Obama and Afghanistan.

Not read for prime time, my ass:

Much as it pains me to admit a Presidential candidate might have said something accurate about the world, I have to say: Barrack Obama is right, and a over reliance on airpower is killing far too many civilians and undermining the effort to stabilize the country. This is no surprise to regular readers here, or at Péter Marton’s blog, or Afghanistanica, or Bonnie Boyd’s Central Asia blog, or anyone who covers Afghanistan with an ounce of seriousness.

Ahh, but what if you’re stuck in the right-o-sphere? The Instapundit uses an unattributed report from Strategy Page to case doubts on the idea that any civilians actually get killed in these air raids:

[W]hen I read it originally in The Guardian I remember thinking that this would have been a marginally plausible criticism of Afghanistan policy (though the “killing civilians” bit is mostly Taliban propaganda)… Well, the narco drug lords are an issue — has he been reading StrategyPage? Actually, probably not, as here’s what StrategyPage says about air raids and “civilian casualties:”

Last week, U.S. forces detected a meeting of Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan. Smart bombs hit the meeting, which had gathered over a hundred Taliban followers to witness the execution of two men suspected of passing information to the government. Over a hundred people were killed. The Taliban promptly claimed most of the dead were civilians. But they always do that, and no one believes them anymore.

No one but Obama, I guess.

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. That is just wrong. It is fundamentally disconnected from reality.

That's about as good a description of Putz you'll ever read. Read the whole thing.

UPDATE

Just to show you how desperate Putz is to attack a popular Democrat like Obama, look at this recent link:

UPDATE: Ouch: “AP joins Obama in slander of US troops.”

There is no smear too low for Putz.