Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

The defense bill President Barack Obama will sign into law on Wednesday contains a new provision that would pay Taliban fighters who renounce the insurgency, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Tuesday. The provision establishes a program in Afghanistan similar to one used in Iraq where former fighters were re-integrated into Iraqi society, Levin told Reuters.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

nanc

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"The provision establishes a program in Afghanistan similar to one used in Iraq where former fighters were re-integrated into Iraqi society"

YEAH!

This will be another Thread where the Clueless Wingdings Display the Sincerity of their Opposition by Railing against the very same thing they used to defend.

RedNeckVille chimes in with his full, unwavering, tacit support for paying off Taliban.

"RedNeckVille chimes in with his full, unwavering, tacit support for paying off Taliban."

#2 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-28 10:52 AM

Apposed to Bush's 43 million dollar check to the Taliban just weeks before 9-11. Remarkably an item I have never heard you complain about.

But sure. I support it ----- Money is the Only thing you and your right-wing brothers seem to worship without waiver

Oh, and I didn't complain about it when the Bush admin instituted this policy in Iraq, so why should I now.

Principles son --- look in up!

"This will be another Thread where the Clueless Wingdings Display the Sincerity of their Opposition by Railing against the very same thing they used to defend. "

While the other side defends what they used to attack.

Party members, DNC and GOP, are unthinking hacks. Is that your point?

I support it

#4 | Posted by Redneckville at 2009-10-28 11:14 AM

I know that you support paying the Taliban.

"Party members, DNC and GOP, are unthinking hacks. Is that your point?"


Duh!
Anyone who rallies to the defense of a person, (or conversely defends them) simply because they have an R or a D suffix to their name ----- is Exactly what you describe.


.......time to cut our losses and leave Afghanistan........

........nothing to be won there.........

Now I know....October Marks Deadliest Month for U.S. in Afghanistan....but....I must not hurry........since the elections....come up in November......and we must protect.......our powerbase......that is all.


-Obamaprompter

Great news. Nice to see him continue to do things differently than the last guy.

Keep it up!

Hey it worked in Iraq. Seriously.

pay them with the dust that rises from us leaving.

Didn't W. Bush pay Sunnis to stop fighting prior to the widely-acclaimed "Surge" in Iraq?

Wonder where a person could sign up for some of that "obama-money"

Isn't that Detroit?

...but yeah, time to GTFO Afghanistan.

Good idea.

Next, let's pay criminials to stop robbing, stealing, raping, abusing, selling drugs, etc.

This could start many on a new career path!!

WOO HOO!!!

The problem with going along with blackmail is, it never ends. This is what Letterman understood.

GTFO

In other news, "US may pay angry Americans to shut up."

Great plan. First we pay the Taliban to fight the Russians and now we will pay them not to fight us. Who's smarter, the goat herders in Afghanistan or the goat fuckers in Washington?

Real Taliban won't accept money. They didn't do it in 1988, either.

The U.S. is already so broke now they can't even pay attention...

Go cash your SS check, Doc.

They are too smart to accept paper greenbacks,
they probably will demand gold, and nuclear weapons...

"The problem with going along with blackmail is, it never ends. This is what Letterman understood."

Tell that to the guys who are getting shot at.
Hell yeah, if we can pay Taliban to end the insurgency and SAVE AMERICAN LIVES, what is the question here????

ONly problem is that, very likely, LETUSPREY is right. These guys are religious fanatics.

No problem. We pay people in this country to quit working. No big deal.

Who else wants some free money?

It grows on trees, just like beef.

Don't believe me? Ask Greenpiece.

No, it's not typo. Don't get your panties in a knot, Zat.

An extension of Obama's "spread the wealth around" philosophy. If it works to keep union members from imposing their thuggery, why not the Taliban?

Now we can see why the Taliban didn't want to see another republican administration in Washington.

#11 | Posted by Manypaths - the last guy paid iraqi insurgents for the same dayamed thing! Get your poop in a group.

bush appeasement

obama appeasement

change...

The choice of whether to pay off members of the Taliban is hardly an economic consideration. The amount one American death costs could pay off many Taliban, the costs associated with the deaths during this past month will be astronomical. American deaths aren't only tragic, they're also expensive.

"Now we can see why the Taliban didn't want to see another republican administration in Washington.


#29 | Posted by HopeyChangey at 2009-10-28 09:33 PM"

Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah.....www.washingtonpost.com

From the piece:

And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend.

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group."

Yes, well democratic operatives posting such comments don't really count though.

So the Taliban will once again be in the employee of the US Government. The last time was in March 2001 when we gave them 45MILLION Dollars for drug intradiction.

Larry

And Obama will count them as additional jobs created by his administration.

#35 - yeah, howzat hopey-dopey-changy thingy going for U.S.?

Just great, thanks! Still cleaning up the disaster the last President left. Gonna take awhile. You have room to even talk about Afghanistan after W ignored it for 8 years? Pfft

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,"
~~~~
"Yes, well democratic operatives posting such comments don't really count though."


You dope. Don't you see that the extremists hope for another militant President - especially one who's "joked" about his intention to "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" in order to rally support?

"They did this to us. Therefore, we've gotta do that to them!"

W. Bush did his BEST to defeat secularism, and ensure that Islamic fanaticism took hold, during his term.

Sorta like he did for the militant Christians in this country...

...shake the fundies, and see what they say!



Why are we bothering with the Taliban? We never had an issue with them before 9/11, so why now?

I always thought it was Al-Qaeda we were after and they're now in Pakistan. Ignore the Taliban. They will never be defeated and there's really no need to do so.

Anyone know whatever happened the Northern Alliance?


How does the President think this pay-off deal will work with those who believe that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

That is.. as in Iraq the WBush-era payoff scheme continues in Afghanistan. Therefore IF some group wants to make dough all they have to do is attack the US or the West (Europe et al)? How many are you going to pay off? It's like HEY, they (whoever that is) might as well open a franchise!

Reinstate the draft! Draft a million souls and GO TO WAR! Finish Iraq like it should have been AND Afghanistan and whoever else!! G## D### IT TO H### anyway!!!!

Reinstate the draft! Draft a million souls and GO TO WAR! Finish Iraq like it should have been AND Afghanistan and whoever else!! G## D### IT TO H### anyway!!!!

#42 | POSTED BY MASSAI AT 2009-10-28 11:43 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Acute case of Pusskin's Disease

Can't even TYPE "bad words" ON THE INTERNET...LOL.

What a failfag.

I always thought it was Al-Qaeda we were after and they're now in Pakistan.


Sez who? The US military?

And they've been right about everything, yeah? LOL


Anyone know whatever happened the Northern Alliance?


They're the Govt. of Afghanistan, dude.

Genius.. Let's give a bunch of zealots, who really hate us after we killed them and their families, a big chunk of money. Nah, they wouldn't think of using that for bad... Are there any smart people left in this country? If there are, they sure as shit aren't in charge.

and the Taliban will pool all the checks together and buy moor explosives.

We should pay them in lead served straight to the head until they are dead.

"...pool all the checks together and buy moor explosives."

A pun!

A pun!


A dumroo!

can you just walk up and say i am an reformed Taliban and get a check and will that be true for the Taliban in america,if so i have some Taliban roots,where do i sign?

Anyone know whatever happened the Northern Alliance?

back to being brutal warlords with the support of the NATO euroweenies. Plus ca la change,plus ca la meme chose...

Paying the taliban not to attack? Like Bush paying al queda in Iraq not to attack? You know, the Better than D-Day (TM (c) RNC)surge plan? Might work, at least until the paying becomes karsick's responsibility and the money "disappears" as it did in Iraq when malarky took over the paying.

This will be another Thread where the Clueless Wingdings Display the Sincerity of their Opposition by Railing against the very same thing they used to defend.

#1 | Posted by Redneckville at 2009

I think you have us confused with all of the goddamn democrats who ignore RANGEL still in the chair

and who not only ignore this GREYSON ASSHOLE but like the president.....APPROVE OF his statesments even if tacitly.,.


I dont see anything wrong with this if if achieves the objective but the FACT is,...it wont work without security.

When will we learn problems aren't solved with money... I guess the practices of all these trust-fund kids and those bailed out by their parents time-after-time have taken root as being acceptable. What's a dollar to these people spending it after all?

The leaders of old would bitch-slap all of us in this spoiled-ass society.

Danegeld is the subject of a poem by Rudyard Kipling. It ends in the following words:

"It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

I know that you support paying the Taliban.
#7 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-28 11:45 AM
Beats Paying off Al-Qaeda, like bush did ---- much to your approval at the time.

Anyway, besides the fact that Bush gave the Taliban 43 million of our tax dollars to the Taliban just weeks before 9-11, wasn't it the wingding meme that "Iraq was the Central Front in Fighting Al-Qaeda" (bush's words, words you defended vigorously)?
Perhaps you need to be reminded that it wasn't the Taliban, who attacked us, but rather Al-Qaeda and you silly boobs defended Bush's policy of paying off Al Qaeda, because bush said Iraq was full of al Qaeda since we "defeated al-Qaeda in Afghanistan" (the justification for going to Iraq, again as Bush claimed and you defended).
So with that I once again illustrate that you stupid fucks gave money to the people who attacked us and now you just look stupid attacking obama for the same thing you cheered bush in doing --- except obama isn't paying the people who attacked us (like bush did).

www.nytimes.com

NEW LONDON, Conn., May 23 President Bush, addressing head-on the criticism that Iraq has turned into another Vietnam, argued today that withdrawing from Iraq would be dangerous because, unlike the enemy in Vietnam, terrorists in Iraq have the capability and desire to strike Americans at home.

In a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy here, Mr. Bush also described what the White House called previously classified intelligence to build his case that Osama bin Laden is trying to turn Iraq into a "terrorist sanctuary" from which Al Qaeda can plot against the United States.

www.vdare.com

Launched last year, the "surge" was the extra 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq. These few extra troops, Americans were told, would finally supply the necessary forces to pacify Iraq.
This claim never made any sense. The extra troops didn't raise the total number of U.S. soldiers to more than one-third the number every expert has said is necessary in order to successfully occupy Iraq.
The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack U.S. forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "U.S.-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack U.S. troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al-Qaeda.


Obviously Bush was paying Al Qaeda with your tax dollars ---- the ones who attacked us on 9-11. And you people went to the mat to defend him.

Those priting presses are certainly working overtime. Can you believe how much this idiotic, clueless administration is spending?

I thought we did not negotiate with terrorist!

I thought we did not negotiate with terrorist!

I guess you missed that whole Iran-Contra thingie back when Ronnie Raygun was running the show...

The leaders of old would bitch-slap all of us in this spoiled-ass society.

So true!

"I thought we did not negotiate with terrorist!"

Now that Obama is pres, we call them "conventional warfare challenged." Didn't you get the memo? It was at the bottom after the part about the government run health care first being called "public option" and now the "competitive option."

And just think. After we rename the failing, miserable public schools "competitive schools", test scores will soar!

Barack Hussein Obama -- Change the name from pull to tow -- It's all a dog and pony show -- Mmm ... Mmm ... Mmm

He's even changed "pedophile supporting Act Up radical" to "Safe Schools Czar."


And just think. After we rename the failing, miserable public schools "competitive schools", test scores will soar!

#60 | Posted by HopeyChangey at 2009-10-29 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:Needs to change name to WhineyBitchy

It was done in Iraq and it worked and it would be one hell of a lot less costly than our current tactics. BTW and far cheaper than building stadiums for the overpaid NFL.

Who came up with that STUPID idea?

I'll give you $100 if you don't punch me in the nose. WOW!!!!!!

"Why are we bothering with the Taliban? We never had an issue with them before 9/11, so why now?"
... The TB provided a safe haven for AQ organization and training and sided with them during the 01 invasion...

"I always thought it was Al-Qaeda we were after and they're now in Pakistan. Ignore the Taliban. They will never be defeated and there's really no need to do so."
... AQ bought them off before, they'll do it again. Most TB don't have a clue as to the big picture, they're members of a warrior culture fighting for what they percieve as the winning side, religeous zeleotry or a paycheck.


"Anyone know whatever happened the Northern Alliance?"
... Some former NA leaders now have summer homes in Kabul, and cabinet positions to go with. Some are dead, some have been relegated into obscurity. The ISAF Euro forces used them extensively (their area of operations) but the NA coalition is so loose and convoluted it's hard to keep them from each others throats.

IMHO... paying moderates to switch sides is good use of tactical, as opposed to strategic, diplomacy. Give a local Afghan the authority and prestige of local security enforcement and you place him right into the role you want him to play, and that he wants to be effective in as well (and be much more reliable than ANP). The zeleots will do what they're gonna do, but when you pit Afghan against Afghan in a turf battle, step back and watch the sparks fly. Straight up mean lil' bastards...

If the candidates for this money are chosen by the right people, i.e. the military (SOF) and spooks who have been sitting in the hooches for years now there is a good chance it will help. They know who will can be bought and who'll just take the money to finance the next IED campaign...

I think it is going to be interesting to hear Tosser's answer to the tongue lashing Hilary has been giving the Pakistanis. She tells an entirely different version of what is going on over that than he, far from the Pakistanis confronting the terrorists it is more like they concede parts of their country over to the Taliban. She even had the nerve to openly question our wisdom of giving them military aid in the future and in the past.
I'm thinking Tosser will have some strong words for her but his credibility dropped a long ways today.

I think it is going to be interesting to hear Tosser's answer to the tongue lashing Hilary has been giving the Pakistanis.


What "tongue lashing"? All I have heard or read about is her trying to be extra friendly.

The only thing she did say was, the American Govt. is convinced Bib Ladin is hiding in Waziristan.

But now that Waziristan is being turned over, it looks like no Bib Ladin.. so far.

So she is worried about how stupid America would look when finally, it is clear to everyone that Bin Ladin was never in Pakistan. LOL

but his credibility dropped a long ways today.


Just because I think you don't ever know what you are talking about? LOL

Hillary:

But after pressing her message the US desire to turn a new page in its relations with Pakistan after mistakes of the past she appeared to get annoyed during talks with senior editors and business leaders.

The most senior US official to visit since President Barack Obama put the nuclear-armed state at the heart of the war on Al-Qaeda, Clinton took issue with Islamabad's position that the Al-Qaeda leadership is not in Pakistan.

Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002,' Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in the country's cultural capital, Lahore.

I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to,' she added.

Maybe that's the case; maybe they're not gettable. I don't know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,' she added.


Well, despite her insisting that the sky isn't blue, it looks like it is.

There doesn't appear to be any Bin Ladin in Waziristan.

Don't get me wrong... there is a chance you might read in the papers "Pak army kills Bin Ladin", but so far, there is no evidence, no signs, that he was ever there.

Mushi made an idiot of America and took all your money trying to "fight" against a guy who was never here. LOL

Go here for updates on what is happening in Waziristan.

www.drudge.com

Still no sign of Bin Ladin. hahahahahahahahaha

Hillary can keep insisting that the sun rises from the west.

And here is what other Pakistanis think of this silly old woman:

forum.pakistanidefence.com

--------------------------
Quote: " ... it was 'hard to believe' that no one in Pakistan's government knew where al Qaeda leaders were hiding, ... "

It is also hard for us to believe that the US Armed Forces (with a Defense Budget US $ 680 Billion this year!) + NATO Forces in addition to their world famous intelligence agencies couldn't find Al Qaeda + Taliban Leaders in Afghanistan! For the sake of comparison, our Defense Budget is about US $ 5 Billion/annum!

Don't blame us for your incompetence and shortsightedness. There was no need to attack either Iraq or Afghanistan.
----------------------------

I'm puzzled she couldn't find out about Bill getting "serviced" by White House staff right under her eyes.

-----------------------------

Hillary Clinton said yesterday to Talat Hussein, that "we can either talk about the past or move on"

The same can be said to her facist thinking with a hidden anti-Pakistani approach.

------------------------------

So she's basically come here and insulted us by saying we're all liars and deceivers.

Hmmm, what a noble way to win over a country where anti-Americanism is at an all time high.

-----------------------------

Well, there you have the true face of the devil. The illusion that these Americans are here to build a credible partnership has been broken apart.

------------------------------

Well, mrs Clinton... In the white house you did not know that your husband was getting smoked by mr Lewinsky and he lied on the news several times "I did not had sex with that woman, mrs Lewinksy....". Here we surely do not know where OBL is... And people are not lying cause they are not with your side...

----------------------------

hahaha....what a blonde--idiot! And how come US after spending nearly a trillion dollar in Afghanistan for 9 years still doesn't know where OBL is??

----------------------------

"I think it is going to be interesting to hear Tosser's answer to the tongue lashing Hilary has been giving the Pakistanis. She tells an entirely different version of what is going on over [there]..."

Actually, I wouldn't trust a thing Shrillary has to say - at least without a thorough fact-checking.

She IS a primary member of a world-renowned crime-family, after all!

Despite the fact that Tosser absolutely loves to rub our collective noses in our foreign policy failings, I trust his interpretation of what's happening in that part of the world much more than the official government explanation(s)...

I trust his interpretation of what's happening in that part of the world much more than the official government explanation(s)...


Thank you.

The proof of who is correct will be seen soon enough.

If there is no sign of Bin Ladin ever having been in Waziristan... and we haven't found any so far... it means that whatever the American Govt. has been telling Americans for the last 9 years has been a lie.

It's obvious why Shillary is worried.

What does she want Pak army to do? Plant evidence that "O'binbin was here"?

Is O'binbin going to be the next BigFoot?

We found traces of another guy who is said to be the leader of German al-Qaeda cell, or some such thing.

Still no trace of O'binbin.

farm3.static.flickr.com

If he was ever here, we'll find it. If not, then Shillary... and the American Govt... have fooled you all for 9 years.

Ha! Spud just read about a new movie and it's title instantly made Spud think of Tosser.

Coming to Amreeka

Amreeka is a sweet-natured film about the experiences of a Palestinian woman and her teenage son when they emigrate to Illinois.

The film is set in 2003, at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, so the Arab experience in America is fraught with extra tension. What distinguishes Amreeka -- the Arab word for America -- is a superb cast and the director's ability to tell her tale with unexpected humour.

Be Well.

Amreeka -- the Arab word for America


It's an Urdu word too.

There goes the theory everyone had that I was using the name "Amreeka" as an insult. LOL

It really is called that.

There goes the theory everyone had that I was using the name "Amreeka" as an insult. LOL

Lolz indeed! :>D

Nyt Tosser.

Be Well.

/Well and truly gone now.
//Someone tell the trolls it's safe to come out now
///Well... safer anyways.


This bail-out money policy is getting silly.


Article 104 of the UCMJ states:

"Any person who

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."

Elements.

(1) Aiding the enemy.

(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and

(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.

(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;

(b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;

(b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and

(c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.

(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and

(b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.

(5) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;

(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

Explanation.

(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.

(2) Enemy. For a discussion of "enemy," see paragraph - 23c(1)(b).

(3) Aiding or attempting to aid the enemy. It is not a violation of this article to furnish prisoners of war subsistence, quarters, and other comforts or aid to which they are lawfully entitled.

(4) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. An enemy is harbored or protected when, without proper authority, that enemy is shielded, either physically or by use of any artifice, aid, or representation from any injury or misfortune which in the chance of war may occur.

(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.

(b) Intelligence. "Intelligence" imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part.

(c) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also - paragraph 29c(3).

(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(c) Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.

Lesser included offense.

For harboring or protecting the enemy, giving intelligence to the enemy, or communicating with the enemy. Article 80attempts

Maximum punishment.

Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct

...just sayin'...

Personally, I think that's just Obama's way of funding them.

Those folks hate us...and it's based on religion.

All the money in the world isn't going to stop them from harming us, or wanting to when they believe that killing us will give them a higher place in heaven.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable