Macleans: "Taliban Jack" Ahead of His Time on Talkin' to the Taliban

[The Bread Guy]

This from Paul Wells:

I’m going to encourage you to read Aaron’s post about the ridicule that was heaped on Jack Layton’s head when he suggested negotiating with the Taliban. That was, of course, the subject of today’s summit meeting in London. Also of course, a large number of Taliban will not be worth talking to because they will be incorrigible. Others who currently traffic under that loose title will be more amenable. But Layton was saying no different in 2006, and nobody should be surprised that Peter MacKay, among others, turned out to know a lot less than the guy he was mocking ....

More at "And You All Laughed"....

To avoid duplication of invective, here's the last bit o' discussion on this ~2 years ago.

For me, my graphic of a couple of years back still stands (attached).

 

[vonGarvin]

Here's the difference between what NATO was saying yesterday, and what TJ was saying a few years back.

NATO is trying to split the Taliban, to "win back" the so-called 20-dollar Taliban, the moderates, if you will.  TJ wanted to hold "comprehensive negotiations" with their leadership.  Big difference.  And this is being led by Afghanistan, with whom the Taliban will have to reintegrate.

Oh, and TJ is a politician, and ergo, opportunist.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Oh, and TJ is a politician, and ergo, opportunist.

But I repeat myself, right? 

 

[vonGarvin]

But I repeat myself, right? 

Hey, I learned my lesson before. 
1.  All politicions are opportunists
2.  Jack is a politician
3.  Therefore, Jack is an opportunist.
(Modus Ponens)
Which must NOT be confused with
1.  All politicians are opportunists
2.  Jack is an opportunist
3.  Therefore, Jack is a politician
(Affirming the consequent)

 

[observor 69]

Boy I miss Journeyman's sarcastic humour at times like this.