The Smackdown between Rhetoric and Reality

Hmm, hmm.

NEW YORK (AP) - In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

[snip]

Full story here: http://tinyurl.com/rwxdf

(Am watching said Fox News Sunday interview even as we type, and Mr. Clinton is *so* chewing Fox and Chris Wallace new excretory openings, no punches pulled. Awesome! Otter gives it two paws up.)

Chris Wallace has become a total shill for the right.

In keeping with good Madison Avenue principles,
let's boil this debate down:

Iraq: Front on Terrorism (Bush version)
Iraq: Fount of Terrorism (National Intelligence Estimate)

So which is it? Front or Fount?

Who are we supposed to believe? The White House? Or the U.S. intelligence agencies?

That's the problem with lying as a tool for governing. After a while, you just don't who to believe.

Ain't that the truth!

Hi Fe - across the Bay!

Still in the Peace Cafe, sipping a Naked Juice, even. Have just been to the Folsom St. Fair & it may as well be Amsterdam!

Awesome article, by the way. Am about to open the link & read the whole NYT article (with Robert Plant singing in the background).

Posted by: Otter at September 24, 2006 06:10 PM

I was watching the Meet the Press interveiw that our local market decided not show, at 1 today on MSNBC at 6 and missed the actual interview but I did read the transcript and now what we need is any candidate running for house or senate to use is this, all current candidates talking about how Clinton was wagging the dog when he attacked Bin Ladens camps and focused so much attention on him. It is a great move on our candidates part Democrats have taken hits from republicans when we never needed to. I know there are several left will have to look into it tomorrow am and see what I can find.

Channel surfing... caught something (I think in the middle of the interview?) on ABC replaying Clinton's interview on Faux... Clinton slammed Wallace... '... sitting there with that smirk on your face' - Ka-zing-g-g-g.... I guess the ol' boy still has some stones in him, even if he has been playing ball with too many neoCons for my comfort level. ;-)

If the clip comes on crooks and liars, or if you can catch it on a re-run somewhere, it's pretty good....

otter, Clinton's querry to Wallace, why haven't you here at fox bothered to ask GB what he was doing to capture OBL b/w inauguration day and 911 is the 64,ooo dollar question we wish every politican had been asking for 5 years. Brilliant-apparently only Bill knows how to properly respond to those viscious attacks. Made my hair stand on end when I heard it.

Reality: Bush's War in Iraq (Thousands Upon Thousands Dead, Thousands Upon Thousands Wounded)

Rhetoric: Bush's War on Terror (Millions of gullible Americans afraid of their own shadows because Bush has told them thousands upon thousands of times they have to be afraid... of something..., if Lamestream Media's implications and snooze anchor's hysterical tones of voice are anything to go by.)

There is not now, nor was there ever, a "war on terror." How can there be a 'war on fear?' It's illogical. At best, there could be a 'war on crime' or a 'war on international crime/criminals.' Are international law enforcement agencies tracking the criminals down and bringing them to justice (assuming the criminals haven't blown themselves up in the process)? I'm not counting the military prisoners illegally held at Guantánamo (and wherever else in the world). We don't know their status because of the secrecy within the very paranoid Bush administration. Most are innocent, not charged with any crimes, they're still prisoners, but we still don't know why the innocent people haven't been deported to their home countries. If there is evidence to convict the others, it's been tainted because anything said under torture is inadmissable in a court of law (at least for today - that will change if Congress loses it's mind again and rubber stamps more Bush legislation this week).

Standing on the rubble of 9/11, Bush told people to carry on with their normal lives, to go see plays, visit New York. He certainly did not feel 'terrorized' after 9/11. By ignoring the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB, he had allowed 9/11 to happen, after all. What? Bush worry? He gets to bed by 10 p.m. and sleeps soundly every night. PNAC is happy, oil corporations are making a killing in profits, other corporations getting US taxpayer dollars are happy, especially Halliburton & subsidiaries; life is good for Bush; 9/11 was the most fortunate day in the life of George W. Bush.

Shortly after standing on the rubble in NY and telling us to carry on with our normal lives, Bush changed his mind, decided we had been "attacked" (never mind we all knew no country's military forces actually 'attacked' us on 9/11), coerced Congress into giving him the Authorization to Use Military Force to go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, coerced the Rubber Stamp Congress to vote in favor of the Patriot Act which trampled on so many of our rights, and badgered the UN for permission to invade Afghanistan. At Tora Bora, OBL was cornered and Bush (or someone acting as his spokesperson) decided he didn't want to capture OBL after all. So much for tracking down the international criminal who allegedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks. (Later Bush admitted he rarely, or never, thought about OBL. Now OBL's name is dragged out when Bush needs to use him as a boogey man, and he even releases videos of OBL, just in time to scare gullible sheeple before elections.... Coincidence...? Hmmmm.....)

Then Bush changed his mind again and illegally ordered the invasion of Iraq, all based on a pack of LIES (although it was really for PNAC objectives to control oil in the region and put a permanent US military force there, and it didn't hurt that oil corporations have made record profits ever since). Now thousands upon thousands of people are dead because Bush LIED, and violated the US Constitution, did not get Congressional approval to start a war, broke the Geneva Conventions that state countries signed on to it cannot invade a country without just cause, and Bush has further broken the US Constitution, US law, the Bill of Rights, and more Geneva Convention rules regarding torture... and now thousands upon thousands of people are dead, all thanks to George W. Bush, America's very own wannabe unitary executive dictator who is seeking retroactive pardon for war crimes he's already authorized or permitted.

There are billions of people on the planet, mostly good people; only a few hundred or a few thousand are criminals who commit crimes that can be called 'terrorist acts' and most of them kill themselves in the process of committing those crimes (end of story; frustrating not to be able to bring the criminals to trial, so deal with reality already). Every criminal who commits illegal acts leaves victims and survivors feeling fearful, or terrorized. It happens on local levels as well as international levels. Just ask any victim who has survived domestic violence, or ask any victim who has survived gang violence in our larger cities.

To have a "war" you have to have at least two countries with standing armies involved. Ergo: There is NO "war on terror" - NO "war on fear." Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has made recruiting criminals into gangs who commit terrorist acts increase, yes; that's NOT 'news,' and no one needed a 'leaked, "secret" report' to tell us that the #1 poster boy for recruiting criminals who commit terrorist acts is George W. Bush himself. It's been common knowledge for years! That still does not amount to a "war" because the criminals are not an organized military representing another country. At best, criminals of that ilk are just a large gang of thugs who commit criminal acts that 'terrorize' people.

It's all Neoconservative Republican hyperbole to say otherwise, and the repeated mantra 'war on terror' is an abstract fear meme designed to scare the Republican base's sheeple into voting for the fear-and-war-mongers who insist America has 'enemies' ('enemies' not defined; America was the agressor in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so technically, America is the 'enemy').

The false phrase 'war on terror' is commercialized and sensationalized by gullible media spinmeisters too stupid to understand the difference! And repeated by gullible Congress members who are also too stupid to understand the difference...!

Osama bin Laden is still loose (whether dead or alive, it doesn't matter), but he's a convenient name to pull out of Bush's magic bag of key demonizing words repeated incessantly to trigger a fear response in some American people who haven't figured out the illogicality of it all. Media (and some people) have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to have a fear response every time Bush or his Criminal Cabal utter key phrases or words like 'war' 'terrorism' - 'war on terror' - 'enemies' - 'Osama bin Laden' - 'terrorist.' Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding... Ring any bells?

Posted by: Ira at September 24, 2006 08:39 PM

Whatever else can be said about Bill Clinton, the man was a Rhodes Scholar, his IQ is way above most of the people who interview him. By comparison Shrubya's IQ is lower than a rock's IQ.

I miss having an intelligent person as president. At least Clingon lied with panache and wit; even when I knew he was lying, I appreciated the fact that he spoke coherent sentences. Clinton was able to converse with world leaders and he didn't alienate anyone with starting stupid wars based on lies....

I still miss having an intelligent person as president...

Posted by: NonnyO at September 24, 2006 08:49 PM

Don't forget "evil-doers".

Have just been to the Folsom St. Fair & it may as well be Amsterdam!

Posted by: DiAnne in SF at September 24, 2006 06:34 PM

Amsterdam?!?

Are you telling me San Francisco is overrun with homophobic immigrants too?!? Because Amsterdam is - at least it was, the last time I was there. Surinamese thugs yelling lots of crap at me for being a single female, a lesbian, a tranny, and an Asian.

Seriously, I *really* hate Amsterdam. If "tolerance" means tolerating unabashed imported homophobia, then I will have none of it.

I thought imported homophobia was in check in San Fran.

I still miss having an intelligent person as president...

Posted by: NonnyO at September 24, 2006 08:58 PM

And media that's actually free - and does NOT insult the intelligence of the viewer.

Otter's Super Simple Three-Step Plan For Saving America's Asterisk:

(1) Retake the House and Senate;

(2) Repeal the 22nd Amendment;

(3) Rewind, reboot, and re-elect the previous President.

does it count if they're not consecutive?,
Otter

I still miss having an intelligent person as president...

Posted by: NonnyO at September 24, 2006 08:58 PM

Who says Dick Cheney is not intelligent?

Ally
It was not anti immigrant homophobia which reminded me of Amsterdam while IN San Francisco. It was outrageous diversity and near-universal tolerance. I realize this is not ubiquitous but people have been living quite freely all weekend - out of towners & locals co-mingling. I have had heard almost as much foreign-language as American English - I imagine some is immigrants but some also foreign tourists. It was same in Vegas in a wierd way - melting pot of many people who do not live there - so it kind of levels the playing field. Some people may have the appearance of more money but no one knows for sure, and appearances can be deceiving.

Ally
For me, San Francisco has its problems but is still a great example of peaceful co-existence. I think it is an exemplary place, in many ways, if it hadn't become so expensive as to chase alot of regular people out. It's still possible to get by here though. We have had good luck with food in the Haight - I just got some great Thai fried rice to go. It was becoming more commercial & it'll never be like back in the hippie heyday, but it still has alot of private entrepreneurial businesses ie isn't very corporate. It reminds me of a cross between the commercialism of Robson in Vancouver BC and the alternative funkiness of The Ave in Seattle - the Haight, I mean. Trendy but still with grassroots originality. The thrift shops are cheap, for example, and some of the best I've ever seen. They know their business.

I have seen alot of antiBush stuff, as always, but very creative - whether postcards, magnets, street art or things on people's shirts. Even costumes people wore showed awareness of irony and ability to mix fun & happiness with political action. Every thing that is pleasurable does not have to be banned, like it's been Talibanned.

Anyway, greetings from San Framsterdamcisco.

I watched Clinton give it to Wallace via the Crooks and Liars link. It sure was refreshing to watch a "journalist" have to really sit and listen to the answer to one of their questions. Clinton was awesome, and I sure am glad to see that he, at least, is able to stand up for himself when others in his party wont.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

Columbia Journalism Review Criticizes Media for Failing to Report Electoral Issues

Finally, the ironically condescending little CJR editorial (which mentions some of the few outlets who have covered the issue sparsely, while leaving out those who have reported on it every single day since November 2nd, 2004 — what, me bitter?) concludes thusly:

Guarding the democratic process is part of the journalistic mission, and with another election approaching, now is the time to think about that.
Uh, no. Sorry, guys. The "time to think about that" was years ago. Now, it's pretty much too late to do a damned thing to "guard the democratic process." At least for the 2006 election. You have failed as miserably as those whom you have finally decided to criticize (gently).

See you in September of 2008…when you all decide to give a damn about this issue the next time.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3520

Finally got to watch the Clinton Wallace interveiw my 12 year old insisted on staying up to see it. We loved it! I miss the man faults and all. He makes people pay attention and He asnwers questions does not double speak them actually answers them even when the interveiwer tries to stop him because he doesnt like the answers.
I asked my 12 year old who she would rather listen to lol she asked me if I bumped my head lol She said and I quote President Clinton makes me feel smart he actually talks to us not at us, as if we are stupid for not getting what he wants us to, Clinton wants us thinking and Bush wants us to stop thinking. Thats the biggest differance mom. Out of the mouths of babes.

Akaka wins in Hawaii tonight; too bad after his dispicable vote to open Anwr to drilling..

Posted by: Otter at September 24, 2006 09:16 PM

Sorry, can't agree. Except perhaps with #1.

You really think we'd be able to even elect Clinton with the amount of vote fraud and right-wing media out there? I don't mean "elect" by # of votes cast of course...

YORK — Former President Bill Clinton accused Chris Wallace of carrying out "a conservative hit job" on him after the "FOX News Sunday" host asked him about his administration's handling of the growing Al Qaeda threat in an interview.

The interview, taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference in New York, got heated after Wallace asked why Clinton didn't "do more to put Bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business" when he was in office.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html
***************
Fox News version of reality despite the fact that the transcript is there foNEW anyone to look at. The Question was not exactly what they claim if anything this proves their distortion of facts.

This was the actual question:CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little "Pathway to 9/11," falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.

And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in "Black Hawk down," and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

OK, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html

If I heard right and am reading this right Clinton was more upset at the inferance that Osama Bin Laden was involved in Black Hawk down, it seemed and seems that they are claiming Al Qada was known far longer than it was, and he basically set on his bum for years before anyone knew what a growing threat they were, I guess Clinton was supposed to have a crystal ball soons he came into office so he could know of threats no one else did, except of course Bush sr. who was President and Vice President while the planning of the first world trade center attack happened at the beginning of Clintons first term but we hear almost nothing about this from any of these supposed news sources. Bush should have because of this fact been totally focused on terrorism his first few months in office instead he was taking long vacations and clearing brush at his Dude Ranch in Texas.

Sorry its late and I am just venting.

Having to hold my nose and look at Faux news makes me sick to my tummy.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/
Update:

John Amato: It makes you wonder why Wallace has never asked any Republican in Bush’s administration why they didn’t catch Osama, doesn’t it? When Wallace tells us that he got emails about it so… he just had to bring it up?. Has he ever mentioned emailers before on his show? Wallace brought the FOX News right-wing agenda to play on this interview. We should email Chris every time he has on anyone from the Bush administration and see if our questions get through.

Rice admits that the Bush administration didn’t want to retaliate for the Cole bombing, despite Clarke’s prodding:

CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that … there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000].

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration’s watch." I didn’t think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.
…
RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. … We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn’t want to respond tit-for-tat. …Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists — they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them — and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.
…
Why wasn’t Condi Rice asked about Osama’s PDB? Etc…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you see this blurb above the transcript for the Clinton interview with Wallace? There's also a link in the text for the update.

Go Bill...! He nailed Wallace's arse when he asked whether or not Wallace had asked Shrubya's administration the same questions. If Clinton had not spoken out, the schlock put out by ABC's fiction would never have been known, I'm sure. I guess they'll think twice about asking political questions that stray from what they intended to ask if they ever invite Bill back.... ;-)

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at September 24, 2006 09:05 PM

And his newest, 'extremists,' and 'extremism' (what he repeated in almost every sentence during the UN speech)... I wonder which of his over-paid speechwriters comes up with that crap...?

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at September 24, 2006 09:07 PM

I miss anything resembling intelligent people in Lamestream Media who report anything remotely serious... not that infotainment schlock they now pass off as "news" and non-news stories they dwell on while the world as we know it comes crashing down around our ears. Besides the accident of finding the Clinton clip as I was channel surfing, I discovered ABC was doing yet ANOTHER sickening report about how important the religious reich is to politics. They've run stuff like that before on "news."I changed channels. There's just so much I can stand having shoved down my throat, and religious reich propaganda isn't one of those things.

Rightwingnuttia propagandists can make a person turn into a mental and emotional bulemic....

Posted by: oncall at September 24, 2006 10:05 PM

If Dead-Eye Dick is so smart, why does he keep repeating the same ol' lies his "boss" (the wooden headed puppet) tells us...?

Posted by: april at September 24, 2006 10:40 PM

Ah, your daughter is so smart! She nailed the difference. :-)

And, did I forget to mention I miss having someone with charisma....

Posted by: oncall at September 24, 2006 10:14 PM

Charisma, savvy intelligence, knows better than to put up with bull$h!t....

Posted by: oncall at September 24, 2006 10:23 PM

Do you think we'll actually be having elections in '08?

Posted by: oncall at September 24, 2006 10:05 PM

Good one! And who says Karl Rove isn't intelligent?

Shocked, shocked...

Iraq War Fueling Terrorism, Intelligence Report Says

A new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies finds that the threat of terrorism has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the war in Iraq has spawned a new generation of violent Islamic extremists. In other words, the Iraq war made the overall terrorism problem worse.

The leaked report, a National Intelligence Estimate, represents the consensus view of 16 U.S. spy agencies. It was produced by the National Intelligence Council, a thinktank of the U.S. intelligence community....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135344

President Dodges Katherine Harris on Florida Visit
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135350

The honor of thieves...

CNN QuickVote

What effect has the Iraq war had on terrorism threats facing the United States?

Made things better 17% 2535 votes

Made things worse 83% 12716 votes
Total: 15251 votes

Cynical Girl
by Marshall Crenshaw

Well I'm goin' out
I'm goin' out lookin' for a cynical girl
Who's got no use for the real world
I'm lookin' for a cynical girl

Well I hate TV
There's gotta be somebody other than me
Who's ready to write it off immediately
I'm lookin' for a cynical girl

Well I'll know right away by the look in her eye
She harbors no illusions and she's worldly-wise
And I'll know when I give her a listen that she,
She's what I've been missin'
What I've been missin'

I'll be lost in love
And havin' some fun with my cynical girl
Who'll have no use for the real world
I'm lookin' for a cynical girl

Well I'm goin' out
I'm goin' out lookin' for a cynical girl
Who's got no use for the real world
I'm lookin' for a cynical girl

Yeah I'll know right away by the look in her eye
She harbors no illusions and she's worldly-wise
And I'll know when I give her a listen that she,
She's what I've been missin'
What I've been missin'

I'll be lost in love
And havin' some fun with my cynical girl
Who'll have no use for the real world
I'm lookin' for a cynical girl

Anybody see Bill Maher from the other night? Bradley Whitford was one of the panelists, and was quoting a figure of 130,000 civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Forbidden Fruit
by The Band

High and lonesome out on times square
Haven't got a dime, ain't got a prayer
Deliver us, lord, from this golden calf
People only want what they cannot have

Forbidden fruit
That's the fruit that you'd better not taste
Forbidden fruit
You've got one life that you'd better not waste

How can I walk with this ball and chain?
How can I land in this hurricane?
Or is this part of man's evolution,
To be torn between truth and illusion?

Forbidden fruit
That's the route that you'd better not take
Forbidden fruit
Just watch out for the sign of the snake

Little brother got caught in the web
He ran off to join the living dead
Been through the mill, seen the cross on the hill
He sold his soul just for a thrill
Forbidden fruit
In hot pursuit out on a limb
Forbidden fruit
Your whole world is closing in

You got the picture but missed the drift
About me workin' the graveyard shift
I never went in for no burglary
But there's a stranger inside of me
Forbidden fruit
Don't you shoot the whole works away
Forbidden fruit
It's too high of a price to pay

How can you hear with a bad connection?
You can't see when there's no reception
Keep your distance, don't fool with taboo
'cause it'll overtake and undertake you
Forbidden fruit
That's the fruit that you'd better not taste
Forbidden fruit
You've got one life that you'd better not waste

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at September 25, 2006 06:44 AM

Apologies for the song bumper... that is a staggering figure.

Simply Staggering

Why is no one in MSM talks about Bush's testy attitude when asked questions he doesnot want to answer, or the fact he basicly refuses while pretending to answer anything he doesnt want to, he crowds peoples space to intimidate them talks to only prescribed crowds throws people in jail for voicing dissent in his presence. yet this morning we are subjected to headlines like Clinton Gets Testy,please when is the press going to wise up?

Op-Ed Contributor
Do Unto Your Enemy...
By PAUL RIECKHOFF

IN 2002, I attended the Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning, Ga. At “the Schoolhouse,” every new Army infantry officer spent six months studying the basics of his craft, including the rules of war.

I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.”

A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.

But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/opinion/25rieckhoff.html

Barf alert...

Bush keeps his war anguish hidden
In private meetings with families, he expresses his sorrow for losses

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14991955/

The Rise of Jihadistan
Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they—and Al Qaeda's leaders—can operate freely.

By Ron Moreau, Sami Yousafzai and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Oct. 2, 2006 issue - You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or U.S. troops try to enter the village.

In a parched clearing a few hundred yards on, more than 100 Taliban fighters ranging in age from teenagers to a grandfatherly 55-year-old have assembled to meet their provincial commander, Muhammad Sabir. An imposing man with a long, bushy beard, wearing a brown and green turban and a beige shawl over his shoulders, Sabir inspects his troops, all of them armed with AKs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He claims to have some 900 fighters, and says the military and psychological tide is turning in their favor. "One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power."

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

aimzz, veritas; I haven't heard from you in ages-JK days. Welcome home.