Why is there no rush for the US to leave Afghanistan?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Note I said "as" bad ....and "for the most part" and "as easy".....the media is lazy...and will do what is quickest and easiest to sell. (note the big NY times magazine story from this past weekend) A female soldier claimed being raped twice in Iraq....they worked on this story for a year and printed it. (it turns out she was never even in Iraq) WTF? Any journalisnm 101 student would want to make sure of this fact wouldnt they?....What the hell...just run with the story....its anti Iraq war and thats all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?
She never claimed she was raped in Iraq (Mississippi and Guam). Why don't you get your facts straight? It does seem likely she was never in Iraq, even though her personnel file includes a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which is only awarded to troops who have served in a war zone. The magazine was remiss in checking out the story (apparently they checked at the last minute).
There were on the order of 30 others mentioned in the article. Care to refute all of their stories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a blurb that goes thru what the NYT did....from fox news...obviously not a reputable source (compared to the NY Times)

The Times admitted it distributed an article in the March 18 edition of its Sunday Magazine, while knowing the story contained some glaring inaccuracies. The article was about women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse some say they endured, and their struggles in reclaiming their pre-war lives. But one of the women profiled, who said she'd been raped twice and suffered brain damage when a roadside bomb exploded next to her Humvee, was never actually IN Iraq. She lied. And, there was no roadside bomb. Readers were left to wonder if there'd been any sexual assaults.

The newspaper knew about the mistakes on March 12, six days before the magazine was distributed, and 13 days before it published the correction. The magazine was printed on March 9 — three days before the lies were discovered — but there was still plenty of time to reprint it. The cost might've been huge, but wouldn't it be worth it for a paper whose masthead proclaims "All the News That's Fit to Print?"