WTF? (What the Frist?)

About 7:15 p.m. yesterday I read an AP article that was posted approximately 15 minutes earlier. Here was the headline:

Frist: Taliban should be in Afghan gov't

I had to look at that again to make sure it said "should." I was stunned. As I read the article, I continued to be stunned. How do you feel about the following?

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

*******

He said the only way to win in places like the volatile southern part of the country is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."

WTF???

Bill Frist, you are a duplicitous a-hole.

Let's take a look at what Frist has said recently about Iraq and the war on terror. But before that, let me take care of a possible challenge to what follows. I know what some of you wingers out there are thinking--Iraq is not Afghanistan, so I have no business calling Frist an a-hole. Well, anyone who wants to make that argument should first (not Frist) consider the following: 1) the Taliban is the group that ran the government of Afghanistan before 9-11; 2) the Taliban government provided safe haven, money, equipment, and training facilities for Al Qaeda; meaning that 3) the Taliban was a large and blatant state sponsor of terrorism; and 4) unlike Iraq and Saddam, the Taliban had a direct and huge link to the 9-11 attacks.

With those facts in mind, now let's take a look at what Frist has said recently about Iraq and the war on terror. In June of this year, Senate Democrats sought to pass a non-binding resolution regarding troop withdrawals from Iraq. The Republican response was an onslaught of claims of "cut and run," and Frist was the leading accuser. According to a June 16, 2006, report by the AP, Frist "predicted that terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States if the United States were to 'cut and run' before Iraq can defend itself." It seems to me that the same would apply to Afghanistan. As reported by CBS, Frist made the following statements on June 20, 2006:

"This amendment effectively calls on the United States to cut and run from Iraq. Let me be clear: retreat is not a solution. Our national security requires us to follow through on our commitments," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"Artificial deadlines are not the solution — and those calling for an early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq utterly fail to understand the potentially catastrophic implications of their proposal," Frist argued. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

(emphasis added). Again, it seems to me that the same reasoning would apply to Afghanistan, especially given the facts about the Taliban listed above. Indeed, Frist his ownself said as much in a press release from his own office on June 20, 2006, in which he said,

On 9-11, the enemy declared war. They slaughtered innocent citizens right here on American soil.

We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda had trained.

See, the enemy that slaughtered our citizens included the Taliban. We kicked their sorry asses, helped establish a new Taliban-free government, AND NOW Frist wants to have the Taliban back in the government. But wait, there's more...

Frist's June 20 press release also contained these nuggets:

Far from the rhetoric of the other side, the Iraqi people want and need us to help them.

If we don’t – if we break our promise and cut and run as some would have us do – the implications could be catastrophic.

Not only would it be a dishonor of historic proportions, the threat to America’s national security would be potentially disastrous.

Leaving Iraq to the terrorists is simply not an option.

And just how is bringing terrorists back into Afghanistan's government an option? Have we not made a promise to the people of Afghanistan to help them? And just how does bringing the Taliban back into the government not break that promise? How is bringing the Taliban back into the government not a dishonor of historic proportions? And how does letting back into power to any degree the very people who are terrorists and who played a direct role in the murderous acts of 9-11 contribute to America's national security?

How is Frist not a duplicitous a-hole?

But Dr. Bill has spouted even more bullshit lately. The AP reported that just this past Friday Frist said

that in the weeks before the election Republicans must emphasize that they are the better party to fight the war on terror. "We're going to have to get the message out and we have to get it out aggressively over the next 41 days to do well, but I believe we can."

Get as aggressive as you want about the message, Republicans, but when one of the leaders of your party--and a candidate for President--says that the Taliban should be allowed back in the Afghan government, explain to this stupid Democrat how the GOP is the better party to fight terrorists.

And while you are at it, explain why Frist is not appeasing terrorists.

Anybody? Bueller?