Maybe bin Laden's death is just the cover story the Democrats have needed all along. You have to figure: None of them are happy about going home and telling the voters they're cutting popular social programs, right? And they know where all the money's going. If we pull out of Afghanistan, a major budget problem is solved:

Early on in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about Afghanistan today, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink interrupted a discussion about whether the United States should maintain current troop levels or draw down to a smaller force focused on counter-terrorism operations. “There is another opinion—just leave,” she said.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the committee’s chairman, quickly gaveled the hearing into a brief recess, and Benjamin left the room. Had she stuck around, she might have been surprised to hear the number-two Democrat in the Senate essentially echo her position.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Party whip, asked by far the hearing’s most important question and one of the most pointed by a Democratic leader to date: “If you believe that resolution of this conflict by military means is highly unlikely and not a realistic basis for US policy, how can we send one more American soldier to fight and die in Afghanistan?” he said.

Durbin noted that “Afghanistan has been a graveyard of empires,” and repeatedly invoked the human cost borne by American soldiers. “We are now in a very sterile conversation about diplomacy and foreign policy,” he said. “The reality is they’re fighting and dying over there. And the question is—how long will we keep sending them?”

Aside from Durbin, other senators who attended the hearing—both Republican and Democrat—voiced serious concerns about extended commitments to Afghanistan. Not one openly called for staying the current course.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) cited President Obama’s recent $100 billion budget request for fighting the war in fiscal year 2012, along with a strategy that “appears to be devoted to remaking the economic, political, and security culture of that country,” and said that “it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets.”

Lugar’s concerns were echoed by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who said plainly that “I’ve been supportive of the administration so far, but I have a real hard time as we move forward.” Menendez wondered aloud whether there was “an amount of money or plan that can actually work here.”

The only other Republican to speak, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), also raised questions about the amount of money being spent. “I think the one thing that would stun the American people on the ground in Afghanistan, is how much we are investing in this country, and what we are investing in,” he said.

Secret talks are under way between the Taliban and Afghanistan's shaky leader, Hamid Karzai.
This is pretty good news:

WASHINGTON — Taliban leader Mullah Omar has, for the first time, backed secret high-level talks with the Afghan government to negotiate an end to the nine-year war, the Washington Post said Wednesday.
"They are very, very serious about finding a way out," a source close to the talks told the Post, referring to the Taliban.

The Post cited unnamed Afghan and Arab sources as saying the talks were believed to involve representatives authorized by the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban group based in Pakistan, and Omar.
Omar, the Afghan Taliban's one-eyed leader who is believed to be hiding in Pakistan, and other top Taliban figures have insisted for years that foreign fighters must first leave Afghanistan before peace talks can begin.
But a source close to the talks told the Post that the leadership knows "that they are going to be sidelined," and was negotiating with the government of President Hamid Karzai to ensure their positions are protected. "They know that more radical elements are being promoted within their rank and file outside their control," the source said.

"All these things are making them absolutely sure that, regardless of (their success in) the war, they are not in a winning position."

The report comes after meetings hosted by Saudi Arabia ended without success last year.

The new negotiations involve agreements to allow Taliban leaders positions in the Afghan government and the withdrawal of US and NATO forces according to an agreed timetable, the newspaper said.

Probably the only way for this horrendous war to finally come to an end is to have some sort of peace agreement between the two. It wasn't until the U.S. shelled out millions of dollars to the warring factions of Iraq that violence finally calmed down during the Sunni Awakening and maybe these "secret" talks with the one-eyed man can serve the same function. Although the "Awakening" is in some trouble now, it did help. The "surge" of cash was much more instrumental than the surge of troops. Hopefully, Karzai is taking his meds during the meetings. By the way, just to keep you up to date, the Sunnis got screwed in the latest election so there's trouble in Iraq now.

The sooner we are outta there, the better.

On "This Week" with Christiane Amanpour, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dodged a question about how she would have voted on the bill funding the Afghanistan war:

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about some of the important news that's been made this week, particularly in -- in the House and that would be on Afghanistan. Last year, 32 Democrats voted against the funding of the war in Afghanistan. This year, 102 Democrats voted against. That seems to be a dramatic rejection from the president's own party of his major strategic goal.

PELOSI: Well, not quite. You have to put the votes in perspective.

Our president came in. He was president maybe two months, three months, by the time we took the vote last year. And the Republicans said they weren't going to vote for the funding. And so it took all Democratic votes.

I persuaded my members to give this president a chance, to give him room in order to have time to implement his plan. And in -- and in the course of time -- now the Republicans said they would vote for it, it gave my members the freedom to express themselves on the war in Afghanistan.

AMANPOUR: Now, you didn't vote.

PELOSI: No.

AMANPOUR: I know the speaker doesn't have to vote.

PELOSI: Right.

AMANPOUR: But how would you have voted?

PELOSI: Well, we brought the bill to the floor. And that was a statement that said that we knew that our troops needed to have what was -- what they needed to have would be provided for them. So we will never abandon our men and women in uniform. On the other hand, it gave our members a chance to express their view.

AMANPOUR: How long do you think you can keep your skeptical members, as you call them, on side?

PELOSI: Well, again, we have a -- varying degrees of expression here. We are there, we've taken an oath to defend the constitution and therefore the American people. And that's what people will be looking at -- how does this figure into our protecting the American people?

Is it worth it?

AMANPOUR: Well, is it worth it?

PELOSI: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Is it worth it?

PELOSI: That's the question.

AMANPOUR: But that's my question to you.

PELOSI: Well, we will -- as I said, we will see the metrics as they unfold in the next few months and certainly by the end of this year.

AMANPOUR: But what does your gut tell you?

PELOSI: in my visits to afghanistan, the last time i was there was over mother's day weekend to visit the troops... and the four metrics that we have always used year in and year out on these visits have been about security. And the military tells us this cannot be won militarily solely.

Secondly, governance and ending corruption.....

AMANPOUR: I'm just trying to figure out, for instance, you know, what you think is the right thing to do in Afghanistan at the moment. Look, "Time" magazine, this week, has this as its cover -- a girl whose had her nose and ears cut off by the Taliban.

You know, to put it right down to its basics, is America going to abandon the women of Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan again?

PELOSI: Well, first of all, we're in Afghanistan because it's in our strategic national interests to be so for our own national security, to stop terrorism, to increase global security. The women of Afghanistan have been a priority for many of the women in Congress -- and men, too, but the women have taken a special interest.

Am I the only person who's noticed that the only time the U.S. seems to care about human rights is when we want to rationalize starting a war -- or continuing one?

This reaction fascinates me. You would think having a country that's no longer at war would be some kind of terrible tragedy, a major blow to our self-esteem. Oh noes, who will we be without the war?

The minions of the corporate media seem to be even more upset than the administration over the release of the Wikileaks documents, and I think I know why: They just can't bear the thought that they are no longer the gatekeepers.

WASHINGTON — The disclosure of a six-year archive of classified military documents increased pressure on President Obama to defend his military strategy as Congress prepares to deliberate financing of the Afghanistan war.

The disclosures, with their detailed account of a war faring even more poorly than two administrations had portrayed, landed at a crucial moment. Because of difficulties on the ground and mounting casualties in the war, the debate over the American presence in Afghanistan has begun earlier than expected. Inside the administration, more officials are privately questioning the policy.

"Earlier than expected"? Honey, some of us have been questioning this rotten war since Day One. And we've certainly been questioning it for the last year. You must not get out much.

In Congress, House leaders were rushing to hold a vote on a critical war-financing bill as early as Tuesday, fearing that the disclosures could stoke Democratic opposition to the measure. A Senate panel is also set to hold a hearing on Tuesday on Mr. Obama’s choice to head the military’s Central Command, Gen. James N. Mattis, who would oversee military operations in Afghanistan.

Administration officials acknowledged that the documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, will make it harder for Mr. Obama as he tries to hang on to public and Congressional support until the end of the year, when he has scheduled a review of the war effort.

“We don’t know how to react,” one frustrated administration official said on Monday. “This obviously puts Congress and the public in a bad mood.”

May I make a suggestion? Do that review now. What's the point of dithering on this?

Mr. Obama is facing a tough choice: he must either figure out a way to convince Congress and the American people that his war strategy remains on track and is seeing fruit — a harder sell given that the war is lagging — or move more quickly to a far more limited American presence.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but yesterday I saw something somewhere where a blogger was trying to discuss the Wikileaks report with someone he knew who was a Hill staffer. The staffer told him he didn't want to know -- because it would be harder to defend his Member's vote if he did.

That's the game, ladies and gentlemen. Politics above truth, winning over doing the right thing.

DOWNLOADS: (1209)

PLAYS: (5442)

Embed

In the wake of the General McChrystal firing because of the article titled: Runaway General, Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings is being berated for the fact that he was "hanging around" the general and his staff and therefore somehow must have hypnotized his crew into expressing thoughts and feelings that were classified. (Kind of like the Svengali-like powers only Russian spies in espionage novels by Robert Ludlum could possess.)

And after they were duped by his super powers of persuasion by the great 'hang out,' he was somehow able to put together the type of long form journalism that has been sorely lacking in the traditional media of today. You would think he would be celebrated by the mainstream press for getting a tremendous scoop by doing real investigative journalism, but instead he's being vilified. Are they just jealous, or do they feel their access is now threatened too? The type of access that allows them to print almost propaganda type press released, but gets them invited to cocktail parties.

I didn't realize Michael Hastings 'hang out' interview technique was so easy to do. Find a destination that is remote enough because let's face it, McChrystal was the general in charge of the entire Afghanistan war. It's not like he's hanging around a Jack In The Box, sucking down a a few tacos. Buy a couple of guys a drink at an Irish pub in France and suddenly they open up and tell what they think of Vice President Biden. That was very slimy of Michael Hastings, we now learn.

Here's Howard Kurtz:

KURTZ: And he got fired rather quickly by President Obama. Do you think that McChrystal and his top aides got so used to your hanging around that they let their guard down?

Yeah, the elite team that McChrystal assembled was easily distracted by the constant appearance of Hastings, so they let their guard down. And these are the men running a war. Don't you feel confident now that it will end soon?

Hastings' response:

HASTINGS: No. I don't think that was the case, because some of the most talked-about parts of the piece happened within the first 24 hours that I was with his team.

One of the most -- I guess people have called it inflammatory passages is when I quote a top adviser saying, "Biden -- did you say 'bite me'?" That was the second morning I was with them in Paris covering an on-the-record meeting that they were having to prepare for a speech later on.

I mean, in fly-on-the-wall journalism, you're there to capture exactly those kinds of moments.

But you were hanging around, Michael. Dammit, you unprofessional hack.

KURTZ: But when you are there --

HASTINGS: That what makes fly-on-the-wall journalism so wonderful to read.

KURTZ: When you are there that much, you don't think it's likely that McChrystal and his team assume that some of their joking, that some of their banter would be treated by you as off the record?

... You got some criticism for quoting one comment by one aide while he was getting drunk, or "hammered" is the way you put it. Any second thoughts about that?

HASTINGS: Which quote are you referring to?

KURTZ: I don't have the piece in front of me, but certainly it's been widely commented upon that there was some drinking going on.

Michael, I have a big show on CNN and I ask the questions because I'm the media critic even if I don't know what I'm asking about, OK? You fill in the blanks. And really, these people were getting shitfaced. Isn't that a bad time to ask them questions?

HASTINGS: Yes. There was drinking going on.

But the only quote from that scene, if I remember, were two of the top senior military officials singing a song that they called "The Afghanistan Song." So I quoted the refrain which was, "Afghanistan!" "Afghanistan!"

And then I quoted General McChrystal observing his men, and saying, "I'd die for these men, and they'd die for me." I don't see what's so controversial about those quotes.

Bam. Take that beeatch!

KURTZ: You certainly did illuminate the human side of war. Michael Hastings, thank you very much for joining us from Afghanistan.

Now let's hear from fellow Beltway Villager CBS Lara Logan who has been pretty damn good covering Iraq.

LOGAN: Well, it really depends on the circumstances. It's hard to know -- Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, because if you look at the people around General McChrystal, if you look at his history, he was the Joint Special Operations commander. He has a history of not interacting with the media at all.

And his chief of intelligence, Mike Flynn, is the same. I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that.

To me, something doesn't add up here. I just -- I don't believe it.

Interpretation: "F--k him, Howard, he beat me to the scoop so he must be full of shit."

Or maybe it was because he took the time out after meeting the general earlier and went by himself to seek out General McChrystal and his staff and ask to do a real article instead of using the all powerful EMAIL. Why travel to a hell hole like Kabul when you can email the general a few basic questions and wait for his reply in the comfort of your own home or office in D.C. or New York?

And then these people wonder why the public has such a dim view of their credibility.

DOWNLOADS: (757)

PLAYS: (478)

Embed

In an interview on “This Week,” with Jake Tapper, CIA Director Leon Panetta said that making progress in Afghanistan isn't easy:

“There are some serious problems” in Afghanistan, Panetta said. “We’re dealing with tribal societies. We’re dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency,” he said.

But, the CIA director said, the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan. “It’s harder, it’s slower than I think anyone anticipated. But at the same time, we are seeing increasing violence,” he told host Jake Tapper.

“Is the strategy the right strategy? We think so,” he said. “I think…the key to success or failure is whether the Afghans accept responsibility, are able to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability. If they can do that, then I think we’re going to be able achieve the kind of progress and the kind of stability that the President is after,” Panetta said.

“This is going to be tough. This is not going to be easy,” he said.

Gee, ya think? Look, I know Obama didn't get us into this mess, but he did decide to double down on the Afghanistan war - which makes it his problem now.

(h/t David at Video Cafe for the clip)

When the story broke two days ago, Bill O'Reilly tried to portray the Rolling Stone article as "tepid" and not worthy of all the hype it's receiving. Really? Bill knows all about military protocol so he's fibbing, trying to save McChrystal from himself. Obama HAD to fire Gen. McChrystal. I won a bet with Howie when I told him Obama would fire him quickly.

I lost a wager yesterday. Amato was certain Obama had no choice but to fire McChrystal after the now infamous Rolling Stone feature showed the Afghanistan War disaster was being run by a gaggle of arrogant, insubordinate, disloyal overgrown frat boys. Amato thought right from the start that Obama would have no choice but to fire McChrystal.

That RS article was hideous on so many levels, I won't name them all here. But the sewerage coming out of the mouths of the General and his frat boy entourage was quite shocking for a man who has built his reputation on being the ultimate soldier. We all complain about either our bosses, co-workers or friends, but we have a small circle we can trust to listen when we vent these things. McChrystal went directly to a Rolling Stone reporter and laid them all out on a Internet silver platter.

We've had many issues with Obama's handling of issues (as has been laid out on the pages of C&L), but as a political move, he did the exact right thing and when he named The Holy Petraeus to take the job. He trumped the right once again. His pick may endanger the withdrawal timetable (because he is a true believer even if he says the right things now), but the Afghan policy isn't the debate here.

Esquire writes a good piece about the policy switch: 10 Things to Know About the Petraeus-McChrystal Switch

The incident might be the first time since Obama took office that the right-wing noise machine could not figure out a way to pile on the President. Even when he does something they approve, they still attack him incessantly, so I found this whole situation interesting. There's one thing that they cannot argue about: the chain of command. Colonel Hunt, who works for FOX, is a blood and guts type of guy and he agreed with Obama even though Bill did his best to save the general.

Hunt: If anybody, Bill... If anybody in your chain, Bill... If anybody working for you said something close to you, that building would implode you're sitting in. If anyone in McChrystal's chain of command below him said anything even close to this, he'd be fired. You cannot do this in the chain of command. You can't do it.

BillO: I got it. Military discipline dictates, the Commander in Chief and all the generals have to have loyalty, up and down.

--

Hunt:...these kinds of comments are not done in vacuums. These kinds of officers have a great deal of experience. Tony and I have served a long time. There is never a time you could say anything like this about your military boss -- certainly not your civilian leadership with a Rolling Stone guy in the room.

BillO: But again, you're assuming that he did it, I'm not assuming that yet.

He's been apologizing all night , Bill....[Bill speaks] You can't do what he did, you can't.

Last night, Bill conceded that Rolling Stone didn't sandbag the general, but in a very "tepid" way. There may be a few stragglers, but Brit Hume's performance with Megyn Kelly summed up the right wing pretty well. Hell, he should be fired just on the basis that he gave an interview to a DFH magazine like Rolling Stone, right?

Bill O'Reilly did try to save McChrystalMeth, but crazy Colonel Hunt would have none of it, either.

DOWNLOADS: (741)

PLAYS: (1465)

Embed

Brit Hume called Gen. McChrystal really dumb because he allowed "Rolling Stone" of all media outlets access to him and his staff for a lengthy interview about how he feels about the war and his Commander in Chief. How dare he use a hippie rag instead of coming to a Villager?

Hume: This is a regular mess. The comments made by General McChrystal himself and by his aides. The astonishing lack of judgement shown in granting access to Rolling Stone. ROLLING STONE! Of all publications. No one over the age of four would speak on the record to Rolling Stone about delicate military matter and 'above all' about laying yourself with all kinds of back room opinions about your partners in the effort and the commander in chief and the vice president. This is a firing offense under normal circumstances. The president would be totally justified in General McChrystal. He may have to do it anyway....

Much of it had to be listening to Biden because he goes on and on and on, but that aside I mean he's still the Vice President of the United States, he's owed respect by General McChrystal and his subordinates aides and then in itself is what they said about him is insubordination, no question about it, I mean, I, Megan, I just don't know as I think about it whether the President can keep him even if he thinks he's vital to the mission. I mean this is pretty blatant stuff...

Kelly: Why? What is the fall out to President Obama if he keeps him?

Hume: Well, what I figure is he'll look weak. He may feel that he'll look weak, but think...(stutter) in a sense look, he may feel that he may make McChrystal crawl across enough broken glass here in Washington tomorrow and humble himself to such an extent..and he may be able to impose him some career....he might find some compromise way to keep him in the post with it being pretty clear that the guy is damaged goods. That might leave the President's prestige intact, but this is pretty strong medicine to be dealt in that article.

Kelly: Couldn't this be an opportunity for President Obama, for lack of a better word, "take the high road?" He's been criticized for having a thin skin and usually that comes with respect from the media, but is this an opportunity for him to say, it was out of line....but he's still the best man to complete a very important strategy that I've committed 30,00 additional American lives ...

Hume:...but these comments were so strong and so negative and so disrespectful and look, the fact that most of them were not made by McChrystal himself doesn't really help because he was clearly present when all these discussions were going on. All this loose talk was going on..I wonder and we may find out Rolling Stone has insisted that it's on the record and everybody knew it and I have my doubts about that. I would be surprised if Gem McChrystal said it was all on the record and we all knew it. Can you imagine anybody, look it. If that's the case the guy maybe outta be fired for being dumb! To have that kind of loose talk to any media outlet.

No one in their right mind, on the record or off talks like this to in front of the media. You just don't do it.

I think he isn't that dumb and just wanted out of Afghanistan altogether since his planning has failed completely. He can now be hailed a right wingnut hero by the fringers for calling out the President, Joe Biden and the Afghan team when he goes on a speaking tour of the AEI's and other tea party events. He can make as many false claims as he wants about what actually happened during the planning and implementation of his counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan since we know he'll lie even about his own troops. (Pat Tillman cover-up) So where's the downside for him to get fired? His military friends in the media, while believing his actions are a firing offense, they will say like Col. Jack Jacobs did on MSNBC that all the troops feel Obama's people are incompetent fools too.

As Karoli pointed out, troops are not happy being sent to die under the General's plan.

And he simply knew he could be labeled the 'General Failure' after General Petraeus was hailed a big hero by the media over Iraq. How are they both measuring up at this point? Any more fainting spells?

UPDATE: I believe he should be fired, but as John Cole points out Obama can do what he wants to do. "Can you imagine going through life with all this artificial nonsense dictating your decision making process?"

Digby has a great post up that says Obama is being advised NOT to fire him and a link to how he can be the one to "save face."

(Photo courtesy of AP of Jonathan Leicht, left, and Jesse Leicht, right, pose with a photo of their brother, Marine Cpl. Jacob Leicht)

Not that any death is acceptable, but there's a sad irony to this news coming on Memorial Day Weekend:

The 1000th American serviceman killed in Afghanistan had already fallen once to a hidden explosive.

Marine Cpl. Jacob C. Leicht was driving his Humvee over a bomb in Iraq that punched the dashboard radio into his face and broke his leg in two places. He spent two painful years recovering from that 2007 blast. The 24-year-old had written letters from his hospital bed begging to be put back on the front lines, and died less than a month into a desperately sought second tour.

The Texas Marine's death marks a grim milestone in the Afghanistan war. He was killed this week when he stepped on a land mine in Helmand province that ripped off his right arm.

An Associated Press tally shows Leicht is the 1,000th U.S. serviceman killed in the Afghan combat, nearly nine years after the first casualty was also a soldier from the San Antonio area.

"He said he always wanted to die for his country and be remembered," said Jesse Leicht, his younger brother. "He didn't want to die having a heart attack or just being an old man. He wanted to die for something."

I wish I knew what that something was. Perhaps it might give some comfort to his family, but after nine years, I don't know what it is. I just hope that we don't have another 1,000 deaths to note before we finally re-think our involvement in Afghanistan.

Brave New Film's Rethink Afghanistan:

Today is the seventh anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

There's a temptation as we begin to end our combat presence in Iraq to search for a happy ending. But there has been no 'victory' in Iraq. We created this video as a reminder of the damage done to Iraq and to our country over the last seven years. We also know that there will be no economic recovery here at home as long as we're spending $100 billion a year on another war that isn't making us any safer - the war in Afghanistan.

That's why we're asking you to report the Afghanistan War as an example of waste, fraud and abuse on the White House's official economic recovery website, Recovery.gov, today. Simply scroll down to the field marked "What" and paste this message into the text box: "I'd like to report the waste of billions of dollars of our national wealth in Afghanistan on a war that doesn't make us safer. It's fraud to portray this as a war that increases our security, and it's abusive of U.S. troops and local civilians to drag out this war any longer. End the war so we can have real economic recovery."

As of today, iCasualties lists 4,703 allied servicemembers killed in Iraq and Iraq Body Count estimates that 95,680 - 104,382 Iraqi civilians (not insurgents/military/soldiers) have been killed. And that doesn't include injured veterans or those who committed suicide. Tens of thousands of families have been torn apart by the what we now know was the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. We've spent $747.3 BILLION in Iraq, with the full cooperation of the pearl-clutching deficit hawks in the Republican Party.

And not one of us can honestly claim that we are safer.

What a sad anniversary.