MANCHESTER, Kentucky -- Rodney Miller has lived nearly all his 56 years in Clay County, the only exception being when, as a young man, he moved to Indianapolis. He lived in the big city for two years without ever knowing his neighbors' names.
"The best people in the world live here," says Miller, sitting in the office of the Manchester Enterprise, where he directs advertising sales. "Down here, everybody knows everybody else." . . .

Those are the kind of small-town people I know. It was their good names, and the reputation of an entire community, that were being smeared by the implication that they were a bunch of hateful yahoos who had lynched Bill Sparkman.

The good people of Clay County have been vindicated, and their know-it-all accusers (inter alia, the Harvard-educated Andrew Sullivan) have been exposed as credulous fools.

-In an article over at The American Spectator, Stacy keeps on this theme and more.  A highlight:

Sparkman evidently was willing to let his death be blamed on "anti-government sentiment" -- and on the people of Clay County. Or, as the Washington Post made sure to describe it, "impoverished Clay County."

Newspaper references to rural Appalachian poverty might evoke images of dilapidated cabins with tin roofs and dirt floors, full of barefoot hillbillies with corncob pipes. But those stereotypes bear no resemblance to the Clay County I visited in September.

-It was the first Caesar who pulled the curtain down on The Republic [This seems to be Obama's goal for America: to 'fundamentally transform' it].

-It was Caesar who crossed the Rubicon with his troops in violation of Roman Law and tradition and altered the Roman power structure forever [Obama has done his own metaphorical crossing by putting radical Leftists in positions of power in DC who despise everything America stands for, and he most definitely seeks to alter the power structure of The United States Of America (ex: the Czars)].

-Desiring to be crowned King, Julius had to settle for Dictator-For-Life [I have a sour feeling in my stomach that Obama desires to be more than a mere American President].

-Caesar was very liberal with the panem et circenses and thereby won the people of Rome’s loyalty on an emotional level [Ex: ‘Obama’s gonna pay my mortgage….’ And ‘it’s Obama-money’]

There are many more matching actions between the two tyrants I could cite, but you’ll have to excuse me as I must go polish my metaphorical dagger [although I do think Brutus was ambitious, but Brutus was a girlie-girlie-man].

*If you can guess the song referenced in this title, I'll owe you a round [you'll need it because it means you're officially old].

Look: Eric Cartman is a closet case and a near-total d-bag, but—and this is a big 'but' [like his]—one of his missions in life is to kill all Hippies, and you gotta admire the guy for that.

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S.Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

Kunar province borders the Khyber Pass region where the majority of US and NATO supplies pass enroute from Pakistan. And the remaining four provinces constitute fully the southern 25% of Afghanistan's territory.

This, if true, is a disturbing development.

I have tried to come up with scenarios of why someone would lie about it in a leak. What would be to gain? Who would gain, and what would they gain? Without sleeping on it, the options for such appear narrow at best.

What does seem logical is that an Afghan privy to the negotiations could have become (rightly) spooked that they might just pull it off, and leaked word in hopes that it might so anger American public opinion that the entire endeavor might be scrapped. That's the most logical explanation for motivation I see at the moment.

If true the implications ripple out beyond the borders of Afghanistan.  How will all sides in Pakistan view our actions?  How will Iran?  How will Iraq?  If this inexperienced fool in The White House is even considering this course of action—just letting it cross his mind as a possibility he could support—then he will have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is unfit to hold the Office of President of The United States.

In a later posting, Mr. Schippert follows up with some commentary by Grayhawk, over at The Mudville Gazette, who rightly worries about the implications whether the story is proved to be true or not:

The current administration has elected to conduct its Afghanistan business via leaks and rumors. Presidential decrees that they're "not appropriate" are correct - but insufficient. Among other complications the practice lends credence to stories like this one. Because of that, regardless of source, and no matter how foolish or self-destructive a rumored course of action might appear, the sliver of doubt that it's a complete fabrication exists.

And in this case that "sliver" can grow to damaging size; the interpretation of described events as "whispers of surrender" unfortunately doesn't seem at all far-fetched, and that thought has probably crossed the minds of allies and potential allies alike.

As Mr. Schippert comments:

Whether the president's delay is based primarily upon a lack of depth of knowledge and comfort level with the subject matter, or upon simply being too nuanced by half, the first casualty is clarity. The next is the Afghan people. And the next are our own troops as Afghan civilians side quite logically with who they perceive to be the last man standing in the darkness of a cold Afghan night.

Put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan in a remote village. What, after such "smart diplomacy" executed by un-secretive public whisper campaigns of leaks and rumors, compels you to risk life, limb and your children's throats and jugulars to assist or side with a supposed ally who so loudly demonstrates a desire to leave (read: abandon them) as a strategic motivating factor?

Better for men's families to live as reluctant allies to a dominant Taliban than to die gruesome deaths as their traitors.

This administration can ramble on all it wants about the government in Kabul. That's a rather easy task and a large stationary target. But the key to - dare say - winning is security for the people.

No trust, no dice.

The absence of trust among Afghans will cost us life and limb of sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines on a muddled battlefield.

Please take the time to click here and read the rest of this posting which also contains some good links to what others have said.

Big tip of the fedora to Little Miss Atilla for bringing this to my attention.  She wrote what I think many of us are thinking:

I want to say that even Barack Obama wouldn’t stoop that low.

But I cannot be sure.

Joy, if there's one lesson we've learned since Noon on 20 January, its that, with these clowns, anything is possible.

LMA found out about the story from reading The Anchoress, who asks some good questions:

If America cuts a deal with the Taliban, giving them control over regions in exchange for their keeping Al Qaeda in check, she instantly confers credibility upon them – at least for as long as America’s credibility remains. Can they be trusted? If the Taliban canbe trusted -and recall, Democrats have used the example of these human-rights-oppressing religious fanatics to characterize Republicans, so their sudden trustworthiness is both convenient and suspect- can they, in a theater as large as Afghanistan, actually disallow and prevent Al Qaeda from using that vast land-of-caves as their planning and training base?

Chris, over at WyBlog, is spot-on:

Surrendering to the Taliban gives credence to al Qaeda's rational for attacking us — we brought it on ourselves and we deserve to be hit again. And again. And again.

That's why he's handing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators a Manhattan soapbox from which to explain their "criticisms" of U.S. foreign policy. Criticisms which are largely shared by Obama and his acolytes.

I have no doubt—none whatsoever—that our Fearless Leader believes we deserved to be attacked on 09/11.  Recall what he said to The Chicago Defender in October of 2001:

We should also examine the foreign policies of the the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particular, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity.

Donald Douglas is spot-on succinct:

If true then Obama is far more dangerous to America than most originally thought.

In a possibly related matter...

Tevi Troy reports over at JTA:

Officials in the Obama administration have decided that they will be cutting the guest list in half for this year’s Chanukah party at the White House.

First, you rip Sarah Palin for

It is an insult to the man to even hint at a comparison. Where Reagan used his gifts of communication to inspire his audience, Palin uses her considerable ability to connect emotionally with people to breed anger and resentment. Where Reagan was a veritable font of ideas, Palin is a pale echo of dozens of conservative pundits who rely on talking points and tired, cliched, 1980s-era solutions to our problems.