by Chris Bodenner
The Washington Post asked six "experts" if they think Afghanistan is still worth fighting. One of them, Danielle Pletka – who Andrew called a "neocon for Ahmadinejad" – oozes:
Poor Afghanistan, so lacking in succor for the self-righteous. No Jews oppressing Muslims, no apartheid, no Islamists starving Africans. Angelina Jolie doesn't seem to care. It isn't even Iraq. It's no longer the good war, the one worth winning, as it was during the elections. And when Cindy Sheehan and George Will agree it's time to get out, can a hasty retreat be far behind? Worse still, for those who believe victory is worth achieving in Afghanistan, it's not easy to pinpoint what victory looks like. It never has been. Nonetheless, Afghanistan has both strategic and moral value to the United States. […] We are progressing slowly, but we are progressing. And capitulating to the Taliban is unthinkable.
How does that response "def[y] even her low standards"? Michael Cohen counts the ways, adding:
I tend to believe [she] has a string attached to her back and when Washington Post editors pull it she spits out platitudes like "Capitulating to the Taliban is unthinkable." "We are progressing slowly, but we are progressing." "Cindy Sherman." "Angelina Jolie" "Cindy Sherman." "The price of failure is horribly high." By the way, you got to love the Washington Post. They have a debate on whether the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting and they get 5 people who think it is and 1 who doesn't. Way to keep it even-handed guys.
The Dish 