SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DMaA who wrote (203831)11/19/2001 10:15:01 AM
From: Boquacious  Respond to of 769670
 
Pessimistic Pundits

Until a week ago, the media consensus was that the war in Afghanistan was something of a bust. Reporters and commentators tossed around words like "quagmire" and "Vietnam" and spun depressing scenarios about the long dark winter ahead.

That, of course, was before the Northern Alliance rebels routed the Taliban and seized most of the country in a matter of days. Let's look back at some of the skeptics:

• Columnist Charles Krauthammer, Oct. 30: "The war is not going well. The Taliban have not yielded ground. Not a single important Taliban leader has been killed, or captured or has defected. On the contrary."

• New York Times, Oct. 31: "Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam? Is the United States facing another stalemate on the other side of the world? Premature the questions may be, three weeks after the fighting began. Unreasonable they are not."

• Jacob Heilbrunn, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4: The "administration has bungled the challenge. . . . The war effort is in deep trouble. The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it."

• The New Republic, Nov. 8: Bush "is relying on . . . airpower, proxies and Special Operations forces. . . . These three instruments have gotten us exactly nowhere."

• USA Today, Nov. 9: "Just one month into the U.S. war in Afghanistan, military experts increasingly are coming to the same conclusion: Airstrikes and commandos won't be enough to rout the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network."

Whew. No wonder Vice President Cheney couldn't resist gloating: "When you read the Washington press and see what all of the pundits have to offer and some of the talking heads in Washington have to offer, it's nice . . . to be able to remind them that a lot of what they put out over the course of the last few weeks was just dead wrong."

In fairness, some of the critics were arguing that a major commitment of American ground forces would more quickly topple the Taliban. But many now look like baseball announcers warning of defeat during the first inning.



To: DMaA who wrote (203831)11/19/2001 10:15:19 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Have you seen Danny Glover's (the actor) comments??



To: DMaA who wrote (203831)11/19/2001 10:17:01 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 769670
 
well using e.t. logic, e.t. is a fan of Rev. Falwell as she mentions the Rev Falwell. By not mentioning the rapist e.t. is not a fan of mr. bill.

That' my thoughtful conclusion from reading e.t.'s post and argument.

I call this another of the 100% vacant liberal mind proffers.

tom watson tosiwmee



To: DMaA who wrote (203831)11/19/2001 10:49:14 AM
From: E. T.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
No, it was Reagan's apology you missed.eom