[Update, 2:34 pm Eastern: Audio and video clips from the report posted.]
Despite the change in administration, CNN’s Michael Ware, who regularly issued doom-and-gloom reports on Iraq in past years, bluntly stated during a report on Thursday’s Anderson Cooper 360 that “America cannot win the war in Afghanistan...with bombs and bullets,” and offered that the only solution to the attacks on NATO troops was “cutting deals” with the Taliban and its leader, Mullah Omar.
Ware made this impolitic remark from the middle of the thoroughly Islamist border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The correspondent presented clips with interviews with Pakistani military and intelligence officials, and advanced the notion that Pakistan could serve as a mediator in such “deals” with the al Qaeda ally [audio clips from the report available here].
After giving a dramatic description of the region he had traveled to, Ware delivered his personal assessment of the Afghan campaign:
WARE: To put it simply, America cannot win the war in Afghanistan. It certainly can’t win it with bombs and bullets, and it can’t win it in Afghanistan alone. But part of the answer lies here, where I’m standing, in these mountain valleys in Pakistan on the Afghan border, because this is al Qaeda and Taliban territory. Right now, there’s as many as 100 Taliban on that mountaintop between the snowcapped peaks and amid those trees. They’re currently under siege from local villagers, who are driving them from their bunkers. But at the end of the day, it’s the Pakistani military who tolerates the presence of groups like the Taliban, and it’s not until America can start cutting deals with these people that there’s any hope of the attacks on American troops coming to an end.
It would seem that the Afghan villagers aren’t following the CNN correspondent’s advice. He then introduced Omar as the person that the U.S. would have to negotiate with: “The key leader the U.S. may have to deal with is this man- Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed cleric who actually created the Taliban and led its regime- the man who, after the 9/11 attacks, sheltered Osama bin Laden, choosing war with the U.S., rather than surrender bin Laden. Even with a $10 million reward on his head, Mullah Omar has defied all American attempts to capture or kill him.”
Despite this summary, Ware, as he introduced his first clip from his two interviews with Pakistani offficials, made a unsurprising revelation about the government of Pakistan: “Now, for the first time, in this CNN interview, the Pakistan military concedes it still maintains contact with the Taliban. At the military headquarters, we met Major General Athar Abbas, who concedes the army’s links with the Taliban were toned down after 9/11.” After Abbas’s admission, Ware continued that “more than talking to the Taliban, the general says the Pakistan military can actually get the Taliban to sit down with the United States and broker a cease-fire.”
The correspondent then introduced the second Pakistani official he had interviewed, “[f]ormer CIA ally General Hamid Gul, once the head of Pakistan’s equivalent of the CIA, known as the ISI, he is famed as the godfather of the Taliban.” This description of Gul is quite appropriate, but it doesn’t completely reveal the extent of the former ISI chief’s anti-Americanism- in 2003, the Pakistan Daily Times reported that Gul predicted that “God will destroy the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever it will try to go from there.” He further added that “The Muslim world must stand united to confront the US in its so-called war against terror which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let’s destroy America wherever its troops are trapped.” Ware also described Gul as “one of the men who says he can help work that deal” between the U.S. and the Taliban:
GUL: The guarantees can be given, no problem.
WARE (off-camera): How? In terms of American national interests, who does America need to dialogue with?
GUL: Mullah Omar, nobody else.
WARE (voice-over): Mullah Omar, the most important Taliban leader- but to get him and the other Taliban to the table, Pakistan wants something in return. It wants the United States to use its influence to rein in Pakistan’s number-one military rival, India.
Ware concluded his report with another unsurprising revelation: “India’s close association with the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan worries the Pakistanis, and the Pakistanis accuse India of supporting armed separatists in one of Pakistan’s provinces. Senior U.S. officials tell CNN the Obama administration is willing to raise those concerns with India, and that the U.S. is willing to talk with Mullah Omar and other Taliban commanders.”
MICHAEL WARE (voice-over): I came to these mountains to unravel how the Taliban in Afghanistan are based from here across the border in Pakistan. In these remote mountain valleys of Pakistans Northwest Frontier Province, the Taliban can hide, train, smuggle weapons, and launch military strikes against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. For generations, the border here has been little more than a vague blur among the peaks- and that is what is crippling the American effort in Afghanistan.
WARE: (on-camera): To put it simply, America cannot win the war in Afghanistan. It certainly can’t win it with bombs and bullets, and it can’t win it in Afghanistan alone. But part of the answer lies here, where I’m standing, in these mountain valleys in Pakistan on the Afghan border, because this is al Qaeda and Taliban territory. Right now, there’s as many as 100 Taliban on that mountaintop between the snowcapped peaks and amid those trees. They’re currently under siege from local villagers, who are driving them from their bunkers. But at the end of the day, it’s the Pakistani military who tolerates the presence of groups like the Taliban, and it’s not until America can start cutting deals with these people that there’s any hope of the attacks on American troops coming to an end.
WARE (voice-over): The key leader the U.S. may have to deal with is this man- Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed cleric who actually created the Taliban and led its regime- the man who, after the 9/11 attacks, sheltered Osama bin Laden, choosing war with the U.S., rather than surrender bin Laden. Even with a $10 million reward on his head, Mullah Omar has defied all American attempts to capture or kill him. He still commands the Afghan Taliban, as they continue killing U.S. and NATO troops. He and other top commanders do all of this, according to U.S. intelligence, from sanctuaries here in Pakistan.
It was the Pakistan military who helped create the Taliban. When the CIA was funding many of these same Afghan groups in the 1980s in their war against the Soviets, it was the Pakistan military that delivered the money, expertise, and weapons, like Stinger missiles. Now, for the first time, in this CNN interview, the Pakistan military concedes it still maintains contact with the Taliban. At the military headquarters, we met Major General Athar Abbas, who concedes the army’s links with the Taliban were toned down after 9/11, but-
MAJOR GENERAL ATHAR ABBAS, PAKISTANI ARMY SPOKESMAN: But, having said that, it- no intelligence organization in the world shuts its last door on any other organization.
WARE: And, more than talking to the Taliban, the general says the Pakistan military can actually get the Taliban to sit down with the United States and broker a cease-fire.
WARE: (off-camera): And that’s where Pakistan can, perhaps, provide valuable assistance to the American mission?
ABBAS: I think, yes, that can be worked out. That’s possible.
WARE (voice-over): And this is one of the men who says he can help work that deal.
GENERAL HAMID GUL (RETIRED), FORMER ISI DIRECTOR GENERAL: People like me, who serve the cause of the freedom of Afghanistan.
WARE: Former CIA ally General Hamid Gul, once the head of Pakistan’s equivalent of the CIA, known as the ISI, he is famed as the godfather of the Taliban.
GUL: The guarantees can be given, no problem.
WARE (off-camera): How? In terms of American national interests, who does America need to dialogue with?
GUL: Mullah Omar, nobody else.
WARE (voice-over): Mullah Omar, the most important Taliban leader- but to get him and the other Taliban to the table, Pakistan wants something in return. It wants the United States to use its influence to rein in Pakistan’s number-one military rival, India.
WARE (on-camera): India’s close association with the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan worries the Pakistanis, and the Pakistanis accuse India of supporting armed separatists in one of Pakistan’s provinces. Senior U.S. officials tell CNN the Obama administration is willing to raise those concerns with India, and that the U.S. is willing to talk with Mullah Omar and other Taliban commanders.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It is Obama's war now. He
July 13, 2009 - 13:35 ET by ricklailIt is Obama's war now. He didn't like the way Bush was running it so he sent more troops. So it is solely his.
I see our biggest problem as not having enough troops trained for mountain warfare. Some of the 10th Mountain Divsion is there but are our Marines trained for this. Kinda hard to train for the mountains here in the flat land of NC.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
Quagmire???
July 13, 2009 - 15:18 ET by motherbeltYes, it's been Obama's war for several months now....and Ware and the rest of the media haven't used the word "quagmire" once.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Here's the deal for Mullah Omar....
July 13, 2009 - 13:36 ET by Prester John....you tell us everything you know about al-Qaeda, and we won't kill you.
Sounds fair to me.
We Should Use These Journalists
July 13, 2009 - 13:43 ET by JustAl. . . as tracking beacons, put a chip into all of the press creditials issued so we know where they are when they talk to their buddies on the other side.
And definately do not allow media types who side with our enemies to every set foot in the US, regardless of citizenship.
If "bullets and bombs" won't work then we should try napalm.
Nice to see the media
July 13, 2009 - 13:43 ET by Defector01making the same 'mistakes' they made in Iraq - declaring it lost prior to implimenting new strategy and demanding we pull out in shame under fire to our enemies
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
Oh Goody, Mike is Back!
July 13, 2009 - 13:44 ET by CaringwhiteguyWe haven't heard much from little Mikey Ware since he and Lara Logan steamed up the Green Zone in Baghdad. I bet there aren't too many like Lara in Afghanistan. With not much else to keep Ware amused we may start getting our fill of his reporting.
rick -- Let's call it Obama's Afghani-Nam
July 13, 2009 - 13:44 ET by Jack Bauerrick -- I posted this on another thread earlier...
Let's call it Obama's Afghani-Nam. Because that's what it is rapidly becoming.
Does ANYONE know what VICTORY is supposed to be out there in the mountains in 2009?
What exactly are the US and its NATO allies trying to achieve as they lose men daily? To what end is this sacrifice being made? Seven British troops died last week.
We know what Bush's end-game in Iraq was.
And before anyone mutters something about "well you conservatives never said that about Bush in Afghanistan... blah, blah..."
I did, actually.
Despite the fact that NO Afghani flew a plane into the WTC, I did support the mission to seek and destroy the illegal terrorists holed up in that God-awful cess-pool of a country.
To do that meant removing the Bin Laden gang; and to do that necessarily meant fighting the gang of psychos known as the Taleban.
But that happened already. It happen fairly quickly as well, about 5 years ago. Al-kayda were essentially smashed in the area.
So what exactly is the purpose of the current Afghanistan quagmire under Obama. I would like to know if this has been defined yet.
No... I missed that hopichangi message.
This is yet another war that the United States finds itself embroiled in in which its superb military men and women are fighting with both hands and one leg tied behind their backs.
You don't get into any war in which you are not willing to do everything to achieve victory at minimum cost to your own troops.
Now they have even bigger arseholes back in DC telling them they have to "mirandize" captured combatants on the battlefield.
I ask again. WHY?
President Obama -- please tell us what the aim in Afghanistan is.
And if you can't do what is necessary to achieve victory militarily, then GET THE HELL OUT NOW...
And stop leaving the troops hanging in the breeze ,as you try to conduct a police operation in a war-zone.
Obama -- he's so "smart" he's gonna get a lot of us all killed -- starting with the military.
I agree. Obama's "strategy"
July 13, 2009 - 14:31 ET by Ten7sI agree.
Obama's "strategy" in Afganistan has put our Soldiers and Marines, their lives and our National Security, squarely on top of a mountain of smoldering dynamite. That area is adjacent to or near Pakistan, China's far west, and Kashmir.
Order in Pakistan is extremely fragile after Musharaf's defeat and the assassinations and suicide bombings. China's Han (the majority that we think of as "Chinese") and the Uyghur (a Turk/Muslim minority) are fighting in China's far west. In addition, the dispute over Kashmir could touch off a war between India and Pakistan at any time.
To make matters worse, Turkey has an interest in the ethnic Turks in China. And all of the "Stans" to the north are part of Russia's 'Near Abroad' (parts of the old USSR that Putin is determined to control or neutralize).
That's why President Bush wisely focused on Iraq, held the line in Afghanistan's northern region, and helped the Afganhis build a sustainable government in Kandahar.
I think a lot of the
July 13, 2009 - 14:39 ET by ricklailI think a lot of the problems lie with the NATO leadership. Let the British and the Americans do their thing. It worked pretty good at Normandy.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
No one is mentioning hundreds of miles of shared border
July 13, 2009 - 16:35 ET by upcountrywaterWhack the folk that are making these things.
Clarke says the evidence is clear that the Iranians know they are causing damage to the U.S.
"I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all
probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops,"
said Clarke.
Israel has done it.Opps maybe not....
Israeli jets carried out a long-range bombing mission against a convoy in
Sudan that was suspected of bringing arms from Iran to Hamas in the Gaza
Strip, it emerged yesterday.
In Viet-Nam we refused to deal with the arms flowing into that country.
If the OAF refuses to BLAST em, yes the war is lost...Or it's a war that never ends, while we treat them as equals.
Reagan VS Liberalism
Wouldnt want top see Michael Ware at a sports event
July 13, 2009 - 13:52 ET by dark_dsWouldnt want top see Michael Ware at a sports event .. before the game ever started he would say "we are doomed there is no possible way to win" Course maybe he wants us to lose .. he certainly puts enough effort into prophesizing it.
_______ Him and the Unicorn he rode in on
MICHAEL WARE - TED BAXTER WITH AN OZ ACCENT
July 13, 2009 - 13:57 ET by SgthulkaThis guy is priceless! Hid batting average on war success is almost as good as Harry Reids's.
And he deliovers it with such conviction...
Shouldnt we look to
July 13, 2009 - 14:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Shouldnt we look to Pakistan an see how their efforts to appease the Taliban are going? From what I hear it aint so good. So what do we learn from history? We know that Iraq has mixed results but so does appeasement with the Taliban. The bottom line is we nuke the bastards where they are, well figuratively.
We, even under President Bush, did not have the rocks to do that and less so under the great appeaser Barack Chamberlain who wants to sell us down the river.
What, does this guy think
July 13, 2009 - 14:27 ET by DaBirdWhat, does this guy think he's Walter Cronkite or something?
Thank goodness he's got limited airtime to spout his opinions about this war.
Perhaps his illegitimate
July 13, 2009 - 15:36 ET by RR GOPPerhaps his illegitimate son?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Ware also thought we
July 13, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Gat New YorkWare also thought we couldn't win in Iraq.
so has "anyone been on the Ground in AFHGANISTAN"?
July 13, 2009 - 14:53 ET by De_Oppresso_LiberIm just curious...
Seems like every arm-chair 'conservative' warrior out there has an "answer" to AF-PAK, like this 'author'?
Has he ever been to Afghanistan or Pakistan lately?
Have any 'conservatives' ever read the History of Maylasia/early Vietnam = what we should have done??
Since you brought it up,
July 13, 2009 - 15:46 ET by ParagrouperHow about you? While you're at it, what's with the screen name? Did you earn it, or just "borrow" it?
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr
My brother was there last
July 13, 2009 - 16:17 ET by Dan The Man 2My brother was there last summer. He went for a year and was under fire and they awarded him a Bronze Star. So yes some of us have been there and done that.
Michael Ware, master stategist
July 13, 2009 - 14:59 ET by east tennessee johnMichael Ware. Isn't he the same CNN "objective reporter" who said, prior to the surge, we couldn't win in IRAQ? What, exactly are his credentials when it comes to counterinsurgency, other than saying we can't win? Doesn't he know this is BO's war, which he's supported from day 1. Do you think Americans,our side Mr. Ware, is going to look favorably on a President, a Democrat no less, that pulls out of a war, a la Vietnam, against the people who hepled Al Queda plan and train 9-11? If Mr. Ware doesn't know much about counterinsurgency, he knows even less about internal American politics. Even Obama couldn't sell this one. Moron.
Michael Ware: CNN's own
July 13, 2009 - 15:04 ET by HockeyKidMichael Ware: CNN's own "Baghdad Bob".
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Taliban vs the Party of Surrender
July 13, 2009 - 15:29 ET by RightsBelieverAs said by Ann Coulter the "Party of Surrender" never has the backbone for the long haul and America has a short memory of why we're in the middle of something. The troops on the other hand just want to get it done and that they do well.
The (hostile to their own people) leadership of this government and their lying minions will downsize the miltary. Demoralizing them with incredibly ignorant and conflicting edicts and directives, driving good troops out of the military..THAT's what Obama is up to next. Cut the budget for the defense, downsize the military..even in the middle of war! This war is NOT going to go away and is NOT going to stay overseas; we will likely be infiltrated due to "political correctness". I'm afraid we're in for another event like 9-11 due to this House of Fools. I hope I'm wrong.
Nobody says nothing better than Obama.
THE WINNER !!!!!!!!!!!
July 13, 2009 - 16:47 ET by MrShyNobody says nothing better than Obama.
Everyone, I've seen a lot of funny and clever taglines/mottos for Obama, but this has got to be the most dead-on and funny one I've seen, and will see.
LET'S SPREAD THE WORD ON THIS ONE!!
Well done, RightsBeliever :) (royalties are in the mail... :))
RB & MrS... LMAO...I
July 13, 2009 - 17:07 ET by bigtimerRB & MrS...
LMAO...I agree that is The Winner.
What would the acronym be...ONSNB?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
I would challenge anyone
July 13, 2009 - 15:46 ET by goldbarI would challenge anyone here to walk a mile in Ware's shoes. You'd be dead in a minute.
→ goldbar
July 13, 2009 - 15:49 ET by Cool ArrowIf that's the case, I hear Ware is having a garage sale this weekend.
I'll buy you a pair.
Not the point, goldbar.
July 13, 2009 - 15:51 ET by rammingspeedNot the point, goldbar. It's Ware's diarrhea mouth that's the problem. As I commented before, he is probably speaking on behalf of the Obama administration.
The right abhors the truth
July 13, 2009 - 15:55 ET by goldbarThe right abhors the truth and so when someone like Micheal Ware explains what's really going on it hurts their ears. The right want yes men. They can't handle the truth. Ware's been held hostage by the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and lived to tell about it. I'll make you a deal--you don't watch CNN and I won't watch Fox.
goldbar
July 13, 2009 - 16:01 ET by MrShy"The right abhors the truth"
Bronzebar, you crack me up, you know that?
Cracked Up? Bingo!
July 13, 2009 - 22:03 ET by MycosCrack you up? Then this stuff should cleave you right in half!
"Relations between political conservatism and dogmatism reveal and intolerance of ambiguity; lack of openness to experience; uncertainty avoidance; personal needs for order, structure, and closure; fear of death and system threat.”
"Conservative opinions acquire coherence only by virtue of the fact that they minimize uncertainty and threat while pursuing continuity with the past (i.e., the status quo) and rationalizing inequality in society."
"It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, The Conservative Mind. 1983)
This is further supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993)in which they found a direct correlation between conservatism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that "rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional conservative personality than non-traditional persons. "
And if that tickles your funny bone, how about: "Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent".
(McClosky, H. (1958). Conservatism and Personality)
When your finished laughing there, you might try Oklahoma Correctional Depts. hilarious take on conservatism and criminality. <http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/95/950725C.HTM>
Or DHS Counter-Terrorism panel's Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition:
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/conservatism.html
Or leading social pychologist, Dr. Robert Altemeyer: The Authoritarians:http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
"Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?"
Hilarious!
You see the problem is that a great many who are attracted to conservative politics are actually attracted to it's authoritatian principles. And they get that way in the first place by having failed to socialise properly during a critical phase of early childhood development. This phase is important in developing many of the cognitive and empathic skills they would need in later adult life. But without them they must continue in a hybrid of the highly authoritarian child/quardian relationship where they simply replace the parent/guardian with other "strong" figures...particularly military and law-enforcement. These people then tell them who to marginalise domestically, or who to shoot at internationally, while letting religious authorities tell them what to think on ethical matters. And because they're not very accomplished thinkers, they more often turn to those who claim to have "the answer". This naturally leads them straight into the arms of manipulators, often the most amoral and selfish among us, creeps they then defend as though the person is their, well... their father or something. Their gullibility means they will often take up with skilled social manipulators, people many of which have all the ethical acuity of child molestors.
Their failure leaves them with cognitively un-complicated minds, hence their need for certainty and fear of ambiguity. This is why they tend to see the world in black and white, Us vs Them terms. A need for certainty partially accounts for their maddening ability to dismiss all the science detailing biological evolution while simultaneously believing every word in an ancient text. (which is also why one never sees a non-conservative adopting religious fundementalism). Ditto climate-change denialism...also an almost entirelyy conservative phenomenon.
Easy to see why
July 13, 2009 - 22:21 ET by general companyyou liberals believe in Global warming. Talk about manipulation,,,,wow.
This naturally leads them straight into the arms of manipulators, often
the most amoral and selfish among us, creeps they then defend
as though the person is their, well... their father or something.
You mean like Pelosi, Read, and Obama? Or were you thinking of Durbin, Murtha and Schumer,,?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Really?
July 13, 2009 - 23:12 ET by MycosThen find me a webpage belonging to any geophysical (climatology, geology, paleology, etc) society or journal whose members are scientists affiliated with universities, and who also state their position as being opposed to the reality of AGW. Show me 1. I'll show you ALL the rest who warn in very clear and strident trones that CO2 is having detrimental effects on the global environment. You have a half-dozen shills working for Big Oil now and many of whom also took money from Big Tobacco, Detroit, or whatever corporate interest was willing to pay them to confuse the issue of whether tobacco or asbestos causes cancer, electric vehicles are viable, and now, whether human CO2 production is causing climate change.
And get off that Al Gore meme! Just because he's the only person you know trying to warn governments about it doesn't mean the rest of the world follows or even knows who the hell he even is.
Now go ahead.... Find me a page from something like the "British Geophysical Society" or other professional org. that declares the thing to be a big hoax. You won't even try. And yoiu know why? (of course you don't, but...) Becausae you really don't want to know, hence the personality deficit that creates conservatism...an ability to ignore any evidence that would cause a reasessment of their preconceptions.
And you're right...you are dangerous. You are wiling to take the chance that global warming isn't real despite the wars and destruction that are likely if your wrong. That's criminal insanity.
→ Not really
July 13, 2009 - 23:19 ET by Cool ArrowThere are plenty of other theories and prophecies that paint the same picture.
Granted, none of them butter an errant scientists bread quite like Global Warming, but they're out there.
Get with the program. It's Climate Change now. The only bet not yet hedged is Global stasis.
Surely you can muster a grant to cover that loose end.
-- > CA
July 14, 2009 - 12:44 ET by MrShyIsn't it Climate Crisis now?
First we were definitely making it warmer, then we were definitely changing it, now we're definitely seeing that there's, well, some crisis here...
My guess of the next pegged-down labeling:
"Climate Issue"
Mycos, if you want to stop that warm
July 14, 2009 - 08:18 ET by general companyFeeling, then quit pi$$ing down your self.
You won't even try. And yoiu know why? (of course you don't, but...)
Becausae you really don't want to know, hence the personality deficit
that creates conservatism...an ability to ignore any evidence that
would cause a reasessment of their preconceptions.
I wont ehh? , wait I did it again, and again
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Simple questions
July 14, 2009 - 20:00 ET by Unsane1. I'll show you ALL the rest who warn in very clear and strident trones that CO2 is having detrimental effects on the global environment. CO2 is having detrimental effects on the global environment? The plants don't seem to be complaining all that much...
You have a half-dozen shills working for Big Oil now and many of whom also took money from Big Tobacco, Detroit, or whatever corporate interest was willing to pay them to confuse the issue of whether tobacco or asbestos causes cancer, electric vehicles are viable, and now, whether human CO2 production is causing climate change. One: your extreme anger over Big (pick: Oil, Tobacco, whatever other industry you hate for daring to exist) shows me that this is NOT about the environment or "saving the planet" for you. It has nothing to do with the environment and EVERYTHING to do with your burning desire to completely destroy capitalism and to turn the world's largest, most advanced economy into a Fourth World hellhole. Two: am I to believe that those who support this theory - and that is what it is, a theory, and a theory only - are as CLEAN and PURE as the wind driven snow? Why, they can't POSSIBLY want grant money and government funds and money from Leftist organizations to finance their research, right? Three: you have to call global warming "climate change", which further demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. Climate change is a good catch-all for you to blame the United States and American industry no matter what happens.
And you're right...you are dangerous. You are wiling to take the chance that global warming isn't real despite the wars and destruction that are likely if your wrong. That's criminal insanity.
Okay, if global warming is REALLY happening:
1) Why are Brazil, Mexico, China and India, among others, totally exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?
2) Exit Glacier near Seward, AK has been receding since 1780. What has been causing it to recede even in the 1700s, when the Industrial Revolution was just getting started?
3) France gets 78% of its energy from nukes. Why is it that the religionists who so religiously back the AGW theory as an immutable fact NEVER EVER EVER consider nuclear power as a clean, efficient alternative, but constantly back uneconomic alternatives like wind and solar power (T. Boone Pickens even backed out of wind power last week!)?
4) Explain why it snowed SOUTH and EAST of San Antonio - a city that itself rarely gets snow - for Christmas 2004?
5) Why did it snow in Buenos Aires in 2007, its first snow in 89 years? Why did it snow in Johannesburg druing the winter of 2006? Why did it snow in Baghdad in January 2008?
6) Why did it snow in Barrow, AK during a stormy weekend in July/August 2004?
Well?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yo lost me at Crack you up?
July 13, 2009 - 22:35 ET by Dan The Man 2Yo lost me at Crack you up? Then this stuff should cleave you right in half! I imagine the books and studies are flawed in the least, but you are welcome to have any fantasy you wish.
Mycos, you are a brain dead idiot
July 13, 2009 - 23:05 ET by R D HelmObama is currently turning America into a 3rd World, Marxist hell-hole. Marxism, which closely mirrors your own left-wing ideology, which is, in fact, it is probably the same, directly or indirectly murdered between 100 and 200 million people in the century just passed.
Yet, you have the audacity to accuse conservatives of being "authoritarian."
That is utterly hillarious coming fom a Canadian whose country is, even as I write this, being subverted by the very Sharia law most of you are in complete denial over.
I'm guessing you won't recognize "authoritarian" until just before your soon-to-be Islamic masters drop that dull, rusty sword upon your skinney little necks.
LOL-Talk about being "cleaved right in half."
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
§ Dave!!! Brilliant!!!!
July 13, 2009 - 23:11 ET by TheSterSMACK!!!
LOL!
Ster.
you are badly in need of an expensive course of psychiatric treatment. Now I'm not going to say that a trip down to our dairy will cure you, but it will give hundreds of lower-paid workers a good laugh.
R D Helm (or "D", as we know him :))
July 14, 2009 - 11:50 ET by MrShyAaah, a Canadian.... alas.
He's a biologist, btw, did you know? And he/she has an addiction to "news".
Conservatism is the anthesis of authoritarianism
July 14, 2009 - 12:16 ET by Ten7sConservatism is the anthesis of authoritarianism. We know and cherish our God given Rights to Life, Liberty and Property and want to completely rein-in the authoritarian Federal Government which is running amok.
The only authoritarians (socialists, fascists, collectivists) to speak of in America are Leftists and Liberals, who want to regulate and control every aspect of our lives.
2.5 years and only five posts? No, you aren't a troll, are you?
July 13, 2009 - 23:33 ET by R D HelmLOL.
My advice? Start learning Arabic, and that damned soon, because thanks to Obama's hideous weakening of America, the good-old US of A, which has been keeping Canadians safe for God knows how long, will not be able to rescue you and your fellow Canadians "Loyalists" from the Islamic disaster that will soon befall your country.
BTW-I hope you like cous-cous.
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
→ RD
July 13, 2009 - 23:34 ET by Cool ArrowI think what Mycos is trying to tell us is that the more convoluted solution is most often the answer.
If you want Global Warming, just start a rumor that seven of the hottest years on record occurred during the last decade.
Forget that the thermometers were conveniently placed against walls and above paved areas for easy access.
Scientists are historically proficient at proving what the money wants them to prove.
So few of them could have held out as long as Galileo. Different church, different time - same result.
I guess our new Troll
July 14, 2009 - 15:30 ET by Ten7sI guess our new Troll missed this:
But we all know that Liberals don't want to be confused by the FACTS!
~Haven't seen Mycos around in a while
July 14, 2009 - 12:32 ET by choselife3xNot since this.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Mycos, How is your entitlement going?
July 14, 2009 - 11:30 ET by upcountrywaterThe liberal mind
codes--the rules--that properly govern human conduct arise from, and
must be compatible with, the biological, psychological and social
nature of man.
liberal agenda is a transference neurosis of the modern liberal mind,
acted out in the world’s economic, social and political theaters.
Climate science is the collection of data, to bad your buddies have FAILED to collect data past 2006, better get a BIGGER FURNACE...14 absolute cold records were set in Canada this past winter.
Not by fire but by ICE
Reagan VS Liberalism
UNSANE !!!!!!
July 14, 2009 - 12:32 ET by MrShyWe need you. I anoint you the best of the best of the NB'ers in sentence-for-sentence deconstruction of libs.
Many here are great, in general, but you have the patience and skill to really break down everything they vomit up, item by item -- and the above post is a treasure-trove of hypocritical and projecting nonsense, not to mention wrong and out-of-touch on a host of levels.
With that said, I'll touch on his opening salvo (first paragraph) ....
Mycos, like someone else pointed out here, you have some audacity (and no, not "of hope") spewing so much righteous garbage with your laughable excerpts stereotyping conservatism, especially with the left side of politics in our government these days being run amok by what has to be the most corrupt, morally and ethically bankrupt, disgusting collection of politicians this country has probably ever known.
But back to these hilarious quotes you're throwing at us. Most of them are so disconnected to what the party and it's people are about. But get this, some are also TRUE -- however, ironically (or not so much, in hindsight of how the liberal mind and soul function), to you/them they're a bad thing:
Relations between political conservatism and dogmatism reveal an...
intolerance of ambiguity;
Huh? To you that's deemed altogether a bad thing?
lack of openness to experience;
Total BS. Next.
uncertainty avoidance;
Once again, this is a bad thing? (I want to avoid uncertainty where I can. I must be evil.)
personal needs for order, structure, and closure;
Once AGAIN again, and even more-so... why the demonzing of those that seek some personal (notice the word "personal"?) order, structure, and closure in their lives. And now I'm curious: what exactly do you seek?
fear of death
??? Yeah, I fear death.
and system threat.
I have no idea what this cute 2-word phrase means. Enlighten me (or wait, I'm climbing up your tree for enlightenment... I withdraw that request. :p)
Hey Shy -- you're very
July 14, 2009 - 12:32 ET by Jack BauerHey Shy -- you're very loquacious and frisky today!
Jack!!
July 14, 2009 - 12:37 ET by MrShy"you're very loquacious and frisky today!"
Once again (again again), this is a bad thing? :p
And yes, I do appear to be. :) A good night's rest and coffee/croissant has something to do with it. Also, haven't we put up with enough? We need to all punch right back at liberal/leftist idiocy.
Actually dude, the majority
July 14, 2009 - 12:44 ET by Jack BauerActually dude, the majority of criminals serving time are Democrats -- or would be, if they could legally vote.
Jack... ...and the dem
July 14, 2009 - 12:54 ET by bigtimerJack...
...and the dem party have been doing their very best to make sure they can do just that, state by state...Florida ring a bell, just for one example.
...they never quit with their filthy tactics to gain votes.
Where there's a will there's a way with the enemy within.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
goldbar - part deux
July 13, 2009 - 16:09 ET by MrShyYou're so darn funny, I could not read past your subject line, which is why I'm now posting a second time in response to more of your silliness...
"I'll make you a deal--you don't watch CNN and I won't watch Fox."
We'll all make you a counter-offer (and I think you accidently reversed what it is we each should not watch -- ?):
You don't watch ANY television except Fox -- AND, don't read any newspapers and turn off your internet, with the exception of maybe the WSJ and Drudge, and we won't watch Fox (which, btw, according to many studies, is *far and away* the least tilted/biased) and we'll avoid Drudge and the WSJ.
Fair? I certainly think it is.
(...or reverse this if you meant the other way around... you got me so confused.)
Biased bias?
July 13, 2009 - 20:25 ET by Mycosquote: "which, btw, according to many studies, is *far and away* the least tilted/biased".
Errrr...which studies would that be? And no, studies underwritten by FOX and/or Murdoch do NOT count, for reasons that should become obvious if I told you to believe a study conducted by Air America eg.
Mycos
July 14, 2009 - 11:47 ET by MrShyGo away, you blathering liberal buffoon.
And yes, in this instance, I'm being what the left usually is... very intolerant. I plead guilty, this one time.
Now go and read the smack-down from R D Helm, above, and get your head out of the sorry, misguided and seemingly completely leftist-brainwashed muck it's stuck in.
"muck it's stuck..." :)
Dead in a minute? Huh?
July 13, 2009 - 16:02 ET by SickofLibsWhy would that be? Unless you are implying he's under the protection of the taliban or something?
Protected yea, no one would be let go, without becoming a moslem
July 13, 2009 - 16:45 ET by upcountrywaterand he still is, hanging out, videoing with the bag the women gang.
Reagan VS Liberalism
No Surprise
July 13, 2009 - 15:47 ET by rammingspeedWare is probably speaking directly from representatives of the Obama administration.
When I see or hear Ware...I
July 13, 2009 - 17:10 ET by bigtimerWhen I see or hear Ware...I either click or mute...this BS above is a perfect illustration of why.
What a guy. The O-Team is proud.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Ware Way Out Of Context
July 13, 2009 - 20:19 ET by MycosHis assertion that Abbas was willing to talk to, and willing to orchestrate a sit-down with Omar, is virtually a fabrication.
The interview posted at CNN has this line: ABBAS: "I think, yes, that can be worked out. That’s possible" following a very generic discussion about the value of dialogue, and not - as he asserts here - as his response to the question of setting up direct talks between Mullah Omar and the US.
Ware: General, I am getting the wind-up from your aide, just one last question. We saw great success in the Iraq theatre, where America engaged the insurgents it was fighting against and eventually put 103,000 Sunni insurgents on the American payroll that assisted them in their fight against al Qaeda, and it assisted America in its challenge to curb Iranian influence. Is there room for such negotiation here? In the Afghan-Pakistan theatre? Can America negotiate with the groups it's currently fighting with?
Abbas: Certainly -- I think that you can't use one formula in dealing with various groups. This is not a monolithic organization. How we look at Pakistani-Taliban is not a monolithic organization.
Ware: But can America talk to these groups? Can America... is part of the solution, America negotiating with these forces?
Abbas: There are reconcilable elements in these whole, in this whole Taliban groups etc. and one has to identify those and they are reconcilable and when there is no harm in negotiating...opening a negotiation with them.
Ware: Just a dialogue.
Abbas: That's right, dialogue. Eventually one would have to return to the dialogue table.
Ware: And that's where Pakistan can perhaps provide valuable assistance to the American mission.
(Now the money-quote)
Abbas: I think yes that can be worked out, that's possible.
The CNN interview transcript states that it is edited "for clarity" but editing out the most important part stretches CNN's already-limited credibility.
A similar treatment is given to his assertion that "for the first time, in this CNN interview, the Pakistan military concedes it still maintains contact with the Taliban”. Ware continues with “more than talking to the Taliban, the general says the Pakistan military can actually get the Taliban to sit down with the United States and broker a cease-fire.”.
That is a HUGE leap from what is really said by Abbas: "Because, you know after 9/11 the state had realized it is no more possible to sustain a policy of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. And therefore there was a U turn, and the state followed, the army followed, the ISI followed. But having said that, no intelligence organization in the world shuts its last door on any other organization. So therefore the contacts are there. The communication remains."
So what he's saying is that any covert intelligence organizations like the ISI, or the CIA, KGB (or whoever) maintain their contacts despite political sensitivity. IOW, a common sense reiteration with no news value whatsoever --- unless one is going for sensationalism --- which he appears to be doing. Then for Newsbusters to pile on and help disseminate this junk seems ironic to the max.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/pakistan.taliban.omar.interview/index.html#cnnSTCText
A cannuck Troll, dont get
July 13, 2009 - 22:43 ET by Dan The Man 2A cannuck Troll, dont get many of those a rare specimin and actually posted 5 or 6 times in 2+ years. What crawled in your ear man, whatever it is it sure seems whacked out. Welcome to NB and may your stay here be enlightening, however I doubt it.
§ Mycos...Ummmm...Where U Cutting and Pasting From??
July 13, 2009 - 22:51 ET by TheSterI'm Registered at "Major" Lib sites....
Ahhh...CNN....
Nuff said.
Ster.
you are badly in need of an expensive course of psychiatric treatment. Now I'm not going to say that a trip down to our dairy will cure you, but it will give hundreds of lower-paid workers a good laugh.
According to the left, the
July 13, 2009 - 22:17 ET by NL207According to the left, the US could not win the war in Iraq, which was to become a quagmire. Ware's statement about Afghanistan has the same truth content as those other statements about Iraq.
Doofus
July 14, 2009 - 09:06 ET by wenders99I just wish he'd button his shirt and brush his teeth. I love when he goes on talk shows on his seemingly endless self-promotion tour he tries to make it look like he's just galloped in from the front. What a tool...
galloped in from the front
July 14, 2009 - 12:36 ET by SickofLibs"How do I look? Do I need more dust?"
Make a
July 14, 2009 - 12:11 ET by jessieHMake a deal with the enemy? Now where have i heard that before????? Oh, yes, it was Benedict Arnold. He would probably have a show on CNN.
unbelievable
July 14, 2009 - 15:29 ET by TruthtalkWas this guy being held at gunpoint by the Taliban? This is like a propaganda piece for terrorists. And how stupid is CNN anyway? They send this guy to Iraq, he declares a loss, then when things start getting better in Iraq they send him to Afganistan to declare a loss?
Michael Ware was very critical of Obama during the 2008 election
July 15, 2009 - 07:50 ET by Mitch Dworkinwhile most of the media were in the tank for Obama giving him a near free ride to both the Democratic nomination and to the White House:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16711
CNN TRANSCRIPT: Michael Ware fact checked both Obama & McCain about Iraq!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 6, 2008 - 4:51pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15231
Michael Ware called Obama's exchange with Petraeus "frighteningly disappointing"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 9, 2008 - 12:56pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15196
Michael Ware called Obama's 16 month troop withdrawal plan from Iraq "ludicrous"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 5, 2008 - 7:16am.
One may have an honest disagreement with Michael Ware's views (that will vary from person to person depending on what their views about foreign policy are) BUT Michael Ware in my opinion definitely cannot be accused of being biased when he was just as tough on Obama as he was with McCain at a time when most of the media were very clearly in the tank for Obama:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16968
Joe Scarborough, Mark Halperin & Lou Dobbs on the bias and failures of the media
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2008 - 10:16pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16746
Aaron Brown said “serious news at risk” in 2006 & Bernard Shaw confirmed it now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 12, 2008 - 8:04am.
Michael Ware in my opinion very clearly understands from personal first hand experience exactly what is happening in Afghanistan right now:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17744
Michael Ware explained why our major operation in Afghanistan will not be easy
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 2, 2009 - 6:52am.
Michael Ware also understands that we are going to be in Iraq for a very long time which Obama ran against in the 2008 election and which is definitely not a popular message with the far left wing base who supported Obama:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17740
Michael Ware: Iraqis are not ready yet & our troops will not be coming home soon
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 1, 2009 - 4:32am.
This is why I view Michael Ware as being an unbiased and honest broker of information who calls things right down the middle based on how he really sees it regardless of who may not like what he is reporting!