The left wing is disparaging your server errors, no conspiracies necessary.

Blue screen of death, here we come.

Marlowe finishes an otherwise informative piece with this:

"Saying that Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse is a prediction that could become self-fulfilling."

Dhoh! It's the saying, not the bungled management! Here, let me try it: I've got a billion dollars. I've got a billion dollars. Dang, it ain't working.

My only question is: why does the Taliban exist at all? After 9-11, why weren't they just obliterated? It certainly would have been justified in the world's eyes.

Blame chatty talking heads all you want, but the neocons have full control of everything and are bungling it all. Americans are supposed to take it and like it?

The reiteration that this administration can do virtually no wrong is REALLY becoming tiresome. As is the fact that ALL Americans, whether they agree with Bush or not, have to PAY for this ineptitude in lives and taxes.

It's amazing that the neocons have complete control of the House, Senate, Executive and Judicial for the last FIVE YEARS, and STILL it's all Clinton's and the liberal's fault.

cogestive wrote "My only question is: why does the Taliban exist at all?"

because they are well-organized w core ideology, financing, & weapons.

that becomes tough to "obliterate"...witness the ETA in Basque, the communist rebels in south america, & the klan here in the states.

nobody said this was ez.

depend on ensuring that the people...stay poor, uneducated, dependent and fearful...

Seriously, as per the statement above, isn't that what liberalism is all about. Think about it!

depend on ensuring that the people...stay poor, uneducated, dependent and fearful...

Seriously, as per the statement above, isn't that what liberalism is all about. Think about it!

All liberals have is fear and hate. It's who they are. They just can't help themselves.

I thought the donks were actually for the Afghanistan war? I can't keep up with their ever changing talking points.

It's dangerous to apply your concepts of a successful country to another country. For example, this article cites privatization of essential government functions as a sign of progress. WHAT???

Privatization may make sense in a stable country such as the US, but in a place such as Afghanistan, the most important thing is for people to gain trust and confidence in their government. One of the easiest ways is to put the government 'stamp' on many of the essential services. Instead, they have privatized services, which in reality indicates that the gov't is simply unable to provide these services. This privatization will lead to the usual graft, corruption, and uneven distribution of resources. You conservatives might think that's a good thing, but I don't.

CJ-The liberal point of view (generalization here) is that Bush should have concentrated his efforts on finishing the job in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. I still don't understand why he has given up on going after Bin Laden, and allowed the Taliban to regroup across the border in Pakistan.
If our forces were not spread so thin, we could help Karzai maintain the security that he so desperately needs to offer the Afghani people. As it is, Afghanistan is becoming a failed state where the Taliban feels free to attack and kill school teachers and destroy the progress that has been made towards reconstruction of that war-torn country. Powerful warlords, who profit off of the illegal heroin trade,complicate the security vacuum, and weaken the fragile hold of the government.
Karzai has been pleading for more help in the press, but we are now in a weakened position to offer it to him. Afghanistan was a training ground for Al Queda, and the invasion there was widely supported by world opinion.
It is not mentioned much, but it is vital to our interests that that country not be allowed to slip into anarchy, and become a breeding ground for terrorism again.
I have to say that I believe Karzai over what is posted here, as most of the "journalistic" efforts on this blog try to paint the Bush administration in the best light possible, and so is suspect!

Kind of like the media claiming violence over there was up a few weeks ago. They really tried hiding the fact that the 500 killed in fighting had been almost exclusively taliban. Pathetic.

CJ,

We are for winning in Afghanistan, but it's hard to do that when you prance-off to bungle an occupation in another coutry.

Speaking of, what have Mehlman and Rove decided is the justification for Iraq this week?

congressive,

Are you completely computer-illiterate? What you are getting is a web page displaying a server error message. The "blue screen of death" was a light blue screen with binary codes that was displayed when Windows crashed. Your only option was to cold-boot your computer. It was really annoying when you were in the middle of a lengthy project and you hadn't recently saved your work.

Fortuntately, Windows XP is more stable and the "blue screen of death" is rare or non-existant.

Third Eye Open

I guess you're admitting that you want to lose the Iraq war? But we better not question your patriotism right? Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Why don't you read the Iraq war resolution? It's all right there. Man, do you far left wing fanatics make it easy! Are there any moderately intelligent donks out there?

A-10

"Are you completely computer-illiterate?"

Remove the computer part and I think you have hit the nail on the head...lol

"Are there any moderately intelligent donks out there? "

It seems only the ones that agree with you....

Congressive,
"Saying that Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse is a prediction that could become self-fulfilling."
Dhoh! It's the saying, not the bungled management! Here, let me try it: I've got a billion dollars. I've got a billion dollars. Dang, it ain't working.”

-So you have the answer? Let’s put your whiney a## in charge and see what happens. Do you REALLY KNOW what is gong on? Or is it in reality what you know is what the “talking heads”, and your liberal biased sources tell you, and that’s ALL you know. Could you handle being in charge? NO. Don’t give us some BS and say, “Because I am a liberal I or we intrinsically know what to do and you neocons are a bunch of idiots.”

“My only question is: why does the Taliban exist at all? After 9-11, why weren't they just obliterated? It certainly would have been justified in the world's eyes.”

-What do you think we should have done, nuke and bomb Afghanistan until it looked like the surface of the moon? It seems that’s what you’re suggesting. You know that’s not reasonable and sane military commander would do that. All our commanders/generals are sane. You know if there is a will to survive they’d find it. As powerful and effective as our armed forces are they are not all knowing, all mighty, supermen and women. I thought I’d remind you of that, you seem to be needing that reminder.

“Blame chatty talking heads all you want, but the neocons have full control of everything and are bungling it all. Americans are supposed to take it and like it?”

-“Full control of everything and are bungling it” 1.) We are not in full control, this is a democracy not a dictatorship. 2.) “bungling it all”, I take that to mean, “Your not doing our liberal way, and it’s not going smoothly as us spoiled Americans have come to expect and demand it should go.” War never goes smoothly or without successes and failures, look at history. Life and history is like that. History will judge what is and is not a success, not you or me, we are not the best judges of current events, we can’t be objective.

“The reiteration that this administration can do virtually no wrong is REALLY becoming tiresome. As is the fact that ALL Americans, whether they agree with Bush or not, have to PAY for this ineptitude in lives and taxes.”

- Like wise this “This administration is bungling it and can do nothing right” is getting tiresome. You know d## well that Bush does not get everything wrong and you know he does the right things too. Who are you to judge if he is inept, have you ever been president? NO, you have not, so what gives you the right to judge? Besides you’re not objective, you have your bias.

“It's amazing that the neocons have complete control of the House, Senate, Executive and Judicial for the last FIVE YEARS, and STILL it's all Clinton's and the liberal's fault.”

-I don’t think we have said it’s “all Clinton's and the liberal's fault “, it just seems that way to you. Things have happened that this or any administration would not have been able to foresee or prevent. That’s life. We can’t always prevent bad things from happening. We don’t have full control of the judicial, the majority of the Supreme Court are liberals, and many judges out there are Clinton appointees. So don’t give us this BS either.

Not all Clinton's and the jabbering moonbats' fault. Just mostly.

CJ,

By the way, are you still licking the wounds to your "intelligence" about your absolutely false assertion that Liberals somehow run the media in this country?

I believe I proved you a liar. Not that that was all that hard to do. Bwahahahaha!!!!

One of my sons is with the 10th Mountain in Eastern Afghanistan. The Rangers, and others, in Mountain Thrust dispatched over 400 "Taliban" with almost no casualties on our side. However, what they found was fighters from elsewhere, much better with weapons and more determined than the average Taliban recruit. This is not good.

NATO will be assuming control of larger parts of the country, mostly (if my info is correct) on the Iranian border areas, where its expected they'll encounter troublemakers from outside the country.

The combination of, say, Chechens and ME Arabs, contesting Afghan territory with NATO troops is a recipe for stalemate and retreat. The situation may not be dire in Afghanistan, but we have long way to go; conditions are dynamic and the enemy will not let this country go without a fight. We'll see.

CJ,

You are truly blind to any reality that exists in our four dimensional universe.

Go back and read the post, I do believe you never responded to my post, just slunk away like the intellectual worm you are.

Rhod,

It seems to be a VERY dynamic situation. My fear would be a bridging of the gap between the battle-hardened Taliban and the foreign fighters, backed-up with collusion and cover by the local warlords.

I think we are going to need more troops there to make sure we don't lose these guys like we did OBL. If we are lucky, perhaps we can get some pull-back from southern Iraq, and bolster the UNs numbers so we can do the job right this time.

TEO, a UCLA study confirms that the media is liberal to moderate. If I had the link or the article handy I'd post it here so that you could read it a weep. So yes they do run the media in this country. It's a fact that is not made up. When I have a chance I will find it and post it for you to read, so that you will no longer be able to say it's a "absolutely false assertion." On this point your dead wrong. You'll just have to wait for the proof.

Keep to the Right,

Are you suggesting that only former presidents have the right to criticize the current president? Also, while you are right that calling the "liberal media" an "absolutely false assertion" is over the top, it is not a black and white issue. For instance, Fox News is a popular channel and is far more blatant with their biases than any other major media outler. I haven't seen the UCLA study you mentioned, but for every study you can find claiming a liberal media bias, you can find one claiming conservative media bias. I wish that both those on the far left and the far right (like this blog) would understand that we don't live in a black and white world. In fact, it's mostly gray.

KttR,

I've read the study, it's very interesting, The problem I have with it, is that is was written by two proffesors who have been writers for noted conservative think-tanks/periodicals prior to this [American Enterprise, Federalist Society, and The American Spectator]. So I find it more than just a bit disingenuous to have two conservatives writing a paper about media bias, that concludes there is a liberal bias. Give it a year and there will be one contradicting this finding, I guarantee it.

Secondly, the editors of all major newspapers are chosen by their conservative bosses, so I find it bit hard to believe that the liberal writers are given much leeway to spin a story that goes against the status quo of the upper eschelon.

Really. Wow. My husband JUST got back from there and that isnt the story told by him and everyone else coming back from there.

TEO, I don't think two liberal professors would have bothered to write a paper on this subject. It's far too easy to dismiss the views of a conservative when your liberal. Of course conservatives often do the same. And just because they are conservative does not necessarily mean they are wrong in their conclusion. It does mean that you have a reasonable reason to be skeptical of their conclusion. They have a natural bias, true enough, but so do you and I. We’ll see if there is ever a contradicting finding. If there is, it will probably be written by liberals and I will have a reason to be skeptical. It will also muddy the waters. To bad their will probably be no moderate or mixed panel study that you and I could find acceptable.

I am skeptical of your “Secondly.” Do you have inside info on that? I don’ think that the average person like me would know that “all major newspapers are chosen by their conservative bosses.” Right now I think your pulling my leg on this point.

KttR,

I can't comment on whether som lib proffesors would bother to write a report like this, but you are right, no matter what happens, the water will get muddied, I'm sure this report was welcomed in conservative circles, and I won't be surprised when these two guys get more money from these "think-tanks" to write stuff for them; Personally I always follow the money.

Dude, who hires Editors? Their boss is the head of the news division for whatever corporation they work for, that would be 9 times out of 10, a Republican. If you were the head of a major news outlet, and you're presented with two individuals who both have similar education and work experience, and one represents an ideology that is compatable with the best interest of the people paying YOUR salary [advertisers; other corporations] and someone who is on the other side of the ideological spectrum, who are you going to hire?

TEO, I don't know where you get your "9 times out of 10" from. Do you have anyway of backing that up? Help a skeptic out here. I do understand your logic about hiring. The media seems to be more about money and ratings than anything else.

Nick,

"Fox News is a popular channel and is far more blatant with their biases than any other major media outler"

Fox News only seems to be blatant in their "biases" to you because you are looking at them from the far left and anything to the right of Pravda is "far-right wing".

I don't seem to remember Fox News taking fabricated documents and attempting to influence a Presidential election. Nor have a string of Administration officials found a new home on the Network News like Russert, Matthews, and Stephanopoulos.

If you are talking about Hannity and O'Reilly, remember that they are political commentators, not journalists. And besides, you have Colmes and Van Susteren on the left to balance out Hannity and O'Reilly. On top of that, Colmes' radio program (which hardly can be considered "right-wing") is on FOx Radio.

What appeals to most Americans about Fox News is that they follow their motto: "We report. You Decide." That is what we expect from a news network. They need to tell us the facts. They do not need to tell us how to think. They also report the bad and the good. They are critical of the Administration when they need to be. And complimentary when the Administration deserves it.

On the other networks, every news story has a negative spin, regardless of the topic. "250,000 new jobs created", but "job creation fell short of projections". "500 WMD munitions found" (Wait, I don't remember ever seeing that lead story), but "stockpiles of WMD promised by the Administration not found". "Anti-terrorist programs result in capture of terrorists", but "Bush authorizes domestic spying program". Unlike Fox, the other networks continually interject their personal bias into the story.

"Give it a year and there will be one contradicting this finding, I guarantee it."

One you will gladly accept with no questions asked, I would imagine.

Of course Fox News seems conservative to liberals. They are so used to the far left agenda being pushed in the media that moderate "fair and balanced" reporting looks conservative in comparison.

You don't need a study to realize the MSM is liberal. Still, the light of truth does occasionally slip out between the cracks. Occasional truths are pointed to by the far left to assert the liberal isn't media. Maybe that's why any truth is allowed through the MSM filter at all.

NOTE: I originally typed "the liberal isn't media, " intending "the media isn't liberal." This was a subconscious mistake I noticed in the preview. Could it be that "liberal" and "media" are synonyms? Think about it.