Allahpundit asks:
If the Taliban’s serious about detente, why don’t they give us Bin Laden?
Or rather, if Obama’s serious about detente, why doesn’t he demand that they do so as one of those “constructive beginnings” with Islamist fascists that he’s been pursuing?
Because then Obama would be Bush.
(Incidentally, how badly is Obama blowing it right now in Afghanistan? So badly that Dianne Feinstein is reminding him to listen to his generals’ advice.)
Filed under: The Memory Hole, War And Anti-War
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
2 Comments
1. steveegg:I think it’s because actually demanding something for “detente” would blow the plan for unconditional surrender out of the water.
Oct 11, 2009 - 6:37 pm 2. Gaffe Prices:Ahh…, there you go again allahpundit, those “constructive beginnings” you talk about would tantamount to “preexisting preconditions”, and we can’t have any of that. Nuh uh. Nice try.
Oct 12, 2009 - 2:05 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.