No More Terrorists in Afghanistan?

RealClearPolitcs has posted a video of Senatorial hopeful, Martha Coakley, making the most asinine statement of the new year.  Apparently, she is under the opinion that we have accomplished all that we could have hoped to in Afghanistan: 

“If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

 

The fact that this woman stands any chance of winning a Senatorial seat is a sad testament to the state of Massachusetts.  Bear in mind, however, that the fact that Mr. Scott Brown is making it more of a race is a sign of hope for the state as well.  To make such blatantly false allegations contrary to sworn testimony of our commanders in the field for the mere hopes of scoring political points is beyond sophistry, and one would not be far if if inclined to consider her actions maleficent.  Let’s listen to the people who know better than this nugatory wannabe-Senator. 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: I would like to provide an overview of the strategic thinking and context behind [President Obama's] decisions, in particular the nexus among al Qaeda, the Taliban, Pakistan and Afghanistan…Put simply, the Taliban and al Qaeda have become symbiotic, each benefiting from the success and mythology of the other..Al Qaeda leaders in particular have stated this explicitly and repeatedly…

…The lesson of the Afghan Taliban’s revival for al Qaeda is that time and will are on their side…Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of al Qaeda…The president’s new strategic concept aims to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and reduce its strength, while providing the time and space necessary for the Afghans to develop enough security and governance to stabilize their own country.

Or how about this…

ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF:  To say there is no serious threat of Afghanistan falling once again into the Taliban’s hands ignores the audacity of even the insurgency’s most public statements…we see every day of collusion between these factions on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border…through brutal intimidation, the Taliban has established shadow governments across the country, coercing the reluctant support of many locals and challenging the authority of elected leaders and state institutions.  Indeed, we believe the insurgency has achieved a dominant influence in 11 of the 34 provinces.

 Testimony from a December 3, 2009 House Armed Services Committee hearing.  Thank you to a co-worker for grabbing this up and sharing it! 

-rj

A Big Yawn

So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:

1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)

2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)

3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)

4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)

5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)

So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid?  After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.

My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.

Another Political Hack Bites The Dust

Melissa Lafsky, who wrote a piece on Huffington Post?in late August?about Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne, has decided to combat the “right-wing,” “troll” responses to her column with…whining. Ms. Lafsky wrote, in a somewhat facetious manner, “Who knows — maybe [Kopechne would] feel it was worth it” in her Huffington Post piece, regarding the latter’s death. Naturally, she is shocked when people are offended (who would have thunk it?).

Most people, when caught out with something controversial, ham-handed or wrong, explain with logic and reason why they voiced such an opinion, or apologize. Joe Klein, for example, after making a rude comment about Charles Krauthammer earlier this year in a Politico article about the latter, did both; George Will, when confronted regarding some global warming claims, simply found more information and used it to back up his points?(though, to be fair,?it turns out Will was incorrect, and even the Washington Post ombudsman corrected him publicly); and Charles Krauthammer provided both evidence and a logical walk-through of his claims in a follow-up to a controversial torture column this year.

The fact is that Ms. Lafsky mocked the unfortunate and highly suspicious death of a young woman with naive hyperbole. Ted Kennedy has done many positive and negative things in his life, and what he did surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne was certainly the lowest point of his career in addition to being probably the most harmful action he committed against his fellow man. While most Americans, including myself, hope and pray he made his peace with God before his passing, he also was never punished through the legal system for his actions and in fact rose to a higher position of power and influence within our political system later in his career. Instead of crying foul, and claiming she had no opportunity for “discussion or debate”- a claim which she discredits only a couple sentences later by admitting she “declined” opportunities to appear on conservative shows- Ms. Lafsky should admit to making an error, briefly explain her point of view, and chalk her initial column off as a mistake. Defending it only makes her appear more the fool.

The Lion Rests His Head (1932-2009)

My mornings generally begin with rolling out of bed to Willie Geist (of Morning Joe fame) and his new show Way Too Early.? He was being assisted by the regulars of Morning Joe in breaking the news of the passing of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy; a burden that no one man could carry on his own.? Even as staunch a Conservative as I am, I cannot help be feel the full weight of this somber moment.? Ted Kennedy was an icon; the personification of liberalism as understood today.? To myself, and many other younger Conservatives, he was the opponent.? We would argue in class, not against teachers and later professors and their beliefs; but against Ted Kennedy and the movement of which he was the avant-garde as if we were engaged in some form of transcontinental dialogue.? No matter how much one disagreed with the man?s views, politics, or personal life, you cannot take away his importance from the left and ultimately from America.

I was reminded of a story I heard while on Capitol Hill.? An older gentleman reminisced about a time when he was a mere intern working for then-Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.? Underneath the House offices and Senate offices are a number of tunnels and a little train system that ferries people between their respective office buildings and the Capitol.? When you are travelling these halls you always run the chance of brushing elbows or exchanging glances with statesmen you see all-too-often on the news.? The makers of history.? This gentleman sat down in one of the carts for the train to head toward the Capitol, and as many people do, stared straight forward in an effort to maintain his invisibility amongst other passerbyers.? His cart quickly filled up with the larger than life Ted Kennedy and his Chief of Staff, which caused the young intern?s heart to jump into his throat.? Senator Kennedy looked at him, smiled and asked who the young intern was, who he was working for, whether he was enjoying DC, et cetera.? The short train ride concluded and both man and young man exchanged farewells, I imagine the Senator?s was more boisterous than the intern being left frozen like a deer in headlights.

Around a month later, the intern was back on the underground train again.? This time only Senator Kennedy sat with him in the cart which rendered the young intern silent again (this gentleman did not go into politics, understandably so).? Senator Kennedy smiled at him, and said, ?I hope you?ll forgive me but I can?t remember your name.? But I would like to know how your internship with Paul [Sarbanes] is going; are you still enjoying it??? You thought the intern was blown away before, now he had a whole new level of admiration for the Massachusetts Senator.

Senator Kennedy was best at that sort of interaction, from what I hear.? He may have met and dined with and drank with over a thousand people between his and the young intern?s two meetings, but he remembered people and their stories.? He was a statesman.? That is all that I have the authority to judge him on.? There will be reminders of his vitriol on the judiciary committee towards Republican Court appointees, his politics and practices, and most of all reminders of that July night in 1969.? I will refrain from speaking ill of the dead for this particular piece, but my hopes are that the man?s death does not become politicized. Ted Kennedy was a symbol after all, so his name and memory will be invoked for years to come.? In the end, he was a statesman and will live in politics long after he lived in our world.

-rj