no. afghanistan people would have come to america to fight us? the argument to fight them there so we don t have to fight them there has no meaning? it holds no water. it wasn t afghans that attacked us. it was osama bin laden. it was the al qaeda. we had chapels up until9/11. they have no transport. our security is maintained here inside the country and not there. if we were to leave, would colorado there be an attack launched out of afghanistan? maybe. but certainly not fluff to keep a hundred thousand troops in that uncan i indefinitely. let me go to brian, that same question. what have we achieved in all of this death in iraq and afghanistan, the war that bush started. a big part of the problem was the iraq war. i think in afghanistan the
the same conflict this time next year with 10,000 less troops or 20,000 less troops. 2014 getting all our troops out our com pat troops. we ll still keep 25,000 trainers over there, which is amazing to me. getting to that point is predicated on our militarily defeating the insurgency. here s the dangerous point. could he be going into an area in the middle where nothing gets done? fewer troops, that sounds like a recipe for a disaster, instead of 100,000 troops, they re down to 25,000 fighting the same kind of war. yeah, basically. what you get is i think the president is lard to 2009, trying to please everybody, cutting the difference again. we ll find out why the president believes in this war. you don t. senator boxer believes we have
mediator, then we are just the same conflict, this time next year with 10,000 less troops or 20,000 less troops. 2014, getting troops out is our combat troops, we still keep 25,000 trainers over there. which is amazing to me. so getting to that point is predicated on our militarily defeating the insurgency. we haven t seen it. for all this talk here is a dangerous point. could the president go into the most dangerous area, where is somewhere in the middle where nothing gets done. yes. the job will keep getting bigger with fewer troops. that sounds like a recipe for disaster. instead after hundred thousand troops fieghting the same war they are down to 25,000 fighting the same kind of war. what you get is i think the president is similar under 2009, trying to please everybody. getting a difference again which you know we will find out as the program goes on. i want to find out why the president believes this were. you don t.
three people were left dead. republican congressman ron paul of texas and massachusetts governor frank are teaming up for a bill to set their own marijuana laws without federal interference. now back it hardball. just about a half hour until the president announces his plan to reduce the troops in afghanistan. we still have a hundred thousand troops in afghanistan. what have we accomplished in the decade and what will be accomplished if anything from this point forward? bob bear is a columnist for time magazine and brian cat ole s is here. bob, what have we accomplished
west virginia. there s a lot of places in coal country you dare not spend a nickel for climate change issues. isn t that the problem? we ve gone from a place where we knew the crisis we were phasing. now you can t even talk reasonably about the solutions. i think that s gore s main point, the attack on climate science is on the attack on the rule of reason, an attack on our ability as a society to hold a rational debate on what the facts say and what we need to do. back to joan, and eric jump in, too, have we ever had a time where one side is willing to say something you can argue about wars and measuring facts, but here s fa fact. rush limbaugh says stuff that is just not true. i never use the word lie, but it s appropriate here. it is, it is. glenn beck, i hear him years ago on the radio before he was on tv saying there s no climate