AP: Taliban Attacks Not Down After All

[The Shadow]

APNewsBreak: Taliban Attacks Not Down After All

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American-led military coalition in Afghanistan backed off Tuesday from its claim that Taliban attacks dropped off in 2012, tacitly acknowledging a hole in its widely repeated argument that violence is easing and that the insurgency is in steep decline.

In response to Associated Press inquiries about its latest series of statistics on security in Afghanistan, the coalition command in Kabul said it had erred in reporting a 7 percent decline in attacks. In fact there was no decline at all, officials said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who is among the senior officials who had publicly repeated the assertion of an encouraging drop-off in Taliban attacks last year, was disturbed to learn of the error, said his spokesman, George Little.

[banner1124]

Who really gives a crap? Not I. We didn't go there to get the Taliban, we went there to get bin Laden. He's dead now, so why the heck are we still there?????

[Hexexis]

Who really gives a crap? Not I. We didn't go there to get the Taliban, we went there to get bin Laden. He's dead now, so why the heck are we still there?????

Wow!; this is the pinnacle of lame, limp-wristed, Grand Canyon-size sphincter liberal tolerance: you could slip into Morris Dees's chair @the Southern Poverty Law Center & no one'd know he'd gone.

Oh, we got bin Laden: 10 yr post facto.

You know why we're still there: generals get promoted IAW the number of troop movements under their command. Occupations multiply troop movements by googelplex to the nth: that's why we're still there.

Come visit beautiful Afghanistan: the Puerto Rico of Central Asia!

[bullmikey]

Yeah, and in 1962-63 JFK's people assured us the Diem had the Vietcong on the run too. We were only a few more MACV troops away from victory (we had about 18,000 advisers and support personnel in country at the time). 58,000 dead boys later… Well, let’s just say it turned out not to be so.

By the way, is anyone surprised that the pre-election reports were somewhat more optimistic than their reality?

[bullmikey]

You know why we're still there: generals get promoted IAW the number of troop movements under their command. Occupations multiply troop movements by googelplex to the nth: that's why we're still there.

The generals don't make policy.

[banner1124]

Wow!; this is the pinnacle of lame, limp-wristed, Grand Canyon-size sphincter liberal tolerance: you could slip into Morris Dees's chair @the Southern Poverty Law Center & no one'd know he'd gone.

Oh, we got bin Laden: 10 yr post facto.

You know why we're still there: generals get promoted IAW the number of troop movements under their command. Occupations multiply troop movements by googelplex to the nth: that's why we're still there.

Come visit beautiful Afghanistan: the Puerto Rico of Central Asia!

What the hell are you talking about? That statement is about as light as I could put it. I don't think we should have been there at all in the first place, but since we are it's kinda stupid to keep beating that dead horse. Oh, and try and make some sense next time you respond.

[The Shadow]

Seem to recall when the claim was running in the other direction, some Libs were falling all over themselves to give credit to their Great Leader's military genius. Now that it's all BS, we get a big, "Who cares?!"...Followed by the sound of crickets.

[soulflower]

Seem to recall when the claim was running in the other direction, some Libs were falling all over themselves to give credit to their Great Leader's military genius.

Got a link?