Monday, February 16, 2009

Campbell Brown

Yes she's better looking then Rush Limbaugh, but she's equally intolerable. Allow me to break down EXACTLY why. She speaks here from a template normally reserved for talk radio:



So let's take this blow by blow (Cambell's words in red, mine in black):
  1. Imagine if we gave up any part of this country, any part at all, to terrorists. I think I'll pass Campbell, I appreciate the imagative excercise, but you're here to tell me the news not set the mood. I have barry white for that.
  2. That appears to be happening in Pakistan, where the government has cut a deal with the Taliban allowing Islamic law, or Sharia law, to be enforced in the northern part of the country near the Afghan border. Really? It "appears" that that's what's happening? Why don't you get on your plane and go find out. Actually, don't bother, real news people are already there. They (in this case the NYT) interviewed the information minister of the region in Pakistan. He was able to clarify what will happen under the peace treaty, "“After successful negotiations, all un-Islamic laws related to the judicial system, those against the Koran and the Sunnah, would be subject to cancellation and considered null and void." Doesn't sound so bad to me, maybe not too democratic, but not too bad. It also doesn't say, "Terrorists are now welcome." Killing is a crime, even in islamic law.
  3. This after Taliban militants led a grizzly campaign of attacks, including beheadings, kidnappings and the destruction of dozens of girls' schools. This is the hard part, that statement is by enlarge true, generously stated, but still true. What she leaves out is Pakistan's situation. According to one expert, being interviewed by Bloomberg, "is not really equipped to fight a domestic insurgency." Pakistan's PM was on 60 minutes last weekend explaining just how big of a threat the Taliban is to his government and the stability of the whole country. I'm not an expert in the matter, but at some point a compromise must be drawn, even with terrorists. For reference one might look to some of the isreali/palastinean accords. Additionally, even after non-islamic rules are implemented people will be able to leave the area and go to other places within pakistan. Also, the pakistani officials insisted on appeals process, which will be part of the new rules.
  4. They're the same people who helped provide a safe haven for al Qaeda leading up to 9/11 and have now scored a victory against Pakistan, and given new reason for the United States to worry, after we gave Pakistan $10 billion, in large part to try and reduce the threat from terror. While it is true that the Taliban was the ruling party in Afganistan while the Taliban trained there. It is not true that this agreement allows terrorists to train in Pakistan. In fact she fails to mention that just yesterday the US used a drone to kill insurgents in the SAME area that negotiators agreed to strike all non-islamic laws. Funny how Campbell forgot to mention it when the Washington Post and NYT both found the space for it.
  5. How much harder will the fight become for our troops now that the Taliban control yet another piece of territory? That's pretty simple. We were using drones to kill terrorists in that part of Pakistan before and now we're using drones to kill terrorists in that part of Pakistan.
  6. The logic of Pakistani leaders is simple -- merely wanting to seek peace. We wonder if the entire region, and the United States, will pay dearly for that concession. It's ok to wonder, but next time you might want to read the left half of the paper, not just the right.

No comments: