Mediaite » Afghanistan

Keith Olbermann, Media Matters Pressure CNN To Fire Dana Loesch Over Urinate-Gate

Tommy Christopher — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:05:02 +0000

CNN contributor and Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism Dana Loesch took a lot of flak over the weekend for her declaration of solidarity with the four Marines who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of alleged Taliban fighters, in which she said “I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Countdown host Keith Olbermann and liberal watchdog Media Matters, among others, have called for CNN to fire Loesch over the remark, and according to Big Journalism, even Politico is in on the act. Lest you think that this is all a bunch of ginned-up liberal outrage, however, a conservative think-tank in Illinois also backed away from Loesch over the comments, withdrawing an invitation for her to appear at their ”Women, Liberty, and America’s Future” event.

Olbermann took to Twitter to slam CNN, and to add some trademark innuendo:

A) why hasn’t CNN fired her already; b) she sounds way too familiar w/topic @DLoesch says she’d urinate on dead Taliban

He also paid Loesch a backhanded compliment, while also saying she was worse than the Taliban:

Actually, no. They are unthinking religious fanatics. You’re worse RT@DLoesch So @KeithOlbermann thinks I’m the Taliban? So ridiculous.

The implication there is that, unlike the Taliban, there is thought behind Loesch’s remarks.

Big Journalism‘s John Nolte notes that Politico, like Mediaite, reached out to CNN for comment on Loesch’s remark, but went the extra mile by wondering “whether or not it will have any impact on her role at CNN.”

CNN responded with this statement to Mediaite:

CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.

Media Matters, though, has gone full-bore at Loesch. In addition to a Twitter barrage from Eric Boehlert challenging Loesch to repeat the sentiment on CNN’s air, their investigative reporter Joe Strupp has published an article in which numerous CNN on-air sources (anonymously attributed) express displeasure and embarrassment at Loesch’s remarks.

That last item is probably the biggest reason for concern for Loesch, who could probably count on CNN to ignore pressure from liberals, but might lend a more attentive ear to internal voices. Loesch’s supporters can tell themselves that Strupp’s reporting is meaningless because the sources are unnamed, but he’s a real reporter with a real reputation. Those quotes are real, and depending on the relative juice of the speakers, could signal trouble for Dana Loesch.

As someone who knows a thing or two about being fired over political speech, I think it would be wrong of CNN to fire Dana Loesch over this. Within reason, my philosophy is that more speech is always better than less speech. Most of the speech-related firings of the past few years could have been handled more productively, in my view, by expanding the dialogue, rather than shutting it down.

In this case, rather than see Dana Loesch fired for saying something so silly and wrong, I’d rather see her defend those remarks on a panel with people like Bill Maher (who, while not cheering the desecration, said he didn’t see what all the fuss was about), former Marine Goldie Taylor, and maybe even Sen. John McCain, who knows a thing or two about war atrocities. Like it or not, Loesch’s false bravado resonated with a lot of people, and such a discussion could prove clarifying for Loesch and her defenders. Alternately, Loesch could possibly smoke them all in a debate, and we’d all run out to look for an appropriate corpse to piss on. Who knows?

The point that the “fire Loesch” crowd misses, and that CNN apparently gets (if their statement is any indication), is that aside from being offensive and cheap, Loesch’s remarks were revealing in a way that true journalism is supposed to be. Having disparate viewpoints represented on their air has value to CNN viewers because they come away knowing something they previously didn’t. In this case, I learned that if Loesch is going to be at my funeral, I’d better request a closed casket.

There are cases in which pressure campaigns like boycotts are justified, but often, efforts like this are led by people who aren’t watching in the first place. Except in extreme cases, my solution is simple. If I don’t want to see someone on my TV, I change the channel. For example, I was very disappointed in the way Joe Scarborough handled Ann Coulter‘s slurring of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on Morning Joe a few months back. Before that, I was a fairly regular viewer of Scarborough’s program.

I didn’t call for a boycott of Morning Joe, or for Scarborough to be fired. In fact, I still tune in every once in a while, but the incident soured me on the program, tainted the collegial vibe that was key to its appeal. As a result, Morning Joe lost a loyal viewer. Now, who knows, maybe they also gained a bunch of fans who groove on that sort of thing.

For CNN, it’s probably tougher to gauge Loesch’s performance in terms of viewers, and I don’t think I’ve seen enough of her segments to pass judgment on them, but I don’t think they hired her to play tiddlywinks.

Goldie Taylor Calls Out CNN’s Dana Loesch On CNN Over Urinate-Gate

Tommy Christopher — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:49:41 +0000

On Saturday’s CNN Newsroom, host Don Lemon spoke with political analyst Goldie Taylor about the controversy surrounding the four US Marines who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of alleged Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Taylor, a former Marine, took the opportunity to call out CNN contributor Dana Loesch, calling Loesch’s remarks “disgusting,” adding “to say you would ‘drop trou’ and do the same thing, I question someone’s integrity who would say something like that.”

Lemon opened the segment by issuing the shortest window ever to get the kids out of the room, then played the now-infamous clip (strategically blurred) of four US Marines doing a number (one) on some enemy corpses. Taylor told Lemon that the tape wasn’t representative of the Marine Corps that she belonged to, and that “When I look at that, and look at what four marines did to defame my Marine Corps, I’m disgusted.”

She went on to say that the four Marines should be court-martialed.

Lemon asked Taylor about people who defended these Marines’ actions. I’ve heard it,” Taylor said. “And I’ve heard it on this air, frankly. That is disgusting in and of itself, not as satire not as a joke but to say you would ‘drop trou’ and do the same thing, I question someone’s integrity who would say something like that. I want to know if they understand what our young men and women are up against every day. I don’t want to demonize the men and women who serve our country. I honor them, and served alongside them, and am proud of them. But when something like this happens, we have to stand up and call it for the behavior that it is.”

The incident has stirred significant outrage, which led CNN contributor and Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism Dana Loesch to wonder what all the fuss was about, and to opine that she would “drop trou and do it too.”

Loesch responded to criticism of her remarks by pointing out that worse things than this have been done (an odd point of agreement between Loesch and Bill Maher), and falsely claiming there wasn’t enough outrage about them. She also used the tried-and-true Limbaugh method to recast her ill-considered remarks as satire, claiming “I was using absurdity to highlight absurdity.”

It’s probably rare that you’ll see Loesch in agreement with Real Time host Bill Maher, but in addition to the “things happen in war” argument, both of them seem to think that the acceptability of pissing on a corpse is a matter of relative merit, that because the corpses in question were America’s enemies, it’s not such a big deal.

I admit that the first argument has some appeal, that young men charged with killing in their country’s service, and exposed to constant peril and horror, ought to be forgiven such a lapse. While I agree with Taylor that this incident literally screams “dishonorable discharge,” there’s a good case to be made that these men have earned a measure of mercy in their sentencing.

But people like Bill Maher and Dana Loesch completely miss the point when they defend this incident based on how bad our enemies are, and how good and righteous America is. In my view, this desecration has little to do with the unceremoniously moistened corpses. As Bill Maher and The Bible point out, the dead know nothing. If they could talk, I’m sure those dead men would be less offended at the urination than at the whole being made dead thing.

Respect for the dead is for the benefit of the living, and not just for the dead’s loved ones. How we treat the dead says something about us. In doing what they did, those Marines didn’t just piss on some empty meatbags, they pissed on their own humanity.

If that video had shown America’s enemies similarly desecrating US troops, there would have been outrage, for sure, but would anyone be shocked? Do we hold the Taliban, or al Quaeda, in such esteem that this would surprise us? This incident was shocking because America is exceptional, because we don’t do things like that, and we ought to hold ourselves in higher esteem than we do our enemies.

This “things happen in war” excuse is valuable to a point of forgiveness, but using it to mitigate this incident is an insult to the many men and women who fight for our country, who witness the same horrors, yet manage to retain their humanity.

Taylor’s condemnation also highlights the tendency of armchair warriors like Loesch, Maher, and others to co-opt the sacrifices of our fighting men and women into a faux-wizened toughness, perverting and cheapening them in the process. Just because you’ve watched Platoon or The Hurt Locker a bunch of times doesn’t mean you “get it.”

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

Sen. Lieberman, Homeland Security Committee Call For Twitter To Censor Taliban Accounts

Frances Martel — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 19:14:21 +0000

The Senate, led my efforts from the office of Sen. Joe Lieberman, may call on Twitter to ban accounts run by Taliban officers and supports in Afghanistan from disseminating anti-NATO information. According to the UK Telegraph, Sen. Lieberman– who worked to have al-Qaeda projects banned from Google as well– has contacted the social network’s leaders in an effort to remove accounts that promote and celebrate Taliban attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan.

While a Twitter spokesman told the Telegraph that they were not at liberty to comment on the matter, the office of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which Sen. Lieberman shares, confirmed the move as part of a broader campaign against Islamic extremist propaganda on the internet. The Telegraph report also included the names of some accounts in question, and the interesting tidbit that NATO press officers on Twitter actually engage in Twitter wars with these agents on occasion, as well as noting that the veracity of the Taliban Twitter reports could be anywhere from absolutely true to absolutely fabricated:

The Taliban movement has embraced the social network as part of its propaganda effort and regularly tweets about attacks or posts links to its statements.

The information has ranged from highly accurate, up-to-the-minute accounts of unfolding spectacular attacks, to often completely fabricated or wildly exaggerated reports of American and British casualties. Twitter feeds including @ABalkhi, which has more than 4,100 followers, and @alemarahweb, which has more than 6,200 followers, regularly feature tweeted boasts about the deaths of “cowardly invaders” and “puppet” Afghan government forces.

Taliban spokesmen also frequently spar with Nato press officers on Twitter, as they challenge and rebut each other’s statements.

While Congress will not be in session again until the new year, aides are apparently working on the project as a forthcoming one for Congress’s return.

Raw Footage Of Afghan Police Harassing Cross-Dressed Man, Forcing Him To Strip Goes Viral

Frances Martel — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:54:07 +0000

Afghanistan has never been known as a paragon of excellence in the human rights realm, but this recent video of Afghan police humiliating a man dressed in make-up and women’s clothing for their own amusement truly brings that reality home. The video– which, the Daily Mail notes appears to have come from an Afghan news source– shows the man pleading to be released and protesting his innocence of any crime while the police make him remove outer clothing and fake breasts.

The police stop him in the video and demand him to remove his clothing, though it is not clear whether the officers question him about any crimes– other than homosexuality or cross-dressing, which are both crimes in Afghanistan. According to the Daily Mail, the man demands not to be ridiculed but is ignored, and later questioned:

According to the Guardian, the officers then deliver a barrage of questions to the transvestite and a second man who is arrested.

They ask the pair: ‘Why are you dressed like this? Where did you put the makeup on? What is all this about? What have you two been up to?’

As the Afghan cross dresser removes his jewellery, he can be heard to whisper: ‘I was shopping for clothes.’

After being near reduced to tears, the second man tells police officers: ‘Please, officer, we haven’t committed a crime.’

It is not known what has happened to the two men since being arrested.

The disturbing footage below:

Pakistani Officials Claim NATO Helicopter Attack Responsible For Deaths Of Over Two Dozen Soldiers

Josh Feldman — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:03:41 +0000

Pakistan is blaming NATO aircraft for gunning down roughly two dozen soldiers at two separate military posts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. President Asif Ali Zardari harshly condemned the attacks, and in retaliation Pakistan has closed off border crossings that were previously used by NATO forces to ship supplies to troops from Afghanistan.

General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, issued a statement earlier today expressing his desire to see the matter fully investigated and to bring closure to the families of those who were killed.

“This incident has my highest personal attention and my commitment to thoroughly investigate it to determine the facts… My most sincere and personal heartfelt condolences go out to the families and loved ones of any members of Pakistan Security Forces who may have been killed or injured.”

The ISAF release only refers to the matter as an “incident” and does not give any more detail beyond that, but the Pakistani army is claiming that 24 people were killed and 13 were injured during the strike. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani returned immediately from his vacation and convened a special session of of the cabinet defense committee.

This is only the latest tension between the United States and Pakistan in a year when the world’s most wanted terrorist was finally found and killed in a Pakistani base not two miles from a military training facility. And incidents like these do not exactly ease those tensions and could lead to a more strained relationship between the two nations.

Watch CNN’s coverage of the incident below:

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Iraq And Afghanistan ‘Being Run Out Of Chicago, Not Washington’

Tommy Christopher — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:17:32 +0000

On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continued the tradition of politicizing foreign policy by accusing President Obama of politicizing foreign policy, telling anchor Chris Wallace that “Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago, not Washington, in terms of decisions.”

Graham also beat the familiar drum that “Israel has been thrown under the bus” by the administration, falsely claiming that the President’s “standing in the state of Israel is very low,” despite the fact that 81% of Israelis approve of his policies.

Wallace pushed back against Graham’s criticisms of the President’s foreign policy, asking, “What about the argument that, in the last six months, bin Laden is gone, Awlaki is gone, and now Gaddafi is gone?”

Graham conceded that the killings of bin Laden and al-Awlaki were “Well done,” but accused the President of failing to “close the deal” in Iraq. Graham insisted that it “was not clear” that the Iraqis wanted the US out, but couldn’t explain why they refused to grant US troops immunity in Iraqi courts. “The Iraqis were, in my view, open minded to this. This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal.”

Wallace also asked Graham about his criticism of the President’s actions in Libya. He told Graham that the administration points out they ousted Gaddafi “without the loss of a single american soldier, and it cost about a billion dollars, as opposed to the $805 billion in Iraq. Was the President right, and critics like yourself wrong?”

Predictably, Graham responded that the President should have acted sooner, as if unilateral action by the US would have ever been politically viable, or strategically desirable. Republican critics of the President keep saying he should have “acted sooner,” but they don’t really explain what that action should have been. Are they suggesting that entangling a US ground force in another Mideast quagmire would have been the right thing to do?

Graham’s suggestion that the President’s foreign policy is somehow guided by electoral politics is absurd on its face. If there was any way to make the 2012 election about national security, President Obama would win in a cakewalk, but that’s not going to happen. With the economy at numbers one through ten on Americans’ list of priorities, fixing foreign policy around a reelection bid would be foolish, and fruitless. As we saw after the killing of Osama bin Laden, all Republicans can do with the President’s foreign policy successes is to try and soften them.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

Hillary Clinton Zings Herman Cain During Meeting With Hamid Karzai

James Crugnale — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:50:56 +0000

During a diplomatic meeting Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton joked with Afghani President Hamid Karzai about Republican frontrunner Herman Cain and his comments about “Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.”

“One of the Republican candidates, I think it was Herman Cain. He’s a former pizza company executive,” Clinton said.

“Is he that?” exclaimed Karzai. “Alright!”

“Oh, yes. He started something called Godfather’s pizza,” Clinton remarked.

“Yes, I see, I see,” Karzai replied.

“The president was saying he saw this news clip about how Mr. Cain had said I don’t even know the names of all these presidents of all these countries, you know, like whatever,” she chuckled.

“All the stans!” interjected Karzai.

“All these ‘stans places!” joked Clinton.

“That wasn’t right,” Karzai noted. “But anyway, that’s how politics are.”

Watch Clinton and Karzai rib Cain below:

(h/t NY Times)

MTV Founder Sets Sights On Afghan TV: Independent Media Has Become ‘Instrument Of Social Change’

Zara Golden — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:32:15 +0000

MTV co-founder Tom Freston has an unusually optimistic view of Afghanistan. “People assume that when the U.S. leaves, the Taliban will just resume control, but Afghanistan has become a different place,” he told New York Times‘ David Carr. Freston, who spent 17 years at the helm of MTV Networks, eight or so months as president at Viacom, and then a good chunk of time traveling the world while living off his severance, has begun work on a new and unlikely project: Afghan television. “Independent media has become an instrument of social change,” Freston said. “All Americans ever see of Afghanistan is the brown mountains in the war footage and things getting blown up, but when you spend time at Tolo TV, you get a feeling of what this place could be.”

Carr reports that Freston has signed on as a board member and adviser to the Moby Group, “which owns a burgeoning string of television and radio networks in a country where simply owning a television was illegal not so long ago.” Afghanistan might seem like an unlikely provence for the man who once championed Beavis and Butthead and Sixteen and Pregnant, but Freston has spent significant amounts of time traveling the world in search of “a compass”, and spent time in the 70′s running a clothing company called Hindu Kush out of Kabul, Carr notes. He knows better this time what he’s getting himself into.

Mostly, though, he and Moby head Saad Mohseni sound sure of their mission. “We are a very young country,” Mohseni told Carr. “Sixty percent of the people here are under 20 years old, and if anyone knows how to reach young people, it’s Tom.” According to Mohseni, almost 50 percent of Afghan homes have television sets — up from almost none ten years ago — and advertising dollars are beginning to flow, a large portion coming from the U.S. government interestingly. So far, Moby’s The Office knock-off called The Ministry and the 24 recalling The Eagle have been hugely popular in a country where disenfranchisement is rampant. “The people in Afghanistan can’t depend on their government, so they are inspired by the show,” said Freston.

Could this be Afghanistan’s way out? As the U.S. begins to draw-down soldiers, should they be investing in more media? According to Mohseni, Freston’s involvement in Moby offers great hope to a country that has long been short on that:

“Afghanistan was stuck in the 12th century, not because of any decisions we made, but because we had these proxy wars imposed on us,” said Mr. Mohseni. “There are people here who oppose what we are doing, but then, there were a lot of people who said the same thing about MTV when Tom was building it.”

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux Tells Mediaite That The Taliban Is Undertaking ‘Bold, High-Profile Attacks’

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:58:41 +0000

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux has been on the ground in Afghanistan for nearly a week on a military embed. Since her arrival in Kabul on September 8th, she has conducted a series of interviews with those most intimately involved in attempting to prepare Afghanistan for both its short- and long-term future, both reporting from the region on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and on the Base attack from the region that had occurred the day before.

Malveaux, then, has something of a unique perspective on the various attacks that unfolded today around 1:30 p.m. local time in Afghanistan. Taliban members had targeted several high-profile locations, including the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters, as well as an area near a local high school. So far, seven have been killed in the attacks and ensuing violence, including Afghan police officers and civilians, and seventeen have been reported injured. Current reports also indicate that three of the four attackers are dead.

“The last we heard,” Malveaux tells Mediaite, “Afghan police were going through the building. They’d killed three, with one left.” She also describes hearing explosions and gunfire and shares that, while passing a local military hospital, she spied an insurgent laying out, clearly lifeless.

A Taliban spokesperson, whom Malveaux tells us makes himself quite “easy to reach” when it comes to the press, has informed CNN that that the group has targeted the embassy, the International Security Assistance Force (a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan) and NATO in an effort to promote what Malveaux described as “bold, high-profile attacks.”

In speaking with U.S. General John Allen, Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai over the past few days, Malveaux has been able to obtain a more complete picture of our mission in Afghanistan, including whether the current timetable for pulling troops out of the region is realistic and whether Afghanistan is “better off” today than it was a decade ago. Her reports have included an in-depth look into ongoing efforts to train Afghan police, a revealing interview with President Karzai about working towards a peace agreement with the Taliban, reports on the Taliban hit on an Afghan coalition base over the weekend, and the challenges U.S. troops face in training Afghan recruits to take over.

As Malveaux explains in the CNN video report below, eyewitnesses say the four Taliban members launched their attack on the Embassy from an abandoned building nearby:

Sen. John McCain: ‘I Don’t Think American Public Opinion Would Stand For’ Another War In Middle East

Josh Feldman — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:36:56 +0000

While defending the United States’ current military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator John McCain acknowledged that most Americans are not in favor of further military intervention in the Middle East, and discussed how changing mores in the region have affected the influence of terrorist groups.

Chris Wallace asked McCain to explain his opposition to President Obama’s plan to withdraw surge troops from Afghanistan, suggesting now might be a time to focus on the home. McCain argued that “there was no military person anywhere” who wanted the withdrawals to occur before the second fighting season or doesn’t want a residual fighting force. He also added that the conflict in Libya could have been resolved sooner if “the full weight of American air power” had been used in that particular circumstance. He criticized the oft-quoted “leading from behind” policy, and insisted that now is not the time to “withdraw… the fortress of America.”

Wallace took McCain’s prediction that the United States would not be getting involved in yet another war, and asked him if he could say so with confidence. McCain argued that public support would not be behind another military intervention in the region.

I don’t think American public opinion would stand for it. I do believe that we have developed new ways of countering this threat. I don’t think there’s any doubt that al-Qaeda is back on their heels, but there are places like Yemen and Somalia and other breeding grounds where this threat will be with us for a long period of time.

McCain also mentioned the declining influence of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda in Middle Eastern countries because of the recent protests taking place in many of them.

The Arab Spring is a repudiation of al-Qaeda. The Arab Spring proves that people can peacefully demonstrate and change their government, and it’s a repudiation of the strategy and tactics of terror and murder that al-Qaeda has employed. Don’t get me wrong, there’s going to be two steps forward and one step back in the Arab world, but I think that over time this repudiation of al-Qaeda will work to our advantage. But we’re going to have problems there and issues and threats for as long as you and I are around.

Finally, McCain defended his previous claims that the war on terror could last for the next several decades. He predicted that nations like Yemen or Somalia could be “a breeding ground for this kind of hatred,” but remained confident that ultimately the United States “would prevail over the forces of evil.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

Bill Maher Tells Leno He Is Tired Of Obama ‘Going Half In On [GOP] Crappy Ideas’

Frances Martel — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:10:09 +0000

Real Time may be on break, but Bill Maher took a respite from his hiatus to visit Jay Leno and give him an update on how he’s been feeling about President Obama’s moves lately. After a few quick jokes about Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann, Maher got to the President, with whom he is very dismayed.

“I’m skeptical when he gives a speech because, where is the follow-up?” Maher suggested, noting that he did like the speech President Obama gave on Thursday but didn’t trust it all that much. Part of the reason he can’t seem to get anything done, though, Maher posited, was that the Republicans simply wouldn’t let him, even when he proposed ideas that were, at their core, Republican. “It’s not the entree they don’t like,” he argued, “it’s the waiter.” And so he proposed simple advice: “stop trying to make everyone like you– you can give all the money to the rich, they will still call you a socialist.” What it came down to Maher was President Obama “going half-in on their crappy ideas” and getting nothing in return.

Leno brought up the bizarre scheduling of the President’s joint address to Congress, which Maher found ridiculous. Instead of acquiescing to Speaker John Boehner‘s request, Maher proposed a more diplomatic approach: sending a response that said “Hey Leatherface, guess who’s in charge?”

The interview (in two parts) via NBC below:

BBC Journalist Killed In Afghanistan By NATO Forces

Zara Golden — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:19:53 +0000

According to the Guardian, NATO has come forward in claiming responsibility for the death of BBC journalist Omaid Khpalwak. The 25-year-old Afghan stringer was one of 22 killed earlier this summer in an attack on the government buildings where he worked in Afghanistan’s southern Uruzgan province. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and subsequent battle with NATO security forces, but Khpalwak’s family has long felt that it was western bullets that took down Omaid. Some closure came yesterday when Nato forces met with the family and offered condolences for their grave mistake.

Omaid’s older brother, Jawid, was in contact with him that day. According to Jawid, Omaid hoped to find safety from entering Taliban by hidding in the bathroom. ”Death is approaching,” he told his brother through text. And then, a few minutes later, “If I die, pray for me.”

The terms of Khpalwak’s death sound brutal — shot 11 times when he came out of hiding relived to see NATO forces. Why he was a target remains a unexplained. According to his older brother, he spoke english and carried a press card. “They thought he was a suicide bomber, but how?” NATO reports say they are confident that soldiers “complied with the laws of armed conflict and rules of engagement and acted reasonably under the circumstances.”

This tragic episode is indicative of the increasing dangers Afghans face, working alongside foreign forces and just in general. Journalists working locally often find themselves stuck between the two sides. “People are threatening me and my family,” Jawid told the Guardian. “All 10 of us are very scared of staying in Uruzgan because of this.” Omaid’s work had earned him the attention of many, including the warlord Matiullah Khan.

Khpalwak is certainly not the first journalist to be taken as collateral damage, and his death once more makes clear the incredible dangers journalists face when reporting in a war zone.

This Exists: U.S. Marines In Afghanistan Ordered Not To Fart Audibly

Frances Martel — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:25:13 +0000

In order for the nation-building operation in Afghanistan to be successful, most of those involved in the operation can agree that American soldiers on the ground need to express the maximum possible respect for the people and culture of the land, as Taliban sympathizers argue the U.S. forces are occupying without being welcome. This seems to be a bit of a stretch of that philosophy, however: Marines there have been told not to “fart audibly” in front of Afghans.

The Military Times reports that this order was reported recently, as some Afghans had expressed dismay at being exposed to such behavior:

So here’s the news: audible farting has been banned for some Marines downrange because it offends the Afghans.

I know there are many things in the Afghan culture that don’t seem normal to Americans and it’s hard to spend seven months working in someone else’s back yard. Still, the Marines I saw downrange are doing a pretty good job at trying to do the right thing around the Afghans.

They’re not supposed to cuss because it could be misunderstood (that one goes out the window a lot). And they stay away from talking about politics, religion or girls because those topics could escalate into major disagreements (they can’t communicate anyway because of the language barrier).

But farting? That’s practically a sport. Ok, it’s not soccer, but a good contest could open the door for cross-cultural exchanges, jokes and other gallows humor.

While the Times seem to put emphasis on the fact that it seems like some sort of extreme limitation of the Marines’ freedom to ask them to stop farting, for this civilian the more interesting part of this discussion is the claim that it “offends the Afghans.” Does it somehow not offend Americans? Obviously there is a difference between civilian and military culture, but it’s a bit hard to imagine that American civilians would react any more positively to foreign troops entering their country and farting loudly all over the place. And then there’s the timing– did it take a decade of war and rebuilding for the American military to figure this one out, or is it just the new crews going into the country that have made this a problem? As the report doesn’t elaborate, we’ll have to leave the answers to this questions to the imagination.

[h/t]

Report: Pentagon Shares Information On 30 Servicemen Lost In Recent Chinook Crash

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:11:00 +0000

The Pentagon has released the names of the 30 servicemen who lost their lives when a Chinook helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan earlier this month.

As such, we are now finally able to learn more about the men, one as young as 21, who died fighting for their country, some of whom were said to be involved in the elite Navy SEAL team that brought down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

CNN also has interviews with some of the loved ones left behind — definitely worth a watch if you have a moment.

Have a look at our gallery, below.

Sgt. Alexander J. Bennett (1 of 30)

Next ►

Age 24, from Tacoma, Washington

Images via The U.S. Navy, CNN, Nebraska.tv, Naples News, and MilitaryTimes.com

CNN’s John King Asks Panel: Are These ‘The Worst Days Of Obama’s Presidency’?

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:36:40 +0000

CNN’s John King assembled a panel yesterday to discuss whether the recent credit downgrade and the devastating loss of specialized troops in the ongoing war in Afghanistan mark these as the worst days of Barack Obama‘s presidency. He brought on a couple of individuals who know a thing or two about following presidents as they navigate through extremely tense times: CNN senior political analyst David Gergen and CNN political contributor Mary Matalin.

First, Gergen weighed in and offered a warning to consumers who might grow too afraid to spend:

I don’t think you’re overstating it, John. This past week, I think, was one of the toughest, perhaps the worst week the President has had because the markets fell so sharply even as he announced the debt ceiling agreement and then he had the Friday, Saturday and then this weekend. So it is, it’s tough. But I think the President discovered today that words alone are not enough. He tried very hard to reassure investors, as you know, when he came out this afternoon and hen he spoke, the DOW was down around 400 and by the end of the day it was down 600. He’s got to go beyond words; he’s got to take some actions now, I think, to reassure Americans. One of the real problems of what happened today is it could spook consumers; it could really make people fearful and they’re not going to spend and that could hasten a “double dip.”

Matalin then offered a look at what it’s like to deliver bad news to a waiting nation:

I had the great good fortune and honor to work with men of inordinate breadth and depth of experience, not just in the 9/11 George W. Bush White House, but for Dick Cheney and with George Herbert Walker Bush, so this kind of experience can put these big shifts in context. That’s really important, as David knows, that you don’t react; you’re not in a responsive mode. You’re trying to convey leadership and confidence and particularly in this situation right now, it is — I’m echoing David — people have lost their greatest source of wealth, which is their home equity, they’ve had their savings, their investments, their retirement all wiped out in one fell swoop, there’s no confidence that Washington can function at any level and this President is not conveying, not just by the absence of talking about deeds. There’s just something that he’s not coming across with. And I’m not just saying that as a partisan. I’m pretty spooked myself down here with two kids in high school and a retirement staring us in the face.

It is isolating, but you have to keep your head about you and you can’t be subjected to political posturing or aides that want to put you in a political situation.

Matalin and Gergen (Who both just seem so… tired of it, don’t they?) also brought up an interesting observation: The President seems to be surrounding himself more with “political” people than those who have a deep knowledge of economics.

Tell us: Do you think the President’s handling of these crises will determine whether or not he’ll serve a second term? Is there a U.S. President you think demonstrates an ideal example of how to lead under pressure?

Take a look at the segment, via CNN:

Watch President Obama Deliver Statement On Economy Via Live Stream

Colby Hall — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:58:44 +0000

In light of the recent credit downgrade announced this weekend by the S&P (and the stock market plunge that has since followed), President Obama is speaking publicly from the White House today at 1pm. Sources reveal that he will also speak of the tragic weekend news of the downed Black Hawk helicopter in Afghanistan that led to over thirty deaths of US servicemen, many of whom who were members of SEAL Team Six.

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT

VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV

31 Americans, Including 25 Navy SEALs, Killed In Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan

Mark Joyella — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:59:42 +0000

ABC’s Martha Raddatz reports a helicopter crash in Afghanistan has killed 31 Americans, including as many as 25 Navy SEALs in one of the worst single-day U.S. losses of life since the war began. Raddatz says a senior military official told ABC News early this morning that a total of 38 people were on board the Chinook helicopter when it crashed overnight in the eastern Afghan province of Wardak. Initial reports indicate up to 25 Navy SEALs were on the aircraft at the time.

The helicopter was also carrying seven Afghan Special Forces troops, one interpreter, five member helicopter crew and one dog. Troops were apparently involved in a raid at the time. There are reports the Taliban has claimed responsibility for bringing down the chopper.

Update: A tragic update: according to the AP, more than 20 of the Navy SEALs killed in the helicopter crash are thought to be from SEAL Team 6, the group that captured and killed Osama bin Laden.

Watch the report here, from ABC News:

Watch an update from Fox News below:

Paul Ryan Responds To Defense ‘Cuts’: ‘Let’s Pass A Bill To Cover The Moon With Yogurt’

Frances Martel — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:54:06 +0000

Rep. Paul Ryan took the House floor today to rail against what he considered “accounting tricks and budget gimmicks” by those attempting to carve out a budget that reduced spending. Among those, he explained, were the supposed “cuts” to defense spending that cut from predicted future spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he argued were not any different than repealing a bill proposing to “cover the moon with yogurt.”

Introducing to the debt crisis lexicon what is perhaps its catchiest potential meme yet, Rep. Ryan explained that much of the “spending” cuts proposed were counting money not yet necessary to spend. Many of the assumptions, Rep. Ryan explained, in the proposed cuts were, to him, complete fiction:

We assume we’re going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we’re going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. I’ve got a better idea. Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let’s come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let’s save $14 trillion. This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can’t make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker.

“We can’t keep spending money we can’t have,” he continued, emphasizing that the money that the proposal on the floor claimed to save was not money that anyone should expect to be spent at any time. “Why on earth do we want to give the President a blank check to keep doing that, giving our sovereignty and self-determination to other countries to loan us money to fund our government? Those days have got to end,” he concluded. The point may be a serious one of Congressional contention, but expect that “cover the moon with yogurt” analogy to take the express route into GOP talking points.

Rep. Ryan’s statements via C-SPAN below:

NY Times Photographer Who Lost Legs In Afghanistan Returns To Work

Mark Joyella — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:25:04 +0000

New York Times correspondent Sabrina Tavernise had the assignment of covering an event Wednesday at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. She’s used to working with Times photographers, but never expected to see the face of Joao Silva, the Timesman who lost his legs and suffered massive internal injuries when a land mine exploded underneath him in Afghanistan last fall. As David Dunlap and James Estrin write in today’s Times, Tavernise “spotted a very familiar face in the crowd. Mr. Silva, wearing a T-shirt with the exclamation ‘Pow!’ written across the front, was already on the scene. He was smiling. He was walking on his prosthetic legs. And he was taking pictures.” One of those pictures (above) is featured on the front page of today’s paper.

Silva’s been treated at Walter Reed since October, and NYT director of photography Michele McNally thought of him when she was assigning a photog to cover Wednesday’s event. “I went to David Scull, the national picture editor, and said: ‘Joao’s there and has his equipment. Why don’t we assign him?’ It turns out that Joao was already shooting it.”

According to the Times, Silva’s not fully recovered, but unwilling to let a good story slip by:

Although Mr. Silva can walk, he still needs a cane, which he holds in his right hand. When he wants to shoot, he must transfer the cane to his left arm so he can pick up the camera. He also conceded that he was frustrated about not yet being able to move as nimbly as he once could. But all in all, he said he was happy with his first day’s work.

“It was a matter of making the best of what I had,” he said. “There will come a time when I can run, but now I can walk.”

And as for running, Silva’s signed up for the New York City Marathon in November. Seriously. Rock on, Joao!

Michael Hastings’ General McChyrstal Book Deal With Little, Brown Falls Through

Alex Alvarez — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:14:19 +0000

Michael Hastings went from crafting headlines to being one himself when he wrote “The Runaway General,” his now-infamous 2010 Rolling Stone article on General Stanley McChrystal. The profile included criticism of the Obama administration that McChrystal claimed had been “off the record,” and which eventually resulted in the General’s resignation. The story may have cost Hastings further access to high-ranking military officials, but it garnered him a book deal with Little, Brown.

Now, however, it would appear that Hastings’ book deal with the publisher has been canceled. The New York Post is reporting that Hastings’ agent, Andrew Wylie, began shopping his client’s manuscript about Afghanistan to other publishers this week. Little, Brown president Michael Pietsch would not comment on the paper’s report, telling it only that he is “not going to talk about that.”

So far, the reason for the cancellation is unknown.

h/t NY Post

Lindsey Graham: Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy Risks Ruining Momentum We Achieved

Matt Schneider — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:52:22 +0000

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham does not approve of President Obama’s latest foreign policy strategy, arguing that the President’s decision to withdraw 30,000 troops from Afghanistan “may have undercut the momentum’ we achieved in the last year. “Things were moving in the right direction,” Graham suggests, but now he believes all might be lost.

Graham elaborates on his doubts:

“Here’s what I fear. This announcement of an accelerated withdrawal, which was not recommended by the generals, this is now the Obama-Biden strategy, no military leader recommended the decision the president chose. . . . My fear is people will look at this as a withdrawal, not transition.”

Such a strategy creates unnecessary risk according to Graham, and he concludes, “I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.” Graham and fellow Republican Senator John McCain often seem to be unhappy with Obama’s policy in various foreign countries, but given that even many Republicans are parting ways with the McCain/Graham idea that a massive amount of troops must remain in Afghanistan, maybe Obama won’t need to worry too much about Graham’s criticism here. Although Graham is definitely right about one thing – time will tell.

Watch the clip from Fox below:

Fox News Watch On Obama: When Will Media Say ‘We Were Wrong About This Guy’

Matt Schneider — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 13:41:47 +0000

President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan and war strategy moving forward set the stage for a fun debate on Fox News Watch between conservative commentator Cal Thomas and liberal commentator Alan Colmes. Given that no one on the political spectrum seems happy with Obama’s plan for Afghanistan, Thomas senses a “disturbance in the liberal force” and playfully referenced Colmes as Jabba the Hut. Yet even if liberals are upset with Obama now, Thomas is confident the media will fall back into line by election time.

Colmes refuted the idea that the media actively supports Obama, and instead shifted the argument to not understanding why anyone continues to advocate we stay fighting in Afghanistan when the people responsible for 9/11 are long gone. Yet Thomas wanted to return to criticizing the media:

“You know what the press is really reluctant to do and I think they’re going to have to do it at some point. . . . They were cheerleaders leading up to 2008 election. This was the guy who was going to part the waters, he was going to smooth out the crooked places, do all these things, cure tooth decay and now they’re realizing he’s mortal just like every other President. When are they going to come to their senses and say ‘we were wrong about this guy?’”

With seconds left before the final buzzer for this round, a frustrated Colmes very humorously and sarcastically responded:

“Whenever a liberal gets elected, and he’s not even that liberal, it’s ‘the media that did it.’ But whenever a conservative gets elected, it’s ‘the people have spoken!’”

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Report: Jon Huntsman ‘Set Aside’ Mormonism To Drink Liquor While In China

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:50:38 +0000

Jon Huntsman is well-traveled and, as it turns out, exceptionally polite – even willing to compromise certain beliefs for the comfort of his hosts. Take a look, for instance, at this rather charming anecdote from Real Clear World:

Talking to his associates from his time in China, one hears near-universal respect for the man and his views of America’s role within the world – even to the point of turning his time away from the states in China into a potential political asset, an instance of confronting communists with a case for freedom. They’ll tell you Huntsman truly does view his role as one of duty and service to the nation – even to the point of setting aside his Mormon religious views on drinking alcohol to drink the disgusting baijiu liquor which is mandatory at Chinese events (I’m told Huntsman would drink the clear alcohol once and then switch to water, hoping no one noticed after the first round).

The article provides an in-depth look at Huntsman’s views regarding issues like bringing troops home from Afghanistan, “nation building at home,” and matters of foreign policy, so it’s definitely worth a read to get to know him better.

h/t Real Clear World via Ben Smith’s Twitter

Does The Constitution Matter? Time‘s Richard Stengel Explains Controversial Cover Story

Josh Feldman — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:06:54 +0000

Given the current debate in Washington over the War Powers Act and presidential authority in declaring military action, TIME Magazine decided to make the Constitution the focus of their 10th annual history issue, asking “Does it still matter?”

Andrea Mitchell had TIME Managing Editor Rick Stengel on her MSNBC show to explain why they chose that particular cover story, which is guaranteed to raise some eyebrows on the left and right.

Stengel explained that the Constitution is still relevant in modern political life, but not as much as those in power would suggest.

It doesn’t matter as much as you hear on the campaign trail where you have a lot of Republicans saying we’re in a Constitutional crisis when it comes to Libya, when it comes to Obamacare, when it comes to all of these issues. I mean, the Constitution is a general guardrail so we don’t go off the road, it’s not something that steers us down the center of the road all of the time.

He also explained the debate over Constitutional originalism vs. loose constrictionism, particularly the idea that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

That goes to one of these issues that’s debated in our society all the time, between the originalists who interpret the Constitution as they think the framers intended versus those people who look at the Constitution as larger principles that have to be applied to the reality right now.

Mitchell pointed out that it would be difficult to know exactly what the framers would think about, say, current U.S. actions in Libya and the War Powers Act. Stengel agreed, taking on the whole “what would the framers think” argument and even suggesting that the War Powers Act may not even be constitutional. He pointed out that the document gives the president very specific powers as Commander-in-Chief, and the ultimate purpose of Congress is to “wrestle with these issues” and “find something in between” to agree upon.

Watch the video below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Viewers Swarm Fox News On Night Of President’s Address; MSNBC Falls To Fourth Among Viewers 25-54

Mark Joyella — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:07:56 +0000

Cable news ratings, June 22, 2011:

•President Obama‘s address to the nation Wednesday night disrupted program schedules and gave Fox News an average 460,000 viewers 25-54 throughout prime time. HLN, which had extended coverage of the Casey Anthony murder trial, was second with 330,000, and MSNBC fell to fourth with 223,000. During the eight o’clock hour, Fox averaged more than half a million viewers in the demo, while MSNBC averaged 244,000.

•Despite interest in the speech on Afghanistan, CNN–which did well during the speech itself–struggled in the lead-up, with the network’s Situation Room at 5 p.m. averaging just 67,000 viewers 25-54. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews had 105,000 viewers and HLN’s special coverage of the Anthony trial averaged 260,000. Fox won the hour with 421,000 viewers in the demo–six times the audience for CNN.

Here’s the full scoreboard:

TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)

5 pm

Beck

421

Blitzer

Matthews

105

Special

260

6 pm

Baier

324

Blitzer

Live

113

Prime

252

7 pm

Shep

397

King, USA

131

Matthews

193

Issues

298

8 pm

O’Reilly

563

InTheArena

295

O’Donnell

244

Grace

459

9 pm

Hannity

431

Morgan

176

Maddow

236

DrDrew

308

10 pm

Van Susteren

405

Cooper

231

Schultz

205

Behar

245

11 pm

O’Reilly

394

Cooper

178

O’Donnell

171

Showbiz

173

TOTAL DAY

284

134

129

191

PRIME TIME

460

226

223

330

Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

TV NEWS RATINGS: TOTAL VIEWERS (L +SD)

5 pm

Beck

1732

Blitzer

434

Matthews

587

Special

999

6 pm

Baier

1818

Blitzer

351

Live

555

Prime

1022

7 pm

Shep

1612

King, USA

330

Matthews

638

Issues

1043

8 pm

O’Reilly

2470

InTheArena

811

O’Donnell

895

Grace

1625

9 pm

Hannity

2007

Morgan

633

Maddow

892

DrDrew

1240

10 pm

Van Susteren

1738

Cooper

705

Schultz

709

Behar

872

11 pm

O’Reilly

1116

Cooper

483

O’Donnell

812

Showbiz

488

TOTAL DAY

1179

411

428

657

PRIME TIME

2096

702

806

1224

Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data

Limbaugh Compares Obama Ignoring Petraeus To Hitler Arguing With His Generals

Matt Schneider — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:10:48 +0000

Surprise, surprise, Rush Limbaugh was not a fan of President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan last night. Although it may be a bit more shocking just how quickly Rush’s humorous assertion that losing wars is an impressive credential on the resumé of any Democratic politician, it soon turned into a random, over-the-top comparison of Obama to Adolf Hitler.

Rush wondered “what better way to fire up the Democrat base than to announce you intend to lose the war in Afghanistan? That’s what the Democrat base wants.” Then Rush jokingly recalled how “only Obama” knew how to find Osama Bin Laden, because after all, “what do General Petraeus and Gates, the Defense Secretary, what do they know?” Everything was going smoothly with today’s dose of Obama criticism, but just when you think Rush has scored enough points for the day, oh no, he’s not done yet, sarcastically saying:

“[Obama is] a brilliant guy getting Bin Laden and now he’s a brilliant military strategist. You know Hitler’s generals tried to argue with him too – fools.”

Yikes. Well that wasn’t a direct comparison one could argue, but name-dropping Hitler as someone who didn’t listen to their generals, just like you know who, sure seemed unnecessary.

Listen to the clip from The Rush Limbaugh Show below:

(h/t)

Joe Scarborough: Right-Wing Antagonizes Democratic Presidents; Prevents Ending Wars

Matt Schneider — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:26:35 +0000

Much of Morning Joe was spent discussing President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan. Joe Scarborough thought it was a “political speech” and not really an effective one, given how no one across the political spectrum seems to be happy with the plan moving forward. And since Richard Haas suggested that the overall cost savings from Obama’s proposed drawdown would be very small, many on the panel were left wondering what exactly is the goal with Obama’s strategy?

Donny Deutsch was confused, also thinking that it just seems purely political in that Obama doesn’t want to be viewed as a President who walked away from a war. Yet Deutsch asked why it couldn’t be viewed as strength, and not weakness, for an American president to leave a war and focus on domestic issues? Scarborough offered an explanation, suggesting Democratic presidents are always forced to prove their national security toughness:

“A Republican could do that. It’s just the bottom line . . . a strong Republican could say enough of this war, it’s time to start rebuilding America. A Democrat can’t. The right-wing has always antagonized Democratic presidents and pushed them [from Presidents Kennedy to Clinton to Obama]. . . . Barack Obama knows, like all of us know, that when our troops leave Afghanistan bad things are going to happen . . . and he doesn’t want it to explode on his watch.”

Scarborough was disappointed with the realization that neither side wants to be accused of losing this war and that ultimately Obama is just making “a political calculation.” Although with so many critics piling up for his decision to continue the war, Obama might need to soon again recalculate his political strategy on Afghanistan.

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

Frowns All Around: Maddow, Matthews, And Ed Schultz Pan Obama’s Afghanistan Speech

Frances Martel — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:45:18 +0000

President Obama’s announcement that he would be withdrawing troops from Afghanistan throughout the next year appears to, upon first impression, let most of MSNBC’s hosts down. Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews joined host Ed Schultz on his program to assess the speech last night, and while each took their own issue with the withdrawal plan, all three were united in their disappointment that the withdrawal was not happening quickly enough.

Schultz opened up the program telling his audience that he was “not sold” that President Obama’s plan would be successful or lead to a quick enough withdrawal, noting that even with the full withdrawal announced tonight, the number of Americans in the country would be significantly higher than they were on the day President Obama was inaugurated. In fact, about 68,000 Americans would remain, with only about 50 known Taliban members working in the country. “We can’t have peace everywhere,” Schultz submitted. “It’s wishful thinking.” In addition to the fact that bringing democracy to Afghanistan seemed far-fetched, Schultz added that there were serious financial hurdles to jump in order to continue the war and fix the domestic economy. “There’s a political reality to all of this: nation-building with what money?” Schultz concluded it was, all in all, “not a good night at the office.”

Once joined by Maddow and Matthews, they gave their own objections to the speech. For Maddow, it was pivotal to point out that the withdrawal deadlines proposed in his speech today were not news. “This was the same deadline he was talking about in December 2009,” she noted, “but a really big important thing has happened since then: bin Laden is dead.” Maddow argued that the speech was unsatisfactory because it “did not answer the question that’s on everybody’s mind: now that we killed Osama bin Laden, can we please go home?”

Matthews concurred and added his own personal passion against nation-building. Aside from questions he had pertaining to the status of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan early during the military effort, to Matthews, it was about his own “deep deep prejudice against American occupation of countries overseas,” stemming from his belief that “what we call patriotism in the country is not unique to us,” and that “people don’t like other people in their country with guns.” The occupation, he concluded, makes being a Taliban official “the easiest job in the world,” because America had so squarely positioned itself as the bad guy, resulting the nations America spent trillions to defend telling American leaders to “get the hell out of here.” Maddow added that she could not a difference in the impact American troops would have on Afghanistan if they all left tomorrow as opposed to the current proposed timeline.

All of this coming from liberal commentators does not dilute criticism from the right that the President’s withdrawal plan is too fast, rather than too slow, and Schultz did not omit this question from the segment. Given that General David Petraeus had requested more time for troop withdrawal, Schultz asked whether President Obama had exposed himself to further criticism from the right. Matthews took particular objection to this despite being so vehemently opposed to a further stay in Afghanistan, arguing that anyone who would attack the President for not allowed Gen. Petraeus to dictate policy “does not understand the U.S. Constitution” and the President’s role as commander in chief.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bill O’Reilly Accuses Obama Of ‘Playing Politics’ With Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

Frances Martel — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:21:59 +0000

President Obama’s announcement tonight that he would be withdrawing 33,000 troops from Afghanistan within the next year may come as good news to many who wish to see an end to the conflict, but the fact that his timeline for withdrawal is faster than that proposed by Gen. David Petraeus has Bill O’Reilly concerned about whether President Obama could escape being labeled an opportunist reacting to political forces rather than a commander in chief acting in the nation’s interest.

O’Reilly asked guest Gen. Wesley Clark for his opinion on the matter, particular after Gen. Clark’s praise of Gen. Petraeus, and his point that Afghanistan is not like Libya, in which there is “no vital American interest.” Gen. Clark argued that the President must look at a “broader, deeper picture” than what Gen. Petraeus faces that may make him choose to withdraw earlier, especially since the mission– “to go after Al-Qaeda”– had been very successful.

O’Reilly disagreed on the nature of the mission, arguing that Taliban chief Mullah Omar had “given us the proverbial finger” and that the true mission was “to remove the Taliban from power,” and with the withdrawal, it was possible for them to come back. “If Gen. Petraeus says to me ‘You need another year at full strength,’” O’Reilly argued he would listen to the general, otherwise, “it looks like President Obama is playing politics… looking out for himself for reelection purposes.”

Ultimately, Gen. Clark ceded the point that Gen. Petraeus was to be listened to without relenting that President Obama had a different perspective from which he was assessing the situation that would make his decision possibly correct regardless of what Gen. Petraeus says. “No general in command wants to give up command of a third of his troop strength for other reasons,” he noted, which would put Gen. Petraeus in a position that would not permit him to request fewer troops on the ground.

The segment via Fox News below:

President Obama Withdrawal Of 33,000 Troops From Afghanistan By Next Summer

Frances Martel — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:39:31 +0000

President Obama addressed America from the East Room of the White House today with the news that 10,000 American troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and 33,000 by summer 2012. He also warned that he would not tolerate “terorrist safe-havens” in Pakistan and that his focus as the troops come home will be domestic problems.

The President’s statement began with the story of the Afghanistan war, and how Al-Qaeda had brought the nation into that region. With that, he announced that “starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops by next year,” and “a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point.” He also explained that the mission evolved from “combat to support,” and that by 2014, “this process will be complete.”

Aside from the official troop withdrawal announcement, President Obama also addressed Pakistan and their status as a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terror groups:

Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. We will work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keep its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe-haven for those who aim to kill us: they cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.

President Obama did not expand upon what “continue to press Pakistan” or “never tolerate a safe-haven” mean, but hinted at further action, most likely reserved for further statements after the Afghanistan situation is sorted out and, perhaps especially, the American situation: “it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” the President added sternly.

The President’s full remarks via WireUpdate here, and video via Fox News below: