thinkprogress.org — A report today finds that “a bunch of arm chair generals in Washington” from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute “almost single handedly convinced the White House to change its strategy” in weekend meetings last December, over the objections of the military commanders.
Jul 25, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bohicatwentytwoJul 26, 2007
Read about COL McMaster, then read this:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting</a>You dont get a silver star for nothing.
dafragstaJul 26, 2007
Anyone on either extreme is bad. We live in a time where the current purported motivation of a political party (i.e. the buzzwords their constituents are shown to latch onto the hardest.) is all that it's respective members care to talk about. No one should be proud to be on the far left or right. Thar be monsters who lack reason, or at least devalue it compared to easy talking point political agendas.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2007
dugg for the kimchi/rice joke
terr01Jul 26, 2007
Shame! You're quoting out of context and talking about two surges which are not the same in execution, scope, or goal.ISG: "Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.”
alacrity2005Jul 27, 2007
"Perhaps you should read my post again.I'm not certain when I've stated my political opinions or even hazarded a guess at whatever it is you read. I've certainly not declared any superiority of intellegence. I've been talking the basics of debate and the value of listening to other points of view while snickering at how impressed you are with yourself. Maybe if you take a break from telling us all how clever and formidable you are, you'd notice the assumptions you've had to make in order to fabricate mine."I read your post rather thoroughly. I appear to have understood it somewhat better than you. When you say, "Smart people listen to both sides of the argument," you are NOT including yourself in that group? That is what you are saying now? Of course you are. When you say," YOU may limit yourself to ideas that make you feel all warm and fuzzy" it is implicit within that statement that YOU do not do so. When you say, "Those of us who know there are two sides, bla bla bla," you are of course including yourself ("those of us") in the group who know and are therefore more informed. (You know... I and those like me do not.) It is absolutely crystal clear that you assume that I've chosen "my side" of the argument without knowing both sides. You flat out say it. All the double talk and water muddying will not help you escape the blatant hypocrisy and amusing irony of your post. In fact, the more you stir it up, the more delicious it gets. Perhaps if YOU take a break from trying to cover your ass, you could spend some time REALLY looking at the assumptions and who made them. It's not MY assumption if YOU flat out say it. Like I said earlier, you're not that good at this. You might want to take a time out.
courtesyflushJul 27, 2007
Please, save yourself the embarrassment of telling me what I meant when I challenged this little ego trip:"That's because smart people with common sense, the kind who might populate a site like digg for instance, post and digg articles that they agree with."I told you that you were wrong. A truly smart person would have realized this by now and stopped all the awkward tap dancing.Anyone who has actually read my posts on digg knows I don't watch the tellyvision or listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm surprised you have the balls to even ask after declaring this gem:"I'm not "assuming" your stance. I KNOW what your stance is.".Now you require me to prove I'm not guilty. How progressive of you.Look up "negative proof" and get back with us.
alacrity2005Jul 27, 2007
You are a hoot. Your pretend superior lecturing tone is just funny as hell. The way you NEVER address the salient point of any post but instead hide behind some, totally irrelevant, "mistake" that was made that would cause heads to hang in shame if only the poster were smart enough to realize the error is classic. You've done it in nearly every post we've exchanged. It's very telling. Here's the deal man... you feebly attempted to school me about what a "mistake" it was to adopt a "we're smart and you're not" viewpoint, (even though that's a misstatement of my point) by lecturing me on how you are smart and I'm not is just LAUGHABLE. It doesn't pass the giggle test. It doesn't even pass the moron test. All the rest is just gas, hot air and a not so clever diversion. Most of all, it's just plain stupid. When YOU deal with THAT "mistake" get back to me with something other than your obfuscated nonsense. I would point out that maybe you should save YOURSELF some embarrassment, but it's WAY to late for that. You passed embarrassing about 4 posts ago.