Yes, I know, I dislike Brezezinski (spelling?) as the architect of that policy.

Regarding Taliban offering to extradite OBL if given evidence, that was a Taliban PR ploy (which worked, given that you cite it).

That evidence was provided to the Taliban after the 1998 embassy bombings (the crime for which OBL is indicted, unlike 9/11), and absolutely nothing happened.

See this (PDF, released under the Freedom of Information Act)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal40.pdf

or click on signature.

The Soviets were absolutely wrong to have invaded Afghanistan - but using the most regressive Afghans to oppose that invasion, to stoke the fires of Islamic fundamentalism was a huge mistake. The world continues to pay for that mistake. Making Glenn Beck president might be less catastrophic. As I recall, a bunch of Afghan intellectuals met Reagan and begged him not to go with the fundamentalist groups. (And the Soviet Union would have gone down for economic reasons with or without the Afghanistan war.)

And "anti-war progressive liberal" are your categories of thought - perhaps the world doesn't neatly fit into those. As I said, I parallel Ted Kennedy.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation.

Saw that in the Declaration of Independence. We might go about dealing death and desolation, but at least let it not be with mercenaries - a.k.a. defence contractors.

Re: Afghanistan, I'm exactly in line with Ted Kennedy as described here:

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/27/a_look_back_presidential_candidate_ted_kennedy_on_afghanistan

or click on signature.

From turcopolier.typepad.com, I take this comment (click on signature).

Colonel Lang,

There are several sections of the UCMJ which assert the obligation of a Service member to obey orders.In every case the order is defined as "lawful order". I am not aware of anyone ever being found guilty for disobeying an unlawful order.

I have been there too.

As a Lt in the Force Reconnaissance Company in 1967 I refused an order over the radio from a LtCol[artillery type] to direct a fire mission on a hamlet. I explained that could see several children playing near a well in the center of the hamlet.He insisted, citing the confirmed presence of armed NVA in violation of the TET truce.I refused emphatically. He later attempted to pursue the matter. He did not accuse me with violating his orders but rather with disrepect for the words I spoke to him. I was informally cautioned by my CO to be more polite when I ignored orders like that.

Nightsticker

USMC 1965-1972

FBI 1972-1996

Fat chance of me ever being in public life, but just in case:

"Asked why Republicans asserted more control of the Senate when they had a smaller majority before 2006, Jones said "the answer to that is, they're a--holes." He added that President Obama is not an a--hole, but, "I will say this. I can be an a--hole, and some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity.""

I endorse that. The Republicans in Senate are almost uniformly assholes. There are some Democratic Senators who are assholes as well. For good measure, the Senator from the Connecticut for Lieberman party is an uber-asshole.

What, you trying to make me spew coffee?

Yes, I want in on the racket. Maybe I can represent the Keyboard Manufacturers of America. Or should that be China? Doesn't matter, the money is just as green.

What happened to Van Jones is perhaps similar to what happened to Amanda Marcotte. Past intemperate statements caught up with them.

The question of course is why doesn't this happen most notably to Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, but also to any number of Republicans?

Regarding Bush's case for war against Iraq - at the time I did not think Bush had made the case and that if he went to war, it could only be on the basis of intelligence that had not been made public. There would be hell to pay unless he had such in his backpocket. Frankly, the amount of mendacity was a little beyond my imagination. Also, I was trying not to let my dislike of Bush - which started when I watched an clip of his early presidential campaign - to overpower me. Bush was meeting some engineers at a firm - I forget which firm and where. That clip conveyed to me arrogance, smugness, incuriousity, and a certain deadness (the opposing value would be liveliness) of mind.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2004/jun/10/terror-trial-jury-stymied/

or click on signature

The $20K al-Kidd received from Sami Omar Al-Hussayen is probably a red herring.

a. Al-Hussayen alleged disbursed hundreds of thousands of dollars, as per the FBI. Yet, when they charged him, it was only on counts of visa fraud, and material support to terrorists (via being a webmaster). Later he was charged with "with conspiracy to provide material support to Hamas -- through donation links on various websites that he allegedly maintained". Significantly none of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Al-Hussayen really or supposedly disbursed figured in his indictment.

b. Presumably the FBI, etc., would be looking to throw whatever they could against al-Kidd and al-Hussayen. So I'm assuming that even they could not get them even on the taxes on the $20K. Al-Hussayen would have had to pay taxes on the $20K (the gift limit in 2008 was $12K.)