Flashback: Candy Crowley Dismissed Oppression of Women By Taliban

With the focus on the horrible job of “moderating” perpetrated by CNN’s Candy Crowley at the latest 2012 presidential debate, it is instructive to take a look back at some of her past work for CNN. For instance, in a 2010 interview with former President George W. Bush, Crowley dismissed Bush’s correct assertion that women are horribly oppressed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is interesting to contrast Crowley’s dismissive attitude about the Taliban’s oppression of women with the story of 14-year-old Malala Yousufazi, the Pakistani teen who stood up to the oppressive Taliban and was shot in the head for her bravery. This story is heartbreaking but let us hope that her example can spur others to activism against the evils of radical Islam.

But, it seemed in her interview with President Bush that Crowley didn’t think the oppression of women by the Taliban was any worse than that of any other nation!

(At 1:50 into the video)
George W. Bush:: I would say that, uh, put yourself in the position of a young girl in Afghanistan and realize that her life will be incredibly brutalized and or thwarted by people like the Taliban. And the fundamental question – Is it worth it? – that’s the question we’ve got to ask. Does it matter to our own national security, or does it matter to our conscience, that women will be mistreated? I argue it does.

And I understand it’s difficult…

Candy Crowley: It is. And women are mistreated in a lot of different parts of the world.

Bush: But nothing like they were during the Taliban.

Notice that Crowley felt it necessary to point out that women are mistreated “in a lot of different parts of the world”? That equivocation really had no bearing on the discussion of the oppression by the Taliban, certainly, but what was she trying to say, here? The impression is that the oppression women face at the hands of the Taliban is no big deal because women are mistreated elsewhere, too.

One woman that gets it is Angelina Jolie. Jolie thinks that little Malala should be held up as an international hero. Hard to fault that logic, for sure.

But, I guess to Crowley, Malala isn’t so special. After all, women are mistreated in a lot of different parts of the world.

TSA Puts Tea Party Organizer On No Fly List During Trip, Strands Him In Hawaii
Putin Wins: Obama Shutting Down U.S. Pro-Democracy Radio Broadcasts in Russia
  • 914

    Yes but She sounds good when Her mouth is closed!!


    • Carl

      Yeah, women should be seen and not heard, right 914?

      • Reading into 914’s words something that isn’t there, eh, Carl?

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Is it the role of the United States to send its armed forces to prevent any women in the world from being oppressed? A global domestic violence police?

    • jim_m

      Another shibboleth of the left is that if you cannot prevent all injustice that you should not prevent any.

      Why should we have gotten involved with WWII when the Nazi’s were only killing Jews in Europe? After all, Just because Hitler declared war against the US he wasn’t really a threat at that point. We should have stayed out of it. In a similar manner the Taliban and al qaeda are not real threats to the sovereignty of the US. Why should we care how many people they murder or oppress?

      Here’s a hint chico: We stand against oppression because oppression is wrong. Not every instance requires us to send troops. If you want to boil the taliban’s evil down to “they oppress women” you are neglecting the majority of what makes the taliban evil. It is not just about oppressing women, but their support of terrorism in advancing a despotic ideology.

      Any group that wants to export their oppresive ideology around the world is best strangled in the crib.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        More than 2000 good Americans have died to impose our system of feminism on the Afghans.


        • jim_m

          NO. Did we impose abortion rights upon them? Nope. Did we allow them to educate their daughters? yep.

          I guess that you find it offensive that we allowed basic human rights for little girls (ones that their parents actually wanted to provide but were prevented form delivering by the taliban). too bad that you are a supporter of female genital mutilation and that you oppose the education of women and their rights to vote. Makes you a pretty typical lefty actually. Do you work in the White House under obama?

          You are repulsive. Is there any offense against anyone other than yourself that you think we should fight as a nation?

          • Jwb10001

            Chico is full of it. We didn’t go to Afgan to save the women, they harbored terrorist the very terrorist that killed 3,000 Americans. After 9/11 that was not the right thing to do. In Chico’s world though we deserved it, he’s becoming the head of the blame America first crowd.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            How long will this war go on? It’s more than ten years since 9/11.

            And, as Obama will remind you every five minutes, Osama Bin Laden is dead.

          • Rdmurphy42

            And? So, in ww2′ if hitler had been assassinated, all the tanks and planes should have immediately turned around and gone home because it was all over, right?

          • jim_m

            When muslims stop trying to take over the world and rule through a global caliphate then we will stop resisting. They’ve been working on it since the 7th century. Take it up with them.

            This didn’t start with bin laden and doesn’t end with his death. Only an ignorant ass would think so.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Muslims can’t run their own countries competently, let alone take over the world. Fear of a “global caliphate” is a symptom of idiocy.

            I don’t remember the Jaysh Al Khilifat amphibious assault on Marbella. Is the Ottoman Army pushing through Bulgaria again?

            Looks more like we’re trying to take over their world to me.

            The Chinese will take over the world after the USA is broken from fighting the Muslims in futile wars.

          • Jwb10001

            Osama is dead and his terrorist organization just killed 4 Americans. So I guess Osama isn’t that big a deal afterall. I don’t know how long we’ll be there. In my opinion (just my opinion since unlike you I don’t know everything) we should clear out with the specific warning any more haboring terrorist who launch attacks and we come storming back. It would be a terrible shame to leave those that want freedom to the barbarians but enough is enough.

        • Letting girls learn to read is feminism?

          • jim_m

            Stopping people who shoot them in the head for learning is imposing feminism.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Are we invading Pakistan, too?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Are we invading Pakistan, too?

        • Letting women drive cars is feminism?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Why should U.S. Marines be dying to ensure their women’s right to drive cars, or dress in miniskirts? Not to mention the $$$cost.

            They don’t want to live like godless materialistic slutty Americans.

            Plus, the act of making war to “prevent injustice” creates injustice. The question is always whether the injustice being prevented justifies the injustice being created. When the USA kills several innocent civilians a week in its operations in AF/PAK, is that justified by burkas?

            You are rightly indignant about the girl being shot in the head, but care not a bit about the baby killed in a mistaken drone strike. Of course, killing the baby in the drone strike excites militancy and thus is an indirect cause of the girl getting shot in the head, but that’s probably too complicated for you and Jim.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Stopping girls who go to a school from being locked inside while it burns is ‘imposing feminism’?

            Never knew you were so mysoginistic, Chico.

          • jim_m

            We did not go to war to support women’s rights and you know it. We went to war to stop muslim oppression and terrorism. The islamic antipathy toward women’s rights is only 1 symptom among many of their pathology.

            It is obvious to any with eyes to see that these radical muslims have no interest in women’s rights, in gay rights, in religious freedom, or in freedom of expression. They advocate for a totalitarian religious state that oppresses all who dissent from their leaders and murder those who stand up in opposition.

            While I understand that you support all these things that they stand for, the rest of us do not.

        • Letting women’s faces be seen is feminism?

          • jim_m

            Stopping people who throw acid in their faces is imposing feminism.

    • Jwb10001

      Oh nevermind the harboring of terrorist that went along with that, or the planning and training that went on that lead to 9/11/2001.

    • 914

      Read the Preamble and then check back

  • GarandFan

    Not surprising. CNN kept it’s mouth shut about Saadam’s activities as well.

  • Carl

    Really? She “Dismissed” oppression of women?

    That’s just another right wing lie.

    (At 1:50 into the video)
    George W. Bush:: I
    would say that, uh, put yourself in the position of a young girl in
    Afghanistan and realize that her life will be incredibly brutalized and
    or thwarted by people like the Taliban. And the fundamental question –
    Is it worth it? – that’s the question we’ve got to ask. Does it matter
    to our own national security, or does it matter to our conscience, that
    women will be mistreated? I argue it does.And I understand it’s difficult…Candy Crowley: It is. And women are mistreated in a lot of different parts of the world.Bush: But nothing like they were during the Taliban.

    She agrees with Bush.

    She says “It is.”

    She goes on to say that women are mistreated in a lot of places. Places where we don’t go to war. In effect, she’s pointed out that Bush trying to use that as a justification to enter into war is bullshit. Women are mistreated in a lot places, and Bush doesn’t go after those countries.

    If fact, it’s Bush who is dismissive. “But nothing like they were during the Taliban.”.

    And what does Crowley say next? “It was brutal. It was brutal”

    Poor little Tea party morons. Desperate to make points with the women they hate, right wing misogynists pretend they care about women’s issues.

    And how does Bush’s expression of concern over humanitarian issues square with the Romney Ryan ticket?

    It doesn’t.

    Paul Ryan said unequivocally and without hesitation during the VP debate that under Romney and Ryan the US would not put boots on the ground unless our national security was in jeopardy — that humanitarian reasons were not good enough.

    So this posturing by the Tea Party morons is even more comical, since their ticket is on the record stating that, in the instance cited here, not only do the Republicans not give a shit, they wouldn’t lift a finger.

    I’d call that “dismissive” of women issues, wouldn’t you?

    • jim_m

      Once again Carl demonstrates the despicable leftist meme that if you cannot oppose all evil everywhere then you should not oppose any evil anywhere because by selecting to oppose one the left will demonize you as supporting all those you don’t.

      If the left (and Carl here as our exemplar) really believed in human rights and in freedom then they would not condemn people for standing up for freedom in the one instance, but they would be asking “when will we be done in Afghanistan so we can move on to the next fight and where will that fight be?”

      The left doesn’t care about human rights because hey believe that you don’t have rights by virtue of being human but you have rights based on the political will of those in power and they are determined to hold onto that power so they can choose who has rights and who does not.

      Since Afghan women hold not political benefit for the left, Afghan women have no rights.

      • Carl

        Where will the next fight be? No, that’s not a question the left asks.

        That’s a question chicken-hawks like Mitt Romney ask.

        But not when it’s a humanitarian concern. Paul Ryan has already affirmed that today’s Republican Party doesn’t give a shit when it comes to humanitarian concerns – certainly not enough to fight a war.

        When asked straight out if the Romney Ryan White House would support humanitarian efforts with boots on the ground, Ryan affirmed that they would not.

        • jim_m

          Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a War Hawk), yet who actively avoided military service when of age.

          So you hate the majority of the founding fathers too? Most who signed the Declaration never fought in the war. The Pennsylvania delegation was mostly Quaker and pacifist. Obviously you would consider them beneath contempt for signing a document that provoked a war they never intended to participate in.

          It isn’t that you really care about someone’s service. You spit on our service men. You hate the idea of defending freedom because you desire a fascist state.

          No the left never believes in fighting for human rights. Like I said: The left doesn’t believe in them.

          • Carl

            Notice how Jim avoids addressing Romney and Ryan’s platform?

            And instead just throws ad hominem attacks at “the left”.

            It’s no wonder. Romney and Ryan are on-record against exactly the same kind of humanitarian efforts supported by Bush.

            They don’t care about women. They just lie to get votes. One lie after another….

            But Ryan was honest, even if he was dodging the question a bit.

            He stated without hesitation…

            In the instance of the humanitarian support for women, Ryan is on record stating that they would not send troops to fight the oppression of women.

            Tea Party morons support Romney without even understanding his position. And, as Jim had demonstrated, it’s not about the issues, it’s about getting that black man out of the White House.

          • jim_m

            I was not addressing their platform to begin with. I was addressing the totalitarian left and how they do not believe in human rights except as a tool to attack their political opponents. I was pointing out that you do not believe in securing those rights for anyone using the excuse that if you don’t secure them for everyone then you are evil.

            I note that you do not deny this at any point.

            You claim that the right does not care about women. I’ll point out that you only care about them in so far as they are politically useful. In fact you care about no one unless they have political utility and you are not willing to defend anyone’s rights unless that person has political utility, You are perfectly happy to treat blacks as second class citizens or subhuman if they do not agree with you politically. That is why I call you a bigot, because deep down you are.

            As for obama: It is about the issues. I have never addressed obama except on the issues. You and your fellow racist travelers on the left are the only ones who bring up his race, as if it were something relevant to his ability to do the job.

          • Carl

            In a post that pretends to support women the Tea Party attack squad ATTACKS Crowley, unfairly, as I’ve demonstrated above.

            THAT is how much they care about women…. they don’t. They don’t give Crowley a fair shake – in fact, they lie about what she said and what her intentions were.

            She didn’t dismiss the concern, she supported it.

            But the Tea Party morons are so blinded by their hate they can’t even see that simple reality.

            And what about the stark contrast between what Bush says in the video above and what the Romney Ryan ticket has said?

            crickets… Jim won’t even address it. That’s how sad things are.

            But no – it’s not that Jim hates Obama… no, no no… well, maybe.

            Well… yes.

            The right doesn’t care about women, as demonstrated by this misogynistic attack on Crowley. and when asked to defend the Romney Ryan disregard for women’s issues… nothing but ad hominem attacks against “the left”.

            It’s as if the more stupid of the Tea Party idiots don’t even know what the issues are and where their own candidate stands on these issues.

            And they don’t…. all they care about is ABO.

          • jim_m

            Name what there was that was misogynistic about any attack on Candy Crowley. I didn’t see anyone demeaning her because she was a woman. People have criticized her for being a left wing hack. That is not misogyny.

            The left knows misogyny. In fact obama’s staff knows it very well.

            Just like the left calls everyone racist because they are deeply committed to valuing people by the color of their skin, the left calls everyone else misogynist because they cannot conceive of treating women as equals.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            I am proud to say that I would never call the men in that photograph misogynist. Jim, are you really a lesbian Womyn’s Studies professor at Smith?

          • jim_m

            There are multiple people who claim that the obama admin is so sexist that it makes most college fraternities look like the women’s studies faculty by comparison. The photo is just one example.

            It does not surprise me to see you excusing the vulgar behavior of people you support. You only ever had standards for those you oppose.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Vulgar behavior? Well, I never!!! Don’t get your panties in a knot. Are you trying to lead me to think more highly of the Obama administration?

          • jim_m

            Yeah that ‘s it. You’re probably one of these obama supporters too.

            Since you love the vulgarity, I thought of you when I saw it.

          • Carl, we get it. You don’t want to talk about the topic of a post. Instead, you want to change the subject and talk about the current Republican presidential ticket and about the Tea Party so that you can express your hatred of both. Your accusation of others of hatred is an amazing display of projection.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Yup. Women’s rights, to you, is a bunch of manufactured pablum involving free contraception, abortion, and getting paid the same statistically despite statistically not working the same jobs as a population.

          • Rdmurphy42

            So Carl … When did Obama serve in the military?

          • jim_m

            It is so racist of you to ask that question.

        • jim_m

          The left does not believe in rights.

          “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” – unless it is against a left wing president in which case dissent is sedition.

          You have the right to speak your mind – unless your ideas are conservative,in which case “Shut up” the left explains.

          Minorities have the right to participate in government and hold political office – unless they are conservative,in which case the left determines that they are race traitors and uncle Toms.

          Women have the right to participate in politics too – unless they are conservative, in which case they are whores.

          Yep, the left believes in rights, but only for themselves.

    • Carl, apparently you have trouble debating the issue presented in the above post. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party or the current Republican presidential ticket.

      I have no objection to you offering a rebuttal to Warner’s argument, but you don’t do that. Instead, you play the “misogynist” card, which has expired.

      Did Candy Crowley minimize the brutality of the Taliban toward women in girls? That is the question.

    • jim_m

      She does dismiss it. She dismisses it the same way that you and Chico have dismissed it by saying “there are a lot of places we could go…” It s the same excuse that we should not bother with injustice because there is a lot of injustice and we are wrong to fight it in one place when we cannot fight it everywhere.

      It’s an argument that says that fighting injustice is not important.

      Bush is right when he says that it matters to our conscience to fight against such oppression. The problem is that the left has no conscience.

    • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

      Bush was making an argument that Afghan women’s issues justify a continuing war in Afghanistan. I reject the premise. These people have been following their ways for centuries. It is not up to the U.S. Army to change them. The Red Army utterly failed.

    • Rdmurphy42

      So if you see and intervene to stop one person being raped, you aren’t justified in doing so unless you intervened and stopped ALL rapes, righ?

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        More like, if you intervene to stop a rape, you don’t do it by dropping a 500 lb bomb on the rapist, killing him, the victim and her baby.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Like all liberals, her position ‘evolves’ depending upon who is president at any given moment.

  • r.a.

    “The impression is that the oppression women face at the hands of the
    Taliban is no big deal because women are mistreated elsewhere, too.”

    No, that’s not the implication of what Crowley said–that’s what you are choosing to read into what she said in an attempt to make some cheap political point.

    Let me get this out of the way: I don’t think Crowley did a good job as the debate moderator. I think the moderators absolutely should not inject themselves into the debate. They are there to moderate, not to jump into the fray. But then, I think that most of these debates are basically superficial media events, not much more. If we really wanted to learn about candidates’ positions, we would find a way to do something other than three crappy “debates” jammed into 1.5 hour time slots in between prime time TV shows. Just my opinion.

    That said, Warner, your attempt to use a short clip from 2010 to pile on the anti-Crowley bus comes off pretty half-baked, as usual. First of all, Crowley agreed with Bush with her first two words. She acknowledges that yes, it’s a tough question. Second, pointing out that “women are mistreated” all around the world does not diminish the violence and oppression of the Taliban. In fact, women are treated horribly in various parts of the world. This is not an either/or kind of situation.* Crowley’s basic question is this: If women are treated terribly in various parts of the world, what is the rationale for deciding to “do something” about the particular case of Afghanistan? That’s a legit question–but not a simple one.

    Bush’s answer to her question–that somehow the violence against women by the Taliban is unmatched–is not the greatest reply. Look at Eastern Congo, Egypt…look at the violence against women in places like Columbia and Mexico. There are other places where treatment of women is–arguably–just as horrific.

    So it comes down to a moral and political question about intervention, and there’s no easy answer. One case or situation is not necessarily “worse” than another–we have a lot of pretty terrible situations out there. So what do we do?

    When and where should the US intervene? Again, not a simple question by any stretch. I think this whole question about violence against women should be taken seriously, NOT just used as fodder for some cheap attempt to score some points for your political party (as you are doing, Mr Huston). Think about it.

    *Read up:






    • herddog505

      I’m walking down the street at night. A woman is being assaulted in an alley or parked car. Tell me the proper response:

      (A) Call the cops and do whatever I can to stop the assault, or;

      (B) Mutter, “Meh. Women are assaulted all over the world. No big deal,” and walk on.

      I believe that you would say that (A) is the correct answer. But what about the OTHER women being attacked in the city, perhaps even a block away? Is there some hypocrisy involved because I don’t rush out to find and help them, too? Is it not the gist of Crowley’s statement that Bush was some sort of hypocrite, or at the very least that he was making an excuse? I suggest that it is: Crowley wasn’t about to let Bush say anything to justify his “illegal” war in A-stan. Libs were very big on this as I recall: consider their ranting about sending troops to Rwanda, ranting that ended right around 1-20-09. It was nothing more than theatre to undercut the missions in A-stan and Iraq: “You CLAIM to want to help people. Well, what about THOSE people over there??? Oh, you don’t want to help THEM. I see: it’s only because they don’t have OIL, isn’t it?”

      Do I think that the Talliban’s (undeniable) abuse of women was a casus bellum? No, and I doubt Bush did, either. Do I think that getting rid of the Talliban made things at least a little better for Afghani women? Yes. Do I think that, on balance, we’ve done (or, at least, tried to do) a Good Thing* in A-stan? Yes.


      (*) For all the democrat b*tching about “nation building”, they never consider the alternative: nation ELIMINATING. Had I gotten my way in the days and weeks straight away after 9-11, A-stan would be a radioactive, uninhabitable desert: I would have killed every living being there to get bin Laden. Let’s consider a more (ahem) restrained approach: we go in, bomb the sh*t out of it, invade, look around for bin Laden for a while, ignoring those Afghanis we didn’t deliberately kill for shooting at us, and eventually leave, consigning the survivors to scrabble along as best they might with no efforts at all to try to improve their lot or even leave them in some sort of shape to avoid Taliban v2.0.

      • r.a.

        Hey HD, thanks for your reply.

        “I believe that you would say that (A) is the correct answer.”

        Yep, I’d say A is the right answer.

        “But what about the OTHER women being attacked in the city, perhaps even
        a block away? Is there some hypocrisy involved because I don’t rush
        out to find and help them, too?”

        Well, there’s always going to be things that happen that are out of our control. So no, I don’t think there’s hypocrisy in doing what you can to address these kinds of violent situations. But I also don’t think your example really works well as an analogy for the US presence in Afghanistan. We weren’t just over there taking a random stroll in the streets.

        “Is it not the gist of Crowley’s statement that Bush was some sort of
        hypocrite, or at the very least that he was making an excuse? I suggest
        that it is: Crowley wasn’t about to let Bush say anything to justify
        his “illegal” war in A-stan.”

        Crowley’s calling out Bush for trying to act like it was about oppression against women. Bush was trying use the ‘Taliban violence against women’ as justification for our presence there. But we all know the US didn’t marshal it’s military to go to A-Stan and save women from the Taliban. It wasn’t the reason we were there. Crowley is challenging him on that very point–if ‘violence against women’ is the motivation, then why Afghanistan? It’s a valid question in my book.

        “Do I think that the Talliban’s (undeniable) abuse of women was a casus bellum? No, and I doubt Bush did, either.”

        Of course it wasn’t the reason. And of course Bush knows that. We all know it. And that’s why it’s ridiculous to go on national TV and pretend that it was some major motivating factor for even one second. I’d prefer it if people just stick to the real reasons, rather than trying to trot out secondary or tertiary justifications. But that’s just me.

        “Yes. Do I think that, on balance, we’ve done (or, at least, tried to do) a Good Thing* in A-stan? Yes.”

        Ok. I’d rather hear from the people from Afghanistan about whether or not we have “done a good thing” over there. I have my doubts. If we were trying to do something about women’s rights and violence against women, I am not sure that a bombing campaign and full on invasion is exactly the best remedy. War isn’t exactly the best cure for those kinds of problems. But again, we weren’t there trying to do something about oppression against women. We were there for a whole slew of geopolitical and strategic reasons. I think our motives were primarily based upon our political and economic interests, not those of the people who live in Afghanistan.

        • herddog505

          It’s a question of side benefits: no, we weren’t over there by accident or even to “help” the people of A-stan, but, while we WERE there, we made some efforts to improve their lot, and especially the lot of their women.

          It’s like cops busting a crack house and sending any children they find during the course of the raid to child services: they weren’t there to help the kids, but it was a side benefit that (hopefully) will help the kids, it being at least marginally better to live in a foster home than in a crack house.

          I do agree, however, that it would have been better for Bush to have stuck to the real reason: we are there to find and destroy bin Laden, AQ, and their Taliban allies. Period.

          • r.a.

            “It’s a question of side benefits…”

            Ya, I understand what you mean. And I do think that these kinds of secondary or tertiary benefits can happen. But I still don’t agree when someone tries to argue that “saving the women of Afghanistan” was a key motivation for the US. It just wasn’t.

            “I do agree, however, that it would have been better for Bush to have
            stuck to the real reason: we are there to find and destroy bin Laden,
            AQ, and their Taliban allies. Period.”

            Right on the money. I’d prefer if the politicians and leaders would just tell it how it is. Yes, I do realize that I am probably insane for even *imagining* such a thing. Haha. We can all dream. But I’m glad we agree on this point.

      • r.a.


        “Had I gotten my way in the days and weeks straight away after 9-11,
        A-stan would be a radioactive, uninhabitable desert: I would have killed
        every living being there to get bin Laden.”

        If you seriously thought we should have just nuked Afghanistan then: 1) I worry about you; and 2) I am glad you were not in charge of decision-making at the time. That’s a pretty insane way of thinking if you ask me. Not that you did.

        • herddog505

          Oh, it’s unquestionably insane.
          On the flip side, totally sane men ordered a somewhat smaller-scale version in 1945…

          • In the context of total war…

            And you’ll notice they didn’t try to take out the Emperor.

            Say, didn’t you tell me about LeMay’s autobiography? Got it, been reading it – man, he knows how to tell about the times, doesn’t he?

          • r.a.

            Whoa. That’s probably not light reading. What’s the name of the book???

          • “Mission With LeMay.” It’s not exactly light reading, though the man knows how to tell a story. I’m up to WW2 and the B-29 – and man, the casualties they took would give folks fits today…

            It’s been out of print since 1965, but you can get it on Amazon.Com. I’d recommend it it highly.

          • r.a.

            That’s why you’re one of my top favorites to have a discussion with here–you and JLawson are always willing to say what you think, tell it how it is. Good point about the thinking of the sane and insane by the way.

          • We tend to tell it like we think it is, that’s for sure.

            I’ve been tempted in the past myself, like HD, to think just going “Fuck it” and doing a massive bombing (whether nuclear or simple conventional) of Afghanistan, and THEN asking politely for Bin Laden’s head on a platter would have been the simpler course.

            If they said no, then repeat the airstrikes and the polite request until they complied.

            (A polite word and a massive airstrike will get you more respect than just being polite will, after all.)

            And after the corpse was delivered, leave a small monument at the Afghanistan border, with the simple inscription – “Don’t make us come back here again. We won’t be so nice a second time.”

            But that’s kind of hard to square with our ‘good guy’ image, as tarnished and tattered as it may be. Plus that would have caused all sorts of international discontent.

            The use of nuclear weapons… man, that’s a genie I really don’t want getting out of the bottle. Right now, they’re a weapon too terrible to use… but what we did to Tokyo with conventional bombs and incendiaries exceeded the destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and Japan rebuilt all three.

            The shock of one bomb taking out a city has kept them from being used for the last 60+ years. But now… one or two nukes now would kill a lot of people (depending on where it was used) but the shock value wouldn’t take nearly 60 years to wear off now. I’d be surprised if it took 5. And I’m surprised (and pleased) that none of the more ‘unstable’ forces in the ME have been willing to tempt fate with a surplus Russian nuke…

            I don’t expect such luck to last much longer. Both Pakistan and India had much to lose from a nuclear pissing contest, as does NK. But Iran’s a special kind of crazy – and it’d be foolish to count on them to be as rational as we expect.

  • Par4Course

    If the Republicans agree to debates in 2016, they should do so on two conditions: (1) one of the moderators should be a journalist from Fox News (and I don’t mean Hannity or O’Reilly) and (2) at the end of each debate, time should be allotted to even up the amount of time each candidates was allowed to talk during the debate.

    Having all liberal moderators like Bill Moyers, Martha Raddatz (whose wedding Obama attended) and Candy Crowley (who interrupted to wrongly claim Obama labeled the Libyan consulate incident as a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden talk) is simply too much of a concession. And the Dems’ idea of “winning” is to interrupt and filibuster, so that they end up speaking longer than their opponents – as in all three debates so far this year.

    • herddog505

      What need for a moderator at all? Have the microphones hooked to timers that will cut them off at the agreed time limits, and let the candidates ask each other questions, with a coin toss to determine who goes first.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        Exactly, more like Lincoln/Douglas with electronic timers.

  • Anything that Obama says is ’empty political rhetoric’ period. Obama is an empty chair! You go George Bush! Crowley is such a, know it ALL mouth, that needs to learn when not to speak out of turn, which she won’t ever. “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear.” Whatever, Crowley just makes our guys look good.
    Vote Romney/Ryan Nov. 2012, I already have. (early voting) TN had over 100,000 early vote the first day.