I see that at a time when we have lost several more of our brave British soldiers to the Taliban scum in Afghanistan Richard Bacon over on Five Live is running a morale-boosting “Is it time to talk to the Taliban” item on his programme. He’s managed to find a Conservative MP in the form of Adam Holloway, who served there with the Grenadier Guards, and who believes the aim of destroying the Taliban is now “beyond Britain’s means”. This Vichy Conservative wants to cut a deal with the murderous Islamics and naturally Bacon latches onto this. I heard David Cameron speak well on the import of our mission in the Commons earlier today but the BBC drum beat is always surrender. The BBC institutionally opposes the idea of fighting terrorism anywhere and so the likes of Holloway is an absolute gift to Bacon. Even as several British military families are in mourning for their loved ones and in need of the support of the nation, the State Broadcaster – care of a cowardly Conservative – seeks to put the boot in and imply that the mission has been futile.
SURRENDER TO THE RHYTHM.
Bookmark the permalink.
Why not have a look around Andy. It’s quite easy to find love.
Why not have a look around Andy. It’s quite easy to find love.
korova | 19.06.08 – 7:46 pm
Andy, don’t waste your time.
“korova” has used this trick before; he/she/it makes allegations then when challenged to provide proof tells us to look for it.
When it comes to the crunch “korova” eventually comes up with something that convinces nobody.
“korova” is a disruptive, dishonest, small-minded, badly intentioned troll.
Best ignored, it does then eventually go away when deprived of the attention it seeks.
Do we really want to bring up the Yassin thing again? It really did make you look silly. Perhaps you don’t want Andy to look as silly as you did. Very touching. Anyway, this Taliban thing – try to keep on topic chaps.
Bio: Re. The BBC ‘institutionally opposes’ fighting terrorism:
‘To start with the BBC’s guidelines forbid calling terrorists, well, terrorists’
Ok, that was more what I had in mind when talking about an ‘institutional’ bias. Thanks.
But the word ‘terrorist’ isn’t actuall forbidden in the guidlines or anywhere else.
korova:
Why not have a look around Andy. It’s quite easy to find love.
korova | 19.06.08 – 7:46 pm |
Is Korova turing into an agony aunt?
We can all find that special one to love, we just need to look.
Korovna writes;
“Exactly why I bring up the fact that the right first brought up the idea of the Taliban being brought into the Afghan government. Clearly that is lunacy and I am wondering why the BBC is accused of being a left-wing institution over this when the idea was first suggested by a high-raking Republican. Strikes me as a bit odd.”
What a simplistic view. Using your analogy that the BBC cannot be left-wing because a republican wants to talk to the Taliban. (Cross reference, politician, votes and selling your mother) Would you agree that Muslims cannot be terrorists simply because the BNP says they are?.
Life isn’t as black and white as people like you make it. (I think you will find it was actually the Afghans who not only spoke about bringing former Taliban members into government they actually did it.) The last I looked Hamid Karzai does as he wishes and not as he told. So please less of this the Americans are leading the way. The locals are.
Oh and sorry to inform you. But the BBC is a left-wing institution. Just following the BBC news. Watching Question time or even trying to find anything positive about how it looks at the UK. The BBC is a Marxist club which only promotes the agenda of those who look at themselves in the mirror and hate seeing white skin.
Pounce – not exactly sure what you are banging on about. Let’s keep this simple. The post suggests that, as the BBC have discussed talking to the taliban, it is an indication of a broader left.wing bias. Despite what the post suggests, it is a right wing idea espoused a couple of years ago by a prominent right wing politician.
What a simplistic view. Using your analogy that the BBC cannot be left-wing because a republican wants to talk to the Taliban.
That’s not really what I am saying is it? The point is that this website claims to expose the left-wing bias at the BBC. What I am attempting to show is that this example is not somehow purely representative as originating from the left and is in fact an idea that sprung from the right. To claim that this notion is supported only by ‘lefties’ (which I see no evidence for by the way. I cannot think of a single left-wing figure that is supportive of such a notion) and ‘Vichy’ Conservatives is a nonsense. The idea was originally floated from a source much closer to the Bush administration than to any socialist spokesperson. Consequently, I do not see this discussion on BBC radio as indicative of a ‘left-wing bias’ at the BBC. If anything, it is indicative of a ‘right-wing bias’ given its origin.
But the word ‘terrorist’ isn’t actuall forbidden in the guidlines or anywhere else.
Joel | 19.06.08 – 10:12 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/mandatoryreferr.shtml
We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.
In other words, the BBC does not call a terrorist a terrorist, it will only use the word if used by somebody else and ony when quoting that person.
This site has chronicled many examples of the BBC actually not even doing that but reporting somebody as saying “militant” when they actually said “terrorist”.
Here they lie when they deny it, they famously did mis-quote Tony Blair’s speech following the London attacks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/background.shtml
Our policy is about achieving consistency and accuracy in our journalism. We recognise the existence and the reality of terrorism – at this point in the twenty first century we could hardly do otherwise. Moreover, we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people, but we try to avoid the word ourselves; not because we are morally neutral towards terrorism, nor because we have any sympathy for the perpetrators of the inhuman atrocities which all too often we have to report, but because terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones.
They attempt to justify themselves in an even more head spinning fashion here, but their hypocrisy shines through. As the old Italian saying goes, “the snow makes everything look pretty and white, but when it melts the turds are still there”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/ourapproach.shtml
See also:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2005/07/terror_strikes_1.html
Perhaps you don’t want Andy to look as silly as you did. Very touching. Anyway, this Taliban thing – try to keep on topic chaps.
Korova | 19.06.08 – 9:38 pm
Give Andy the proof he asked for to back up the allegation you made. Don’t tell him to go and look for it.
As I told you when you tried this trick previously – if you make an allegation it’s up to you to present proof – not up to others to prove it for you.
Either put up or shut up, or better still, just fuck off anyway.
You are the one who was made to look “silly” when you insisted you had proof that an Israeli prime minister had admitted to establishing Hamas. On that occasion you exhorted everybody here to find the proof rather than present it yourself. When you did eventually give a few links you were laughed out of here in no uncertain fashion.
Your re-writing of the recent history of this blog is as pathetic as everything else you say.
Foxtrot Oscar!
Hi David,
Have you actually listened to the programme? I have for the first 30 minutes
Conservative representative was Bob Stewart and Frank Gaffney, founding president of the Centre for Securiy Policy in Washington was the other one. Adam Holloway’s speech was the reason for the discussion.
The first entry here was at 10:05pm suggesting, that you put the blog up before the discussion even started.
Is it really credible to slag something off before it happened? If you listen to the first 30 minutes, as I did, you may find that the guests and Mr Bacon were not in favour of negotiating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/bacon.shtml
But then, you have not listened to it but projected your expectations a-priori. Funnily enough, your fellow contributors did not even pick up on this.
You may want to listen again and correct your comments.
When you did eventually give a few links you were laughed out of here in no uncertain fashion.
Whereas the person who claimed that Hamas was merely a charitable organisation at the outset was warmly applauded for his/her wise words. Look, we all look like tits sometimes. You made me look a tit a while back. I find it best if you just accept that you got caught out and leave it at that. There’s no shame in that. In fact it would probably raise your stature in my eyes.
Anyway, it was the right that first originated the idea of talking to the Taliban and, in fact, even suggested they be brought into the government. Therefore, the BBC cannot be accused of being left-wing on this matter. End of story.
korova | 19.06.08 – 3:55 pm |
Dave – Ok, how about a former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and former Republican Senate Majority Leader? I’ll give you a couple of minutes to think about why his views should be dismissed.
What, Bill Frist? That’s all you got? Never mind that he’s an idiot on many issues, he’s not part of the Bush Administration, nor is he in any position of policy influence. Ya got nothing.
He may be an idiot, but he is most definitely right-wing and he was certainly the first to call for the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government at a time when he was Republican Senate Majority Leader. It is a right-wing notion first fielded by a right-wing politician, and now backed up a right-wing UK politician who, according to gunnar, Richard Bacon opposed during this debate. So again, how can this be an example of ‘left-wing’ bias?
gunnar | 20.06.08 – 1:32 am |
Have you actually listened to the programme? I have for the first 30 minutes.
I just listened to the entire thing, and it most certainly was biased.
The first entry here was at 10:05pm suggesting, that you put the blog up before the discussion even started.
Is it really credible to slag something off before it happened? If you listen to the first 30 minutes, as I did, you may find that the guests and Mr Bacon were not in favour of negotiating.
I don’t know what DV heard, but I sure as hell heard that Bacon and Col. Bob were in favor of opening communication with the Taleban, with the long term goal of negotiations, similar to the IRA and Northern Ireland. This was stated by Bacon as the correct view, in case you missed it. Only Gaffney was against it. You are not telling the truth when you say that “the guests and Mr. Bacon were not in favour of negotiating.”
But then, you have not listened to it but projected your expectations a-priori. Funnily enough, your fellow contributors did not even pick up on this.
You may want to listen again and correct your comments.
I listened, alright, and here’s what I heard:
Col. Bob sure as hell wanted to negotiate with them. He did concede that he didn’t want to go so far as to surrender and withdraw. He also said at one point that he did not want Afghanistan to return to what it was. However, he made it very clear that he saw this situation as analogous to dealing with the IRA.
Bacon agreed with him. He was always lagging Gaffney, even dismissing one comment entirely out of hand by saying that Gaffney was just speculating, whilst Col. Bob actually knew about dealing with the IRA. Without exception, Bacon challenged Gaffney’s assertion, while Col. Bob’s comments were treated as the correct view. You simply cannot come here and say that Bacon was not in favor of negotiating.
What is really rather horrifying is that Col Bob actually said we should talk to the Taliban to “find out what they want”. He loses all credibility on the subject right there. We know perfectly well that they want to rule Afghanistan in the manner in which they used to. All that’s left is for Col. Bob to decide how much of the country he will grant them rule.
That’s the end of the matter, and the BBC obviously agrees with him. Even after Gaffney spelled out just how the Taleban ran the country, and that we know they want because they have told us so many times, Bacon still didn’t get it. He gave that away when he said that we should talk to the Taleban to “understand the psychology of the enemy.”
Gaffney reminded Bacon that they told us all lots of times what they want and how they think, and Bacon just shrugged it off.
This segment was clearly biased in favor of negotiating with the Taleban. I don’t see how you can misrepresent it in the way you have.
Good for Bacon for stepping on a caller hurling insults at Gaffney, though.
(They had another caller on near the end who said something about getting the Taleban to lay down their “arrums”. He pronounced it “arrums”, exactly like Pat the Guinea Pig in “Alice in Wonderland”. Both Bacon and Col. Bob giggled audibly at that, as did I.)
korova | 20.06.08 – 3:41 pm |
So again, how can this be an example of ‘left-wing’ bias?
Oh, please. Frist was far from the first to call for the Taleban to be brought into the government. Everybody on the Left was saying that from the first day we invaded. Those who weren’t crying that it was illegal and that we shouldn’t have gone in, that is.
Finding a couple of right-wing voices does not make this a right-wind idea. That’s completely ridiculous.
Everybody on the Left was saying that from the first day we invaded.
Er, evidence please?
Finding a couple of right-wing voices does not make this a right-wind idea. That’s completely ridiculous.
But it does make it a left-wing one?
If you can find single left-winger claiming that the Taliban should be part of the Afghan government, I will happily concede. This is, however, extremely unlikely so I won’t hold my breath.
korova | 20.06.08 – 4:31 pm
Er, evidence please?
If you are going to have peace at all in Afghanistan you have to work with the existing people until such time that they can be replaced by better people, then think how to deal with them – the same pattern of behaviour was really seen in Bosnia – the West didn’t go overnight to catch the war criminal and bring them to justice, they have to work with everybody in order to set up a government that is acceptable then think about the extremes of what has happened and deal with that one in due course through the international courts of justice.
-Baqer Moin, BBC Central Asia specialist on Panorama on Oct. 7, 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1584274.stm
Martin Shaw was speaking against the invasion of Afghanistan on September 12, 2001. Implicit in this idea is that the Taliban should be left in charge of the government. When Shaw speaks about going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda through international legal means, that must logically include not only leaving the Taliban as the government, but working with them as well.
http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/justpeace/martinshawwrites.htm
Ditto for all anti-war groups who were against the invasion in the first place, and have been calling for total withdrawal. They’re all leftists, and would prefer having the Taliban as the government, rather than let Bush do anything or possibly have even the remotest chance at success.
If you can find single left-winger claiming that the Taliban should be part of the Afghan government, I will happily concede. This is, however, extremely unlikely so I won’t hold my breath.
You can exhale now. Left-wingers have been saying that we should have left the Taliban in charge from day one, or deal with them once we got there.
Nope. Still holding my breath. Can you find an example of a left-winger saying that we should bring the Taliban back into the government? You have only presented hypotheticals based on two people’s standpoints before the war. If you can find a left-winger who says ‘Now is the time to bring the Taliban back into the fold’ (as two right-wingers have), then, again, I will concede. You have to do better than those poor examples David.
korova | 20.06.08 – 11:19 pm |
Once again you are denying reality. You are also creating a false goal. Frist did not originate the concept. He was just about the only right-winger to mention it, and was immediately shouted down. It’s hard to claim that as a right wing concept. If you had been paying attention at the time, you would have noticed that nearly every single other right wing voice told him he was out of his mind. If it was a “right wing” idea, as you claim, don’t you think the Bush Administration would have gone with it?
Frist was alone on this on his side of the aisle. He did not originate the idea, nor is it a purely right wing one.
Is it time to negotiate with the Taliban? (from CNN, Oct. 5, 2006)
Efforts to engage politically with the Taliban are not new — the Afghan government has made repeated amnesty offers since 2002. Four former Talibs were elected to the parliament in 2005. Two former Talibs are in the Senate. Maulavi Abdul Hakim Mumib, the governor of Uruzgan province, is a former senior Taliban official.
It’s not a new idea, did not originate with right-wingers. The only reason Democrat leaders didn’t say that out loud is because they knew they had to keep silent and support the fight against the Taliban if they wanted to get re-elected.
All the anti-Bush…er…anti-war coalitions wanted talk rather than war, and wanted have the Taliban in the government. Just because Frist was the highest ranking politician to say that out loud does not make it a right wing idea. That’s just silly. It’s like saying invading Afghanistan is a left-wing idea just because Howard Dean supported it, and said a couple of sentences that no Republican duplicated exactly.
If you’re going to demand proof that a Democrat said the exact same words as Frist, then you’re just making an imaginary goal post. If the Afghans themselves were doing this and talking about it out loud years ago, then it can’t possibly be a right wing idea. It’s something you made up.
David P,
I can’t see how korova can get out of that one. Well done!
Perhaps korova should take its own advice:
“I find it best if you just accept that you got caught out and leave it at that. There’s no shame in that. In fact it would probably raise your stature in my eyes.”
Although it would take more than admitting it got caught out for me to change my opinion of it.
I hope it continues to hold its breath, it may eventually just fall over and die.
Apologies for the screwed up link in my last comment. Hit the wrong button in my haste.
Hi David P,
My post was not addressed to you but David V. I thought this was clear when I pointed out, that the first comment went up 10:05 pm. The show starts at 10:00 pm so Mr Vance must have posted just before 10:05 pm.
Well, could it be that this website is inherently biased itself? The evidence strongly points to that. Perhaps it should remain itself into “Biased Biased BBC” or “B-B-BBC”.
And by the way, Col Bob did not want to negotiate with them. He made that explicitely clear. He said, that there likely were channels of communications and that this should be pursued. Do you really think, that there is no talking going on in the background?
gunnar | 22.06.08 – 12:20 am |
And by the way, Col Bob did not want to negotiate with them. He made that explicitely clear. He said, that there likely were channels of communications and that this should be pursued. Do you really think, that there is no talking going on in the background?
I am well aware that your comment was directed at DV. I say that you misrepresented the segment in your own comment, assuming that either Vance hadn’t actually heard it, and/or that the rest of us hadn’t heard it either, wouldn’t bother, or were too timid and sycophantic to question you.
Col. Bob most certainly did say he thought negotiating with the Taliban was ultimately the right thing to do. He did point out – as I mentioned in my comment, if you’ll recall – that he didn’t mean this as surrender. He did, however, mean that this should be though of as analogous to the back-channel dealings with IRA members, with the eventual goal of bringing them into the government. He said that’s how it’s done, and Bacon supported him.
You said that Bacon and his guests were against negotiating with the Taliban, which is false. Bacon challenged every statement from Gaffney, while approving every one of Col. Bob’s utterings.
I know there’s talking going on in the background. There has been from Day One, and the military and CIA and all everyone else has been quite open and up front about that. It’s not negotiation, nor is it surrender. These back-channel talks are more about trying to get people to give up on supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These back-channel talks are generally not the same as trying to get the IRA to publicly denounce violence – but still not disarm – and to empower their political arm.
As I said elsewhere, there are already ex-Taliban commanders in the Afghan government. The “ex” is the important bit. No such thing as an “ex-IRA” member of Sinn Fein, is there? What Col. Bob and Bacon want/believe in is a Taliban equivalent of Sinn Fein.
Gaffney realizes that’s madness, as do I. You decided to come here and deny that’s what went on in the discussion, accusing DV of making his post without having listened to the segment, possibly even before the interview was broadcast. You misrepresented the segment so as to disagree with him, most likely fully expecting that nobody here would bother listening to it, or dare get involved in something where Vance could possibly have been wrong.
Vance can defend himself if he wants, and I don’t care if he does or not. But when you say this:
Funnily enough, your fellow contributors did not even pick up on this.
I take it as an insult to my integrity and intelligence. I have every right to defend myself from such accusations, and I have done so. You are both wrong about the segment, and wrong to assume that no one here would dare question you.
Hi DP
If you scroll back to the top of the comments section you will find this:
“Martin:
Richard Bacon is a vile little man. The fact that Stephen Nolan is his weekend counterpart says it all.
Martin | 18.06.08 – 10:05 pm | #”
Please explain to me how Martin could have responded to DVs post at 10:05 pm if DV had listened to the segment and then posted his opinion. The show starts at 10:00pm.
Col Bob and Gaffney were introduced 5 minutes into the program, around the time Martin has left his first comment to what DV has written. Unless the time stamps on this blog are wrong, DV can not have heard this.
Col Bob first statement after 7 minutes of the program goes like this:
“I do not agree with negotiating with them but a channel of communications has already been opened, afterall journalists are already talking with the taleban and it would seem to me that our security services, in my view, will probably have contacts in one way or the other. Negotiation I agree with Frank, this is without a question. If you want to surrender you go there, but what you actually might want to do is actually having some form of communication …”
He clearly states that he does not want to negotiate.
DP, please read my posts again. Can you also shed some light on the curious incident that Martin posted when the guests to the debate were introduced.
BTW – I have not intended to insult your intelligence and integrity. I have only commented on the relationship between start of the program and Martins first comment.
Time stamp likely to be 5 minutes fast, which would mean that Martin posted at 10:00pm.
Anyway, here the link to the program
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/bacon.shtml
gunnar,
Please explain to me how Martin could have responded to DVs post at 10:05 pm if DV had listened to the segment and then posted his opinion. The show starts at 10:00pm.
Martin was obviously expressing his existing opinion on Bacon. He was not reacting to the show itself.
As I said before, David Vance can defend himself about this post, but it seems pretty obvious that he was reacting to the title of the segment, objecting to the BBC deciding to devote air time to the idea of negotiating with the Taliban. It does appear that he made his post without listening to any of it, or at least only a few moments. This is unfortunate, and DV deserves a slap on the wrist, which you have done.
Having said that, you then misrepresented the segment by stating that Bacon and his guests were against negotiating with the Taliban. This is simply not true. I will grant you that they played around with the definition of “negotiate”, which I believe is the cause of our debate here.
Col. Bob did say that he didn’t want to negotiate with the Taliban, but that’s because he was using that word in Gaffney’s context of “negotiating with a view to surrender (or ceding territory to them, etc.)”. Col. Bob agreed with Gaffney that this was right out, but he did say that they should communicate with the Taliban with the goal of bringing them into the government, à la the IRA.
Bacon agreed with that, and both of them took the side that we must engage in talks with the Taliban with the view of bringing them to the table. This is “negotiate” by every definition except the one Col. Bob and Gaffney meant earlier.
My Oxford American Dictionary defines “negotiate” as:
to try to reach an agreement or arrangement by discussion, to arrange in this way
Now, considering the title of the segment was “Is it time to talk to the Taliban”, and both Bacon and Col. Bob were in favor of talking with them with the goal of reaching an agreement, I would say that this is “negotiating”.
You may successfully claim that Col. Bob said literally that he was against negotiating with the Taliban, but you are misrepresenting the context of that statement if you claim that Col. Bob was using the standard definition of the word. It was very clear that in that sentence he was agreeing with Gaffney, who was using the word in the context of surrender. It is equally clear that Col. Bob was in favor of talking to the Taliban with the idea of bringing them to the table. He never said that we should get them to disarm and disband the Taliban before joining the government. He supported the idea of negotiating with them (in the proper definition of the word), and Bacon openly stated that Col. Bob was an expert on this situation because it was analogous to Northern Ireland. You cannot possibly claim that Col. Bob and Bacon were against negotiating with the Taliban, unless you stick to a concrete detail taken out of context, which would be disingenuous.
You also seriously misrepresent the facts when you say Bacon was against negotiating with the Taliban. He was very clearly in agreement with Col. Bob, and disagreed with Gaffney. There can be no mistake about his “Jeckyll & Hyde” treatment of his guests.
I don’t care if DV is right or wrong. His purpose on this blog is to start debate. The rest of us can agree or disagree as we like. The segment was still biased, regardless of how much of a naughty boy DV is or isn’t. You are also a naughty boy for coming here and completely misrepresenting the facts of the segment, and insulting the integrity and intelligence of the rest of us.
Hi David P
Many thanks for getting back.
I am listening to the program again to find the part where Col Bob argues to bring the taleban to the table as you phrase it.
I am not sure if Bacon was in favour of talking with the Taleban, he was simply moderating and probing Gaffney on his position of not even talking with the enemy. Granted, Col Bob’s position was that we should be having channels of communication and he was stating the the british government was doing this in the past.
The title of the program was “Should we negotiate with the Taleban”.
Many thanks for agreeing that DVs post was before or shortly after the program started. Not sure about your view of starting discussions. I was under the impression that he would be analysing and proofing bias rather then asserting that it exists. Perhaps analysis is not the purpose of this website, fair enough and I will change my expectations in turn.
I have missed the statements of Col Bob Stewart with regards of bringing the Taleban to the table as you put it here:
“Bacon agreed with that, and both of them took the side that we must engage in talks with the Taliban with the view of bringing them to the table. This is “negotiate” by every definition except the one Col. Bob and Gaffney meant earlier.
My Oxford American Dictionary defines “negotiate” as:
to try to reach an agreement or arrangement by discussion, to arrange in this way”
and here:
“It is equally clear that Col. Bob was in favor of talking to the Taliban with the idea of bringing them to the table … He supported the idea of negotiating with them (in the proper definition of the word), and Bacon openly stated that Col. Bob was an expert on this situation because it was analogous to Northern Ireland. You cannot possibly claim that Col. Bob and Bacon were against negotiating with the Taliban, unless you stick to a concrete detail taken out of context, which would be disingenuous.
”
And yes, I can claim that neither Bacon nor Stewart were positing to negotiate with the taleban as you define it. Stewart’s parting statement was:
“If we talk to those revolting people who killed so many of our soldiers, we do so holding a long spoon; and thats the way we do it. The same way we dealt with the IRA and I suspect Israel has dealt with Hamas.”
In terms of balance it seems that Bacon managed to invite two people to the program titles “Should we negotiate with the Taleban” (Yes, this was the title of the actual show) who were not in favour of this proposition (by a conservative MP). One wanted to talk to them, the other one not. So much to BBC balance.
gunnar | 23.06.08 – 11:01 pm |
I don’t agree with your assessment that Bacon was not on-side with Col. Stewart. Nor do I agree with your contention that his closing statement about holding one’s nose while talking to these people means that he is not in favor of negotiating. I think he was actually closer to Gaffney than Bacon on the issue, but the message was still overall in favor of talking to them.
I don’t see how you can say that treating the Taliban like the IRA is anything other than being in favor of negotiating with them. It’s not surrender, but it’s halfway there.