It is more worrisome that the more credible scenario is that word of Cheney’s trip to Afghanistan leaked from Pakistan.

WH claims to be be concerned about the resurgence of Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and wants to impress the point on President Hamid Karzai that WH is concerned. WH doen’t think a telephone call or video conference is good enough, presumably because such communication won’t receive high enough visibility for the rest of the world that they also want to impress, so a personal visit is in order.

WH doesn’t want Cheney to die trying, so the visit is not announced. For some reason, either no one checks, or they ignore the weather forcast for snow, the visit is delayed, and Cheney stays overnight at Bagram Air Base. Apparantly, even though the destination is an air base, Cheney has to travel to it in a secured motorcade, which sounds like he must have landed at Kabul airport. Maybe the excuse is to avoid interference with ongoing military operations; except that traveling in a motorcade through an area where a lot of people don’t even own cars will be noticed.

According to NYT today
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/washington/28security.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
“But word of his presence in Afghanistan leaked out on Monday…..That fact was widely reported on Internet sites and on radio programs that have significant audiences in Afghanistan.” Then also in the same story “Mr. Cheney said the attack was a reminder that terrorists seek ‘to question the authority of the central government,’ “, so he’s saying ‘I told you so’.

If we believe that the details of his travel plans were the best choice out of necessity, then we also have to believe that he considered the effect of his message to both Hamid Karzai and also the rest of the world, to be a higher priority then concern over the deaths resulting from car bombing because of his presence. Is the lack of concern because car bombings are routine, and would have happened anyway? The idea that this car bombing was routine, doesn’t consider two things. This was reported to be an area where car bombings were less frequent, and also, from the perspective of a car bomber, facing “to be or not to be” is not a routine question, no matter what the fanaticism level.

I’m not seeing any reporting about Cheney having any remorse over who died because he drew fire. So who’s the victim, Cheney, who those who actually died?

Beautiful turn of a phrase.

The stink of undeserving entitlement permeates every demand of these emotional adolescents.

If it’s not Bush with his whining about Iraqis not being properly grateful for all the swell things we’ve done for them, it’s Cheney buttonholing Pakistan to get off its butt and start making us look good by snagging bin Laden for us.

Next thing, they’ll be demanding that Afghanistan quit being such slobs, show a little pride and tidy up their country ’cause it’s running down the neighborhood.

Do you think Cheney will rethink that deal now that he’s become a target? Somehow, I doubt reality enters into the administration’s thinking.

Oh, and another thing that ticks me off is that Cheney goes to Pakistan and tells Musharraf that if he doesn’t crack down on al Qaeda, the Democrats will cut his funding. But Cheney also tells everyone the Democrats are terrorist appeasers and traitors. How can they be tough on al Qaeda and simultaneously al Qaeda sympathizers?! Isn’t the Bush administration supposed to be waging GWOT?

[Posted this under Victoria's Secret too.]