in northern Iran in 2001-2002 why did we invade Afghanistan?

  18. 18.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 12:24 pm

    specifically what did the Bush administration “deliberately mislead” us on?

    Can’t you read? On the level of the threat that Saddam actually posed. Also the 9/11-Iraq link, the Saddam-Al Qaeda relationship, and the nuclear materials.

    Let me say now that I’m not going to argue with you about this Darrell as it is pointless. You think 1 article by some barely-known guy in which Afghanistan is called a quagmire equals “many on the left” calling it a quagmire.

    You are a delusional fucktard.

  19. 19.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 12:25 pm

    If he was in northern Iran in 2001-2002 why did we invade Afghanistan?

    To rid the nation of Taliban control and Al Queda bases and training camps. Any other questions?

  20. 20.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    Can’t you read? On the level of the threat that Saddam actually posed

    Well, given that CIA head Tenet told Bush it was a guaranteed “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMDs (an assessment shared by the intelligence agencies of France, UK, China, Germany, and Israel), we can all certainly see where Bush “deliberately” misled us

  21. 21.

    Perry Como

    December 8, 2005 at 12:28 pm

    Any other questions?

    Actually, yes.

    A train leaves New York for Boston. Five minutes later another train leaves Boston for New York at twice the speed of the first train. Which train has more America hating liberals on it?

  22. 22.

    les

    December 8, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    Darrell, before you sing the praises of the Iraqi “secular constitution which protects human rights and gives rights to minorities”, you might want to give it a look. All of those rights are conditioned as follows: “as long as it does not violate public order and morality.” Gee, I wonder who will be determining public morality? They’ve already decided that the constitution will not criminalize “honor killing”, in which a woman who is kidnapped may be killed by her family. Keep pitchin’ buddy, it’s a wonderful war.

  23. 23.

    Jorge

    December 8, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    Oh my Gosh – so if Bin Laden was in Northern Iran why in heck did we invade Iraq? Was there a typo?

  24. 24.

    Jorge

    December 8, 2005 at 12:31 pm

    Yes – and the new constitution says that religious leaders can become judges. And that no law in Iraq can go against Islamic law. So, they are going to have religious judges making decisions based on their views of the Koran.

    What in heck does secular mean?

  25. 25.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 12:31 pm

    Guys, Darrell actually considers NewsMax a reliable source.

    Don’t even bother with him.

  26. 26.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    December 8, 2005 at 12:31 pm

    Can you say tunnelvision?

  27. 27.

    Krista

    December 8, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    And more troop levels in Afghanistan was just what was needed to capture Osama in Northern Iran.

    And so troops were sent to Iraq instead of Iran because…?

  28. 28.

    jg

    December 8, 2005 at 12:45 pm

    Religious folk have a certain willful blindness to them. They can’t or won’t see what conflicts with their belief and seem to be viewing all evidence from an entirely different yet ultimately very convenient point of view. Its impossible to talk them out of their belief because they can’t seee things the way you do. Same of radical Bush supporters.
    Coincidence?

  29. 29.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    les Says:

    Darrell, before you sing the praises of the Iraqi “secular constitution which protects human rights and gives rights to minorities”, you might want to give it a look. All of those rights are conditioned as follows: “as long as it does not violate public order and morality.”

    les, in fact I did give it a look months ago. And I think I read it more closely than you did, as you seem to have overlooked these articles

    Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

    Article (2):

    1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

    (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

    (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

    c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

    Jorge Says:

    Yes – and the new constitution says that religious leaders can become judges

    Jorge, where in the constitution does it spell out that “religious leaders” can be judges?

  30. 30.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    Religious folk have a certain willful blindness to them

    Same with leftists, only the leftists also tend to be dishonest

  31. 31.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 1:09 pm

    Hey Darrell–you seem to have forgotten to embolden “A”

    You know the most important part–Afterall why is it listed as A?

    (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

  32. 32.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:11 pm

    They’ve already decided that the constitution will not criminalize “honor killing”, in which a woman who is kidnapped may be killed by her family

    That’s quite a claim. Specifically where in the constitution does it say that? because you seem like a really ‘informed’ type les.

    Saddam allowed for ‘honor killings’. I believe you are confusing law under Saddam with Iraq’s ratified constitution.. that is unless you have a citation from the Iraqi constitution that you would like to show us

  33. 33.

    Blue Neponset

    December 8, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    Guys, Darrell actually considers NewsMax a reliable source.

    Slightly if not totally off topic:

    I don’t remember ever agreeing with anything that Darrell has written here at Balloon-juice but I am glad he is here. He represents a significant minority of the population of our country and if I didn’t hear from him what that minority thinks about the topics of the day I wouldn’t know at all.

    The reason I like Balloon Juice is because it has a good variety of opinion in its comments section. If the Lefties chase away all the non-lefties we will only have John to argue with. I try and often times fail to remember that when something Darrell or another Righty says something that gets my blood up.

    P.S. The over/under on me not following my own advice is three hours and fifteen minutes. If you want in on that action please let me know.

  34. 34.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    Yes Disenfranchised whackjob I saw A). It seems to be directly contradicted by B) and C) as well as other clauses in the constitution

  35. 35.

    Steve

    December 8, 2005 at 1:19 pm

    There’s no way to pretend that anyone other than an absolute fringe was opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan. No matter how much the Right tries to argue that “the Democratic Party is in the grips of the Michael Moore wing!” you can count the votes – exactly one vote against the war in the House, and zero in the Senate. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY – and I certainly won’t try to claim she is mainstream – voted for the war in Afghanistan.

    The fact of the matter is, no matter how often political operatives like Karl Rove try to claim that liberals were a bunch of wusses in the wake of 9/11, the President had broad bipartisan support for Afghanistan, and he pretty much would have had broad bipartisan support for anything he decided to do if he hadn’t squandered it on the ridiculous Iraq mess. Back in October 2002 I remember thinking, “the President still has one freebie to cash in, but he better be right about this one.” Well, he wasn’t. And now the GOP has nothing to do except try and pretend that the Democrats opposed them along because, gosh, they’re just such a bunch of obstructionists.

  36. 36.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    There’s no way to pretend that anyone other than an absolute fringe was opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan

    Well, although the NY Times is left, few would argue they represent the “absolute fringe”. Yet they published a “quagmire” in Afghanistan article on the front page. How do you explain this, if opposition was limited only to the ‘absolute fringe’?

    And now the GOP has nothing to do except try and pretend that the Democrats opposed them along because, gosh, they’re just such a bunch of obstructionists.

    You are confused, it’s the leftist Dems who are now pretending that they never supported the war in Iraq despite having voted for it, who now lie their asses off saying that Bush “doctored” intelligence and similar claims

  37. 37.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 1:25 pm

    Yes Disenfranchised whackjob I saw A). It seems to be directly contradicted by B) and C) as well as other clauses in the constitution

    Actually what I see is that A overrules anything under it. Why else is it listed as A?

    In fact–why is it in there at all? Iraq was secular under Saddam. You can hardly argue that the new Iraq Constitution is a secular document.

    (Like the US Constitution is)

  38. 38.

    Don

    December 8, 2005 at 1:25 pm

    At the risk of introducing some light into this heat and actually talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq, am I the only person not hugely impressed with this survey? I was proud of our work in Afghanistan and thought we did good, though I have some concerns about our commitment to improving it and not having a backslide there. That aside, I’m a little leery of taking these results too seriously.

    The methodology description at http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/998MethodologyNote.pdf indicates that in a nation of 30M they polled 1,039 across 31 provinces, excluding 2 that amount up to only 1.2% of the nation’s population and Zabol for safety issues.

    Hmmm. But what’s the population of Zabol? The CIA factbook doesn’t list by province but a little googling turns up a CENTCOM press release with this line in it.

    “and will feed 82,000 people for 10 days—approximately one-third of Zabol Province’s population”

    So 82,000 * 3 = 246,000. Not a full percentage point but it concerns me somewhat to dismiss an area’s responses when it’s one considered too dangerous to poll. I’d also have liked to see a larger sample set, given the chaos level there.

  39. 39.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    You can hardly argue that the new Iraq Constitution is a secular document.

    I certainly can. Any document which spells out so many protections and rights, particularly minority rights.. coupled with language like this: “No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution” can most definitely be characterized as a secular document. Saddam’s ‘secular’ law made it legal to have honor killings

  40. 40.

    Steve

    December 8, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    I have no problem believing the New York Times employs at least one writer who is a member of the “Michael Moore fringe” that opposed Afghanistan. Am I missing what that proves? I’ll bet they have a couple wingnuts in there too, so let me know if I have license to make an argument that the NYT is a hard-right publication based on one article.

  41. 41.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    In this thread, we have two lefty Dems who have made some pretty astounding claims

    1) “les” claims without citation that honor killings are legal under the Iraqi constitution.

    2) “Jorge” claims that the Iraqi constitution specifically “says that religious leaders can become judges”

    Now this seems to be the modus operandi of the left. Make false claims and hope no one calls you on them. If unchallenged, repeat them as if they are facts

  42. 42.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:36 pm

    I have no problem believing the New York Times employs at least one writer who is a member of the “Michael Moore fringe”

    You must have missed the part about the quagmire article being chosen to be run on the FRONT PAGE of the NY Times

  43. 43.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 1:39 pm

    Oh, and between October 1, 2001, and October 1, 2002, the Times ran nearly 300 articles with the words Vietnam and Afghanistan in them. Again, unless you want to claim that the NY Times is part of the “absolute fringe” I think leftist Dems are running from what they said and did at that time, hoping others would forget

  44. 44.

    srv

    December 8, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    Hmmm. But what’s the population of Zabol?

    Probably about the same as the Green Zone.

  45. 45.

    Don

    December 8, 2005 at 1:48 pm

    Now this seems to be the modus operandi of the left. Make false claims and hope no one calls you on them. If unchallenged, repeat them as if they are facts

    I am for some reason reminded of the classic anti-drug commercial with the boy yelling “I learned it from watching you, okay!?” at his dad.

  46. 46.

    demimondian

    December 8, 2005 at 1:52 pm

    Don — their methodology is statistically sound. They may have introduced some sampling bias towards safety, but their numbers are sufficiently far apart that the result is still sound.

  47. 47.

    demimondian

    December 8, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    Oh, and John? You’re a horrible person. When are we going to start hearing the *good things* about Cindy Sheehan from you?

  48. 48.

    Opus

    December 8, 2005 at 1:55 pm

    Folks,

    Regarding the conversation about Afghanistan — I was in support of the decision to go over there after 9/11, and I’m pleased to read reports of polls suggesting that the people tell the pollsters that they think the country is headed in the right direction (taking that with about the same grain of salt you have to take with any poll).

    I’d also suspect that it’ll keep on heading in the right direction for them for about 10 or 15 minutes after the US military leaves. Which is why I find the following troubling: Time to talk: US engages the Taliban. Source is Asia Times, take it for what you will. My impression is that their writing is usually sober and well-sourced, critical of US but not ideologically hyperventilated. If any of you have deeper insight into this than I I’d be interested to hear your response.

  49. 49.

    Steve

    December 8, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    One vote against Afghanistan in the House, and zero in the Senate. Darrell is truly in deep denial here, trying to claim that opposition to the war in Afghanistan was mainstream among Democrats.

    Since I have Lexis access, I don’t have to rely on the useless Jonah Goldberg to tell me how many times the NYT mentioned Afghanistan and Vietnam in the same article. Here’s the first four hits returned by my search:

    To help seal the border with Afghanistan, the United States has given the Pakistani police an initial $73 million aid package, including five refurbished Vietnam-era Huey helicopters.

    Student deferments kept [Wolfowitz] out of the military draft during the Vietnam War, and he looks back on that war with a kind of scholarly detachment that is in striking contrast to, say, Colin Powell, who served two tours there and regards Vietnam as the paradigm of good intentions gone wrong. Wolfowitz was sympathetic to the war and only later came around to the view that it was “a very costly overreach.” At the same time, he wonders if the American role in Vietnam might have given anti-Communist forces in Asia time to gather strength. “We know the costs of Vietnam,” he says. “They were horrendous.” And then he adds a quintessentially Wolfowitz kicker: “But we don’t know what that part of the world would have looked like today if it hadn’t been.”

    As Henry Kissinger told Newsweek, Rummy wants “to beat back the attitudes of the Vietnam generation that was focused on American imperfection and limitations.”

    It’s this high-handedness that echoes the run-up to Vietnam. The analogy can be overdone, certainly, since today’s armed forces are highly unlikely to find Iraq a military quagmire and no one can even try to make a case for the legitimacy of Saddam’s regime.

    Yes, the NYT was clearly trying to tell everyone that Afghanistan was just like Vietnam. Jonah Goldberg says so!

  50. 50.

    srv

    December 8, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    You must have missed the part about the quagmire article being chosen to be run on the FRONT PAGE of the NY Times

    Egads. I wonder how many times Judy made the front page…

    the Times ran nearly 300 articles with the words Vietnam and Afghanistan in them.

    Thought experiment, Darrell. I’d bet the Times ran more articles with the words 9/11 and Saddam in them in 2003.

    I think leftist Dems are running from what they said and did at that time, hoping others would forget

    Or you’re cherry-picking to make it fit your worldview.

  51. 51.

    Sojourner

    December 8, 2005 at 2:01 pm

    1st—Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

    (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

    Darrell:

    You are incredibly naive if you think that Iraqi women aren’t going to end up with substantially fewer rights than they did under Saddam.

    But then who gives a shit about the women?

  52. 52.

    les

    December 8, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    Yo Darrell, nice quote mine. But if you’re going to ignore the part of the constitution that subordinates individual rights to public morals, you could at least find something that is relevant or contradicts the part I quoted. Can you say Sharia?

  53. 53.

    Orogeny

    December 8, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    Darrell,

    “Now this seems to be the modus operandi of the left. Make false claims and hope no one calls you on them. If unchallenged, repeat them as if they are facts”

    You might want to re-read the Iraqi constitution…you missed a couple of things.

    Article 2 Section 1 states: Islam is the official religion of the state and the basic source of legislation.

    Article 90, Section 2 specifically puts sharia court judges on the Supreme Court. There are only three other countries that do that, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

    Of course, that’s the modus operandi of the right…when someone disagrees with you or criticizes dear leader, scream “LIAR!” at the top of your lungs. Repeat as needed.

  54. 54.

    John S.

    December 8, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    How much thread can a Darrell queer if a Darrell can queer thread?

  55. 55.

    Steve S

    December 8, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    Actually I saw that heroine production is slightly down this year from last year. :-)

    It’s amazing. Afghanistan was the just war. The war this whole nation rallied around and supported.

    It’s just too bad President Asshat had to divert resources from that country into Iraq and polarize the nation.

  56. 56.

    Steve S

    December 8, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    I see Darrell is still trying to make strawman arguments.

    I ask… To what purpose? Afghanistan was universally supported? Why do you want to polarize things by turning that into a big argument?

    Clearly, and this goes to John’s Sheehan moment too… You somehow think you can gain politically. Frankly, I think that does a terrible disservice to the brave men and women who went over their to fight… not for your political capital, but for this nation’s security.

  57. 57.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 2:37 pm

    Steve Says:

    One vote against Afghanistan in the House, and zero in the Senate. Darrell is truly in deep denial here, trying to claim that opposition to the war in Afghanistan was mainstream among Democrats

    What I actually wrote you lying sack of shit

    but point taken. Afghanistan had more support than Iraq, but the invasion of Iraq was supported by a large majority here at that time

    Nowhere did I say it was ‘mainstream’ among Dems to oppose Afghanistan. However, like with Iraq, which also enjoyed significant bi-partisan support, after the shooting started, as with Afghanistan, Dems were quick to take unfair shots. Voting in support of going to war in Afghanistan does not mean that many, many on the left did not start telling us soon afterward that Afghanistan was a “quagmire”, like “Vietnam”, etc.

  58. 58.

    Paul Wartenberg

    December 8, 2005 at 2:38 pm

    It’s good that the Afghanis feel positive about their future, and that overall Afghanistan is on a better, stable footing than Iraq.
    The pity of it is, Afghanistan has a long way to go: the Taliban is still there and still trigger-happy, there’s still 25 plus years of war damage across the countryside that needs fixing, there’s still a thriving drug industry, and there’s still the threat of tribalism that could well pull the country apart (again). It would have been nice if we’d spent the last 3 years fixing Afghanistan which had broad international support instead of focusing on Iraq, which has spread thin our military resources, taken away financial resources that could have aided Afghanistan, and ruined America’s reputation abroad.

  59. 59.

    Steve

    December 8, 2005 at 2:55 pm

    Darrell, as usual, ignores the evidence, preferring to call people a “lying sack of shit” as his rebuttal. Par for the course for a blog troll whom I have wasted too much time with already.

  60. 60.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 2:56 pm

    You might want to re-read the Iraqi constitution…you missed a couple of things.

    Article 2 Section 1 states: Islam is the official religion of the state and the basic source of legislation

    Already answered and refuted above. try reading

    Article 90, Section 2 specifically puts sharia court judges on the Supreme Court

    Here is article 90 of the Iraqi constitution in its entirety:

    Article 90:

    The Federal Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over the following:

    First: Oversight of the constitutionality of laws and regulations in effect.

    Second: Interpretation of the provisions of the constitution.

    Third: Settle matters that arise from the application of the federal laws, decisions, regulations, instructions, and procedures issued by the federal authority. The law shall guarantee the right of each of the Cabinet, the concerned individuals and others of direct contest with the Court.

    Fourth: Settle disputes that arise between the federal government and the governments of the regions and governorates, municipalities, and local administrations.

    Fifth: Settle disputes that arise between the governments of the regions and governments of the governorates.

    Sixth: Settle accusations directed against the President, the Prime Minister and the Ministers. That shall be regulated by law.

    Seventh: Ratify the final results of the general elections for membership in the Council of Representatives.

    Eight:

    A. Settle competency dispute between the Federal Judiciary and the judicial institutions of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region.

    B. Settle competency dispute between judicial institutions of the regions or governorates that are not organized in a region.

    Nowhere in article 90 is there ANY reference to putting “sharia court judges on the Supreme Court” as you claim. Like I said before, lefties repeat these kind of lies as if they are fact until challenged. You have been challenged with citation. At this point you appear to be just another lefty spreading false claims

  61. 61.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    Darrell, as usual, ignores the evidence, preferring to call people a “lying sack of shit” as his rebuttal

    Uh Steve, I blockquoted what I actually said, rather than what you said that I said. I’ll let others draw their own conclusions as to whether or not you are a lying sack of shit. But I hardly ‘ignored the evidence’ as you dishonestly claim

  62. 62.

    Orogeny

    December 8, 2005 at 3:09 pm

    Darrell,

    Read it again. You’re quoting article 91. Article 90 will come just before that.

    It says:

    1st – The Supreme Federal Court is an independent juducial body, financially and administratively, its work and duties will be defined by law.

    2nd – The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia and Law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that shoudld eb passed by 2/3 of the parliament.

    Try shouting “LIAR!” just a little bit louder…I’m sure it will convince everyone if you do.

  63. 63.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    Afghanistan was universally supported? Why do you want to polarize things by turning that into a big argument?

    If you read upthread, by merely pointing out that the NY Times ran a front page article regarding Afghanistan being a Vietnam-like ‘quagmire’, I was immediately called “a fucking moron”. Look, many on the left did call Afghanistan a ‘quagmire’. Now that it’s going well, they are changing their tune pretending they never raised such objections. The author of the NY Time article, Apple, is a classic case in point.

    I would like to belatedly acknowledge Steve’s point on the Vietnam/Afghanistan analogy. It does seem that Goldberg may have overstated the point, but without access to Lexis to see the articles in question, it’s impossible for me to determine how much

  64. 64.

    John S.

    December 8, 2005 at 3:19 pm

    Seriously folks, in regards to Darrell, please heed the posted signs.

  65. 65.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 3:19 pm

    I certainly can.

    Well, you’re right about that…you certainly can. You also certainly will look like a fool when you do.

    The new Iraq Constitution is not a secular document.

  66. 66.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 3:25 pm

    Orogeny Says:

    Darrell,

    Read it again. You’re quoting article 91. Article 90 will come just before that.

    Actually, according to the WPost text, I quoted Article 90 and you quoted article 89, but whatever.
    Article 89:

    First: The Federal Supreme Court is an independent judicial body, financially and administratively.

    Second: The Federal Supreme Court shall be made up of number of judges, and experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law experts whose number, the method of their selection and the work of the court shall be determined by a law enacted by a two-third majority of the members of the Council of Representatives.

    I had not read that portion before and I agree that strengthens your claim. Much more so than the wild-ass claims made that the Iraqi constitution legalizes ‘honor killings’. Mixing some “experts” in Islamic jurisprudence elected by 2/3 majority is something to keep an eye on. But the constitution clearly states: “No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.”

  67. 67.

    Pb

    December 8, 2005 at 3:35 pm

    Let’s try this again:

    Going after those who attacked us on 9/11 (no, it wasn’t Saddam): *Good*.

    Not going after them: *Bad*.

  68. 68.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 3:39 pm

    Oh, and for those of you cherry-picking the Iraqi constitution who ‘support’ Afghanistan, but opposed going into Iraq, would you please point me to your objections over the Afghanistan constitution which claims up front in the very first Article that “Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic”? Funny I don’t recall hearing any such objections or concerns from you lefties. Only Afghanistan = Good, Iraq = Bad. When you’re an unprincipled hypocrite, you can get away with those types of double standards I suppose

  69. 69.

    Orogeny

    December 8, 2005 at 3:41 pm

    Darrell,

    The version I was referring to is on npr.org, not sure why, but their numbering is different than other translations.

    Since every translation that I’ve found (npr, wapo, heritage.org, nyt) says that Islamic law is the basis for the constitution and all other law and the provisions of that document and those laws will be interpreted by Sharia judges and that no law can be passed that contradicts the rules of Islam, your statement that the Iraqi constitution is a “secular document” seems to be kind of a stretch.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

  70. 70.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 3:43 pm

    Since every translation that I’ve found (npr, wapo, heritage.org, nyt) says that Islamic law is the basis for the constitution and all other law and the provisions of that document and those laws will be interpreted by Sharia judges and that no law can be passed that contradicts the rules of Islam, your statement that the Iraqi constitution is a “secular document” seems to be kind of a stretch.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

    What part of “No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established” don’t you understand?

  71. 71.

    Orogeny

    December 8, 2005 at 3:49 pm

    My support of the war against the Taliban had nothing to do with making Afghanistan a western democracy. I wanted the government to catch the bastards who hit the WTC and to punish the government officials that supported them.

    Once we beat the Taliban and had Al Quaeda on the run, I would have favored pulling out of Afghanistan and placing the continued pursuit of OBL anbd AQ in the hands of the FBI and Interpol. Unless they are directly tied to a government, terrorists are simply criminals and should be treated as such.

  72. 72.

    Orogeny

    December 8, 2005 at 3:54 pm

    Darrell,

    What do you think the “rights and freedoms” stipulated by our own Constitution would be if Pat Robertson, Don Wildmon, Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell were in charge of interpreting them? Think things might be a tiny bit less secular?

  73. 73.

    Jorge

    December 8, 2005 at 3:58 pm

    Darrell,
    I’ve heard argued that the “rights and basic freedoms” clause and the “based on Islamic law” bits are actually going to cause a fairly big problem because a strict interpreation of the Koran can and will directly fly against some of those basic freedoms.

    The question seems to be whether the basic freedoms clause supercedes the Islamic law clause.

  74. 74.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 4:21 pm

    The question seems to be whether the basic freedoms clause supercedes the Islamic law clause

    I agree with that statement. The constitution seems to contradict itself

  75. 75.

    John S.

    December 8, 2005 at 4:22 pm

    Please Don’t Feed the Trolls

  76. 76.

    John S.

    December 8, 2005 at 4:24 pm

    I agree with that statement. The constitution seems to contradict itself

    Holy crap! Something I can agree with Darrell on…

    Next stop, dogs and cats living together.

  77. 77.

    Darrell

    December 8, 2005 at 4:26 pm

    What do you think the “rights and freedoms” stipulated by our own Constitution would be if Pat Robertson, Don Wildmon, Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell were in charge of interpreting them?

    I’m not sure that mixing in some experts in Islamic law with other judges, all of whom have to be approved by a 2/3 majority is the same thing as Dobson and Falwell running the Supreme court, but nonetheless you do raise a legit area of concern. Given the contradictions in the constitution, we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out. My gripe started with the absolutist statement upthread that Iraq was a “Shia dominated Islamic state” followed by some of the other wild-eyed characterizations (legalized ‘honor killings, etc)

  78. 78.

    Steve S

    December 8, 2005 at 5:28 pm

    If you read upthread, by merely pointing out that the NY Times ran a front page article regarding Afghanistan being a Vietnam-like ‘quagmire’, I was immediately called “a fucking moron”.

    Can you blame them? I asked you how it is that with overwhelming support, you are building a strawman and the only thing you have to support your position is one single article?

    Look, many on the left did call Afghanistan a ‘quagmire’. Now that it’s going well, they are changing their tune pretending they never raised such objections. The author of the NY Time article, Apple, is a classic case in point.

    Again… How many? a dozen? four? Cindy Sheehan?

    So let me get this straight. Since you believe cindy Sheehan speeks for all of the left, then that means that Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler speeks for you, right?

    That is what you are arguing, correct?

    If that’s the way you want it, then yes you are a fucking moron.

  79. 79.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 8, 2005 at 8:06 pm

    I asked you how it is that with overwhelming support… and the only thing you have to support your position is one single article?

    And no doubt that is “proof” enough for Darrell. Like I said, he is a fucking moron.

  80. 80.

    BIRDZILLA

    December 8, 2005 at 9:39 pm

    Looks like CINDY SHEEHAN has wated her time with her little band of peace pansies why dont they just go home and celebrate christmas with a bowl of bug infested rice in muddy water

  81. 81.

    Sojourner

    December 8, 2005 at 10:00 pm

    The constitution seems to contradict itself

    Not necessarily. Fundamentalists don’t believe that “morality” laws against abortion, birth control, women’s rights, etc. restrict people’s freedom.

  82. 82.

    Marcos

    December 9, 2005 at 11:36 am

    Darrell, you wrote:

    Only Afghanistan = Good, Iraq = Bad. When you’re an unprincipled hypocrite, you can get away with those types of double standards I suppose

    That means you’re calling me an unprincipled hypocrite.

    Ok, here I go.

    You are so insecure with your world view that you can’t stand it when anyone challenges it. You are clearly in the minority, and it’s a scary place for you to be, so you lash out by name calling because you have no strong arguments to rely upon.

    Marcos

  83. 83.

    Darrell

    December 9, 2005 at 6:20 pm

    That means you’re calling me an unprincipled hypocrite

    Apologies Marcos, I shouldn’t have quoted you. As I stated in my post, the unprincipled hypocrites are the ones cherry-picking the Iraqi constitution for evidence of islamic influence, while silent on the issue of Afghanistan’s constitution which says up front that it it an “Islamic Republic”, something Iraq’s constitution does not do. Double standards without a doubt.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • 🐾BillinGlendaleCA on On The Road – BillinGlendaleCA – Death Valley (Mar 21, 2023 @ 10:37am)
  • azlib on Late Night Open Thread: Schadenfreude Shots All Round! (Mar 21, 2023 @ 10:34am)
  • schrodingers_cat on Tuesday Morning Open Thread: Smorgasbord (Mar 21, 2023 @ 10:33am)
  • Betty Cracker on Tuesday Morning Open Thread: Smorgasbord (Mar 21, 2023 @ 10:32am)
  • SiubhanDuinne on Tuesday Morning Open Thread: Smorgasbord (Mar 21, 2023 @ 10:32am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!