I didn't know about this. Like you note though, they've made similar demands in the past. Hopefully the companies will stay open. Theoretically they're greedy enough to not want to lose money for 14 hours a day. But on the ideological side, they shouldn't cowtow to the Taliban's demands out of principle. If they agree to this now the Taliban might, and probably will, see this as a method that gets results thus making them likely to place stricter requirements in the future. Hopefully the company's greed will win out.

Good piece. Keep writing.

Um...how the hell is the Taliban getting service in caves in the sparse, rocky, mountainous regions of Afghanistan? I want their service provider.

Maybe they're forcing the mobile service providers to shut down at night because that's when the Taliban does most of their suicide bombing training and the dang cell phone signals are accidentally triggering the bombing vest on the rookies in training.

Salam: "Dang it Ahmed, another rookie's vest went off again. That's the 3rd time this week."

Ahmed: "Salam, I don't swear that I told all of them at the beginning of the Vest Fitting Class to turn off their cell phones. So... do we still tell his family that he is now with 72 virgins?"

Salam: "Ahmed, don't you ever wonder where all these virgins are coming from? You don't suppose it's the same 72 women...do you?"

*Eye of the Tiger ring tone*

*BOOM*

Salam: "Number 4."

If we knew where OB was he would be dead. Thats what SEALS do best. At this point he is just a fictional character that is actually an asset to the CIA's job security program. Everything we do to alledgedly stop them gives them more power. Makes me wonder what the word intelligence actually means.

Obioulsy Osama's been forgotten,
since the Bin Laden's and the Bush's,
go together like pea's and carrot's.

Osama's whereabouts are known but as you state he is to valuable to Bush and the Neo_Cons alive and free, instead of killed or captured.

In response to Alfaduetto's comment above. (I forgot to hit the "Reply" button.)

Um...the CIA was around before OB was born. They've done, are doing, and will continue to do other things besides looking for OB. So, I highly doubt that the CIA is relying on the search for OB to stay in business.

Stay in business? No. Legitimize huge costs? Hells yes.

In response to the search for Bin Laden:
A free tiger is more frightening than a caged one.

If you are interested in an historical account of what your CIA has been up to since Truman was president, I suggest you read Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner. It is a chewy read and requires persistence - independent of the 702-page length, but well worth the effort. Weiner's research is extraordinary whereas CIA performance since it's inception has been anything but.

Damn...now how am I supposed to drunk-dial Bin Laden and pretend I'm sleeping with one of his concubines?

I am glad i wasn't the only one thinking this. When i read the original story, i kept thinking about people in caves using cell phones and getting good service, then being absolutely disgusted that i can't use my cell phone in my basement due to lack of service.

The legitimizing huge costs I agree with, but than that needs to be said about every government operation/department.

Wasnt Truman a <ducks> Democrat? Oh, wait. He was also a staunch christian...so its OKAY to criticize THAT Democrat. My bad.

How is that a criticism of Truman? He was the president when the CIA was formed (1947), so where else would you start with their history?

Than is to denote a measure, size. But even if I switch than to then I still don't get what you mean exactly.

Republicans have made mistakes, Democrats have made mistakes. I haven't read Legacy of Ashes yet, though I REALLY want to, but even assuming your argument isn't missing a big piece of the puzzle, that book is a good resource. Does this need to turn into another red vs. blue debate? The Republicans and Democrats of yester year are very different from their neo-con and neo-liberal incarnations today so I don't see how taking this private moment to make a remark against Truman makes any real contribution. All you seem to do is throw a stone from a glass house.

It didnt readily appear that the mentioning of Truman's name was an innocent annotation. Figuring that, along with the criticism of the CIA (not necessarily friends of mine, nor exactly enemies, either). My gut feeling from this and other posts is, that had Nixon been president during the creation of the CIA, that most of you would be blasting Nixon for the CIA's failings.

Speaking of Nixon... wasnt he in charge when the EPA was created? Can we criticize him for that?

<nearly faints>wow. A criticism of Democrats? (other than Hillary) there almost COULD be SOME common ground here. I dont particularly care for Democrats NOR Republicans... so we MIGHT be able to agree almost half the time? Will wonders never cease.

Seriously. I believe that over half of the criticisms of the current administration are nut-case, over-emotional attacks fueled by news that has been editorialized by the piss-poor examples of journalists that we are now subject to. But I dont agree with everything that has been done, either. Some in favor of the majority opinion here and frequently some against.

Its all ok. In another year we will have an underperforming replacement for what we now have. Why? because it would be difficult to substantiate that ANY of the current crop of candidates are capable of leading the country to accomplish much of ANYTHING that they are promising. With Clinton, most Americans simply think that she is not likable. With Obama, his campaign more closely resembles a religious fervor than an issue-oriented campaign (he may "change" things from what is currently going on-nasty thing about change-it may not be any better, an frequently is worse, than that which it replaces). And McCain....well, if you think HE is going to change things... I have a bridge to sell you.