I feel for her, and she gets all the props in the world for doing what she did.

My guess, though, is Bush is already back in frat boy mode, telling fart jokes. In one ear and out...

It's really sorry that I, and I'm sure lots of others, have this as their first thought, when hearing such a moving story. To think, she actually moved the President to tears. What a powerful momement.

But I know it won't matter. The cynic in me says it was an act. Or maybe not an act, but Bush seems to have a way with people, morphing and molding himself to the situation. He learned it in the frat boy days, probably even earlier, and still uses it.

I'm just too cynical about the whole Bush clan, with good reason, to add to the end of this "maybe I'm wrong..."

 I suppose we should rejoice that after 6 years in office, the evil doer in chief finally found the courage to face someone who disagrees with him.  My guess is that this will not be repeated in the next 2 years.  And, if Bush said "we had to go to war", that is just one more of the almost infinite number of lies he has told as  president. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

If God cared what this woman thought, He'd have told Our Only President to listen to her.

Unfortunately, she had to throw in the crap about us creating the Taliban.

Yeah, unfortunately truth is a bitch!

~OGD~

Good for her...I am glad she got her say even if Bush had no interest in discussing the issue.  There is no defense for sending this woman's husband to Iraq where he died...so I can see why he wouldn't want to discuss it.  If he has even one shred of decency in him he should be haunted by the deaths in Iraq for the rest of his life...and rightly so.  Many people have died in Iraq (both US military and Iraqi civilians) and many more lives have been ruined forever because of his, and only his, actions.

Just in case anyone may be interested:

Contributions can be sent to:

The Damon Children College Fund,
c/o Merrill Lynch, P.O. Box 9784,
Portland, ME 04101.

~OGD~

I'm not going to have a philosophical debate about politics?" Where does this clown get off saying something like that? Having philosophical debates about politics is supposed to be part of his freaking job.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

How can you say this?

BlueinColorado God does care...

 Are you talking to him too?  Seems like BinLadin, Bush, Robertson, and now you have a direct line to know "what god wants."  Maybe even a pathetic and horrific  Middle East war, when viewed in the scheme of millenia is just too much like micromanaging for his holiness (the original one -- not the pope). 

Now I know that some coaches think god helps their team win,  some students think god helps them ace the SAT, but every now and then reality MUST come in to the room.  What a bunch of BS for anyone to claim to know what god thinks about or cares about!

  If he really cared about this world, Bush and Cheney ( and a few others) would be unconscious, in comas, having horrible nightmares all day and all night long.

Jan Knaus

It's hard work... 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I'll bet he had some sharp words afterwards to his screeners, who pick with whom he will have contact. THAT is a conversation I would like to have overheard.

I was referring to Bush's belief that God wanted him to be President, that God speaks through him, that God told him to strike Al Qaeda and then Saddam, etc. This is not a God I believe in .

I guess it's hard to feel your husband's death in Afghanistan was in a noble cause when we hear that the Taliban is seeing a resurgence.

I think the woman deserves all our admiration for speaking truth to power. Think of how sycophantic our national media becomes in his presence. She is ten times the human being of any of them.

And frankly, how many of us would be thinking of the IRS audit in our future if we spoke up to this dry drunk?

Robert Waldmann

I applaud Hildi Halley's courage and wish without hoping that she managed to penetrate George Bush's moral idiocy stupidity and vanity.

I disagree with Ms Halley about Afghanistan. I hate to say so, since she lost her husband there and I have done absolutely nothing to protect Afghans or the US from the Taliban, but, unlike Bush, I would like to engage her in a discussion of history. She said "Well, who put the Taliban into power? The United States did." I don't think this is what happened. I have the impression that Ms Halley is unwilling to accept a difference between the Taliban and the US funded anti-soviet islamic groups (the 7 Peshawar based groups). These groups took power after the red army left and promptly began fighting among themselves. Kabul was destroyed by them not the USSR, the US or the Taliban.

Later, long after the USSR and the Afghan communists were defeated, the Taliban were organised and took power in almost all of Afghanistan. It is very clear that they were supported (indeed almost created) by the Pakistani government (in particular the ISI). Their regime was recognised by Saudi Arabia, Pakistand the the UAE but not by the USA.

I think Ms Halley might be unaware of this history. It is also possible that she considers Afghan islamists essentially the same even if they fight each other. Finally it is possible that she thinks that the US supported the Taliban in the absence of evidence of such support. It is even possible that the US supported the drive to power of a regime that it then refused to recognise, but to me this seems about as plausible as blaming Martians.

so what ? Well I'm not sure the history matters much, but the truth is the truth. Also, clearly Ms Halley thinks the history matters a lot, although I don't see why it would. Granted for the sake of argument that the US was responsible for the rise of the Taliban, I don't see how the choices or the moral imperatives facing Bush on 12 September would have been different.

I think it is true that the Taliban regime and al Qaeda were so closely linked as to be essentially one organisation. As a matter of international law, the US/UK invasion of Afghanistan was allowed as an act of self defence. Very very few experts on international law challenge that view.

I also think that the invasion was a moral obligation both because of the risk (certainty ?) of further terrorist attacks and because of the horrible Taliban repression. I would stress that, since the US and UK attached Afghanistan hundreds of thousands (or millions ? I don't know) of Afghans who were refugees in foreign countries have returned to Afghanistan. To paraphrase Lenin, they voted for the war with their feet.

I think that Mr Halley died in a necessary and just war. I actually think it might be of some comfort to Ms Halley if she were convinced of this.

In contrast, I totally agree with Ms Halley about the US/UK/Australian (and don't forget the Poles) invasion of Iraq. That invasion was clearly a gross violation of international law. It was not justified by any plausible risk to the US UK Australia or Poland. The resulting suffering inflicted on Iraq seems to me much worse than the combined effects of Saddam Hussein's tyranny and punitive sanctions (which went way beyond what was necessary to restrain Iraqi re-armament in a effort to force Iraq to destroy weapons it had already destroyed).

I think that it is a historical, moral, policy and political mistake to link the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry for long comment and may Mr Halley rest in peace.

El Campesino said:

We armed all sorts of native Afghan groups: Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, and Pashtuns, etc. The Taliban were/are a faction of the Pashtuns that took control of that group.

Convince me that we did any of this out of a sincere regard for the future happiness of the Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, and Pashtuns, and not out of a chance to fight a war by proxy on the cheap against the Soviet Union and I'll accept as a corollary that the Taliban weren't our "spawn".   In fact, convince me that we even understood who those groups were in prospect as well as we understand them (which is not very well) in retrospect, and I'll be less critical of those who singlemindedly shaped a world view for geographically naive Americans to buy.  Then convince me we didn't buy a pig in a poke. 

But I rather firmly believe that one has responsibility for unintended consequences of one's actions, and if those actions arise in situations where we're manipulating people for our ends, not theirs, we're as responsible as we would have been had the outcome been our direct objective.  And we're responsible, whether or not we knew what we were doing. 

aMike

His tears may be real, you never know.

It's within the realm of possibility that he feels bad for these people.

Not that this will change much.

Gettysburg.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand much at all. No, Bush tears, if any have ever occurred, are certainly not real. It is not in 'realm of possiblity'.

...this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be..... How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing.

I wanted to believe that Bush had humane qualities for a long time but ...let me put it in religious terms that he would understand..."By their fruits ye shall know them."

.
This one is an interesting comment that you, Robert Waldmann had said in your previous post...

It is even possible that the US supported the drive to power of a regime that it then refused to recognise, but to me this seems about as plausible as blaming Martians.

And I also agree that it was a moral obligation to get into Afghanistan, not so much for both the risk of further terrorist attacks and because of the horrible Taliban repression -- but the moral obligation to clean up the mess that was originally set in motion way back in July 3, 1979 when the orders were signed for the secret aid to be channeled through a CIA project to fund the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

That funding was directed through the Pakistani ISI by the CIA. The ISI was trained and modeled on the original Iranian Savak intelligence networks that the CIA had also trained in the 50s.... and it's been a slippery slope ever since.

Then in the vacuum that was left when we turned our sights on other issues after the Soviets headed back over the pass home with their tails between their legs -- it made for the power struggles within the country to lead to the Taliban and AQ (with the additional millions from bin Laden) to use what was left of the booty we had pumped in there.

So it's quite understandable for Hildi Halley, this "average citizen" to "connect" her "dots" -- even if the dots seem so indirect ...

To put it in a little wider perspective, using another cliche that was overused and has lost favor ... "Blow back is hell ..."

~OGD~

ps: What the right-handed Martians give -- the left-handed Venusians take it away...

Yet one more example that the man who promised to bring honor and dignity back to the White House has ended up disgracing it, a fact that has somehow escaped Lieberman and his friends on the immoral right.

No president has used religion more to cover his behind than Bush. When he finally leaves the White House they will have to use bleach to disinfect it.

Back when Terry Gross' "Fresh Air" program was a local, hour-long program out of WHYY in Phila, she speculated one day about why we all, occasionally, find tears coming to our eyes for no apparent reason. If one is willing to examine one's less laudable moments and admit false emotion, one comes across tears which, though touched off by an outside event, are really about "I'm so noble to be affected by this." So I've come to believe in occasional self-congratulatory tears -- "I met with this woman and expressed sympathy -- sniff! What a great guy I am!"

I suppose we all have a touch of sociopath within, but I think Bush is a certifiable, 101% sociopath.

Well said. And let's not forget we elected a president whose knowledge of the Middle East in 2000 was probably considerably dimmer than that of many who voted for him.

That said, look at how so many rise to the occasion. The increase in Middle Eastern studies applicants, courses in Arabic, films rented about Kurdistan and Israel... Some days I like us!

I'm with you on this. Except Bush is worse than a clown and we can't seem to find one of those hooks that lets us pull him off the stage before his act is over.

I hesitate to give too much emphasis to war widows lest it means that we, the American public, also don't have a right to a decent American policy

I agree to some extent. It's like relying too much on veterans to critique military policy, even foreign policy. However, the media being what it is, Bush being what he is, 'war widows' and gold star parents are often the only people who are given a hearing. And as you point out, Bush (and Coulter and FoxNews) never hesitate(s) to bring out his own supporters among that group, daring those of us who were and are right all along about Iraq and Bush's incompetence, to tell those people the sad and painful truth, that their children, spouses, parents and friends almost certainly did, in fact, die in vain.
I guess what I'm saying, with regret, is that we need the Cindy Sheehans and Heidi Hillings to answer those demogogues, just like we need Jack Murtha and John Kerry to counter John McCain. I don't always agree with any of the four people who are on my side in this particular fight, but I'm still glad they're there.
As for "making too much of this", I don't think anyone thinks this has or will settle anything, or even change many minds, but there is some small satisfaction in knowing that that miserable bastard had even a moment of discomfort to balance the years of suffering he has so glibly and arrogantly inflicted on so many others.

I am heartened by the fact that Bush met with this woman; but I have come to see that he is pig-headed and inwardly convinced he is right. He doesn't believe in the maxim that, if you aren't getting the results you want, doing the same thing over and over agin is not going to get it for you; only by doing something different can you have a shot at getting what you want. Please, if you haven't, read 1984 by George Orwell. In it he explains how the wars continue abroad in Oceana. The wars are designed to keep everybody afraid and to keep the ruling government in power. Orwell nailed it, back then, when he wrote this book. Fear is the only weapon the current Administration has for keeping itself in power; it only offers incentives to large business and the upper 5% of the populace. And, if they are right that most people believe that 9/11 has something to do with Iraq, there is no question that the American people will respond to the fearful messages sent out by the Republican Party in power today. Can someone please explain the timing of the alarm at the "plot" to blow up airliners? The participants, apparently, had no passports and no dates for their actions; yet it was considered "imminent." Remember Cheney, who ordinarily does not deem it necessary to communicate with the general public, suddenly proclaimed that the Democrats like Lamont would aid Osama Bin Laden, a day or so before the announcement of the airline plot. It was shown he knew about the British arrests at that time. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that these "alarms" will occur regularly, whenever there is some "plot", to keep everybody disturbed enough to vote for the Republicans, who are "strong" on defense against terrorists. I await the call for a new selective service draft and hope that may shock some people into seeing through the ploy of using fear; but I'm not optimistic.

We have fought two wars on Bush's watch thus far, against Afghanistan and against Iraq. They have stretched our military to an alarming degree (and left us weaker for it, by the way). Neither has had the effect it was supposed to and the objective (I think the military is trained to think of objectives and the missions to achieve them) and their missions haven't been achieved. So, unless Bush & Co. is willing to create a selective service draft, which might just turn off the electorate (not sure of that), keeping troops in Iraq and any war, such as with Iran or Syria, will be more than a disaster; it will be a debacle; it will resound with failure. Turning on selective service draft is a very chancy step. Bush might consider it, but then again it might just mobilize the Democrats so they really understood how desperate the situation is.

Yeah, unfortunately truth is a bitch!

Truth is not only a bitch, to some it is the enemy. It would be fascinating to review all the despicable regimes we have supported -- Democrats and republicans alike -- and get a real, clear view of what we have created. Another thing about truth -- according to Al Gore, it is also sometimes "Inconvenient." Jan Knaus

Hello Brewmn:

I have come across many of your comments hereabout and find them to be thoughtful and concise. Now with that said...

About the statement from Hildi Halley about creating the Taliban...

Where you wrote:

To say we "created the Taliban" is a stretch and a gross oversimplification.

Well thanks. I can see where you can say that Hildi Halley did make a statement that is a "gross oversimplification" of the Taliban issue.

But did you avail yourself to any additional comments on this thread, like the one I posted here?

I've always been under the impression that over at the Company at Langley there are plenty of Martians, in addition to a bunch of Venusians also ...

And I also agree that it was a moral obligation to get into Afghanistan, not so much for both the risk of further terrorist attacks and because of the horrible Taliban repression -- but the moral obligation to clean up the mess that was originally set in motion way back in July 3, 1979 when the orders were signed for the secret aid to be channeled through a CIA project to fund the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

That funding was directed through the Pakistani ISI by the CIA. The ISI was trained and modeled on the original Iranian Savak intelligence networks that the CIA had also trained in the 50s.... and it's been a slippery slope ever since.

Then in the vacuum that was left when we turned our sights on other issues after the Soviets headed back over the pass home with their tails between their legs -- it made for the power struggles within the country to lead to the Taliban and AQ (with the additional millions from bin Laden) to use what was left of the booty we had pumped in there.

So it's quite understandable for Hildi Halley, this "average citizen" to "connect" her "dots" -- even if the dots seem so indirect ...

But I rather firmly believe that one has responsibility for unintended consequences of one's actions, and if those actions arise in situations where we're manipulating people for our ends, not theirs, we're as responsible as we would have been had the outcome been our direct objective. And we're responsible, whether or not we knew what we were doing.

BTW -- Just exactly what is YOUR productive input that is related directly to the subject of the thread? That being Hildi Halley's meeting with the President. I seem to have missed any post by you related to "War Widow To Bush: 'You're Here To Serve The People. And The People Are Not Being Served With This War.'

Other than your picking of nits over the Taliban comments.

And again... please make sure you go to my post for it's complete context in reference to what it was I was answering.

I look forward to your response...

~OGD~

Cindy Sheehan pretty much destroyed her credibility with statements that sounded an awful lot like they were anti-Semitic. By exaggerating our culpability vis a vis the Taliban, Ms. Halley undercuts her, to paraphrase Maureen Dowd, "absolute moral authority." The comment was just jarringly inconsistent with her otherwise unassailable position.

As I said in my original post, there already exists a bill of particulars against this adminstration, which, in a sane and just world, would prevent any of them from ever having positions of public trust, and would send many of them to prison. Throwing in this rather gratuitous criticism allows the adminsitration's defenders to plausibly claim that Ms. Halley is a partisan, and deflect the overwhelming force of her opinions and feelings.

Thank you for the compliment re my other posts, and thanks for the added insight into our role in Afghanistan post-Soviet invasion.

Throwing in this rather gratuitous criticism allows the adminsitration's defenders to plausibly claim that Ms. Halley is a partisan, and deflect the overwhelming force of her opinions and feelings.

 This administration's defenders are not hampered by accuracy of details. The Swift-Boaters should tell you about that. You could leave out every word that you disagree with and Anne Coulter et al would still claim that this woman, who after all, IS a Democrat, has her own agenda.

I think there is plenty of evidence that her comments were not completely wrong; maybe oversimplifications, but not WRONG. At least she got up in his uncaring face and looked into his unseeing eyes, and said things into his unhearing ear that missed his unthinking brain and went out the other ear. Too bad she had to pay such a price for that "priveledge."

Jan Knaus

Thanks for the link.
********************************************
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi government. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.

*******************************************

As I said, the Saudis focused on supporting non-Afghan volunteers. Most of our arms passed through the Pakistanis, who tended to favor the Pashtun