Why else would they be trying to make Afghanistan peaceful?

Many other countries need our "help".

This is the other side of the deal. Looks like the U.S. is willing to "negotiate with terrorists" after all.

It just goes to show, hard-line politics is bullshit. People think that they can bully others and get away with it. But when we really need things done, we negotiate.

Another flip-flop revealed!

On edit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1163892

to the families of US soldiers killed fighting to rid the world of the evil Taliban so freedom and liberty can spread everywhere like a beacon in the darkness.

Unexplored in this interview and all the others this week were
the real options the president could have followed -but chose
not to.

For example, since America's military has proven itself
so powerful, so often:

- Does President Bush think we could have better crushed
al Qaeda and captured bin Laden if - before invading Iraq -
we had first deployed the 150,000-plus troops we sent to
topple Saddam to instead go all-out to defeat bin
Laden?

- Did the president ever consider ordering massive U.S.
forces into Afghanistan (where we had less than 10,000
troops) to track bin Laden and his gang into the
ungovernable northern Pakistan, where al Qaeda's leader
is believed to be hiding and harbored untouched by
Pakistan's military that has proven itself incapable in that part
of its own country?

- Wouldn't Americans be safer at home today if the president
had used massive force first against the enemy who
attacked us?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/a_pilot_answers_911_questions.htm

These questions have new validity, even urgency, because
of
a milestone that Bush marked, sotto voce, in the last week
of
his first term as commander-in-chief. The president
had
his lower minions whisper the word that his administration
had ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq without finding any

http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/2028065p-10062662c.html