- Bang

Names buddy. Names. We can wait here for you to make up one. This accusation is FALSE as far as I know and I’ve read a LOT on the subject. The generals have gotten increases and decreases and will continue to get what they ask for UNLESS THE LIBERALS WERE TO BE IN POWER!.

KSH mentioned two people that are as good as Wesley Clark because they are not generals (active) in the theater by saying, “including the well-known and well-respected Schwarzkopf and Powell”

You made a good point there. Maybe next time the president should DISRESPECT the generals in the field and ask every other general what their opinion is. Smack.

KSH wrote, “So why not bash Dem proposals with “cut and run” rhetoric“. Even Democrats vote against those proposals in high numbers. Your problem isn’t Yes men conservatives, libertarians or Republicans. Your problem is more than 60% OF THE PEOPLE in Congress and the Senate. Depending how it’s worded more than 90%. Do you recognize that?

KSH, I’m not sure why you are so vitriolic and filled with such hate and disdain. It’s Bush, Rumsfeld, Casey, etc. Why can’t it be we do our job and let the people in the field get the job done without forcing votes to change that dynamic? When the Iraqi’s are able to stand up we’ll be able to stand down. If that is such a hard proposition to you then be miffed but to say things you say is really distorted logic and nobody who has studied the issue will be CONVINCED with your rhetoric. I’m not sure I’ll convince you either because you are very entrenched in your belief and saying statements like, “Rumsfeld did this, of course, because “we’d be greeted as liberators””

You’ll believe what you want to believe. Contrary evidence such as troops in the field testimonials about how they are received by many Iraqi’s won’t sway you. You’ll believe what you want. I think our side is saying the truth. That there is great evidence of a tough situation in Iraq but there are also very haeartwarming stories. There has been progress and there is many areas that have higher levels of electricity more hospitals, more schools, better water infrastructure etc. The Iraqi’s who joint security forces and stand in line to do so after a recruiting station was bombed. The Iraqi’s who are working cooperatively to help rid their country of the haters and perverters of Islam and foreign fighters. There are also the agitators and IED makers and etc but you do NOT relay any evidence that you are able to move past the DNC talking points and let the job be FINISHED. We would like this politization to end. There is NOTHING we can do except keep responding to the likes of you so that political newbies who may be reading this realize that your rhetoric is not what should be employed and full of false accusations.

If responding to the likes of you make us the politicizers then I have one thing to say. Keep bringing it on. You’ll lose this debate everytime and not even know it.

You are right. Murtha’s name has been crossed out from Michelle Malkin’s story. Maybe if Murtha had spoke to the NY Times they wouldn’t have done this stupid thing.

- Bang

With regard to troop strength – “the level of troops will be what the Generals in the theater are asking for ALL ALONG.” Yep, you’re absolutely correct. But, as I’ve said earlier, there’s nuance there that you missed. A more correct statement would be “…what the Generals [that agree with the administration] in the theater are asking for ALL ALONG.” Your statement neglects the concerns by many – including the well-known and well-respected Schwarzkopf and Powell – that the troop strengths were initially far too low. Schwarzkopf suggested 500k! Indeed, Thomas White was pushed out of his role as secretary of the Army due to his unwillingness to be a yes-man for the administration. When you surround yourself with yes-men, you’ll get what you want: the politically palpable number of troops, not the number of troops senior generals believed was needed. And you get your talking point – congrats! Rumsfeld did this, of course, because “we’d be greeted as liberators”. That sure worked out great. With regard to current troop draw-downs, with majorities of the country against the war in some polls, keeping troop levels high is a political loser. So why not bash Dem proposals with “cut and run” rhetoric – one of which was contingent on realities on the ground – and then have your own guys ask for it? Brilliant (politically), but in the end, as I’ve said, not much different from the Dem leadership plans – they asked Bush to draw up such a plan; it looks like Casey’s done it. Casey will “cut and run” when it’s politically expedient – when the Pres can get behind it!

Bang – What change in strategy? Change of horses? Another strawman. You sure are good at setting up strawmen. Too bad I’m not a crow.

G-monster – Linking two opinion pieces regarding the Plame story hardly constitutes victory. A good place to start would be a timeline of events, but I really don’t have the time. Claim any victory you want, but do see the recent statements by a panel on the pre-war intelligence on CSPAN (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062606_senate.rm), they are highly relevant to the Plame discussion. A snippet:

JONES: […] how did these people so early on get so much power that they had more influence in those in the administration to make decisions than you the professionals.

WILKERSON: But I understand it. I’d answer you with two words. Let me put the article in there and make it three. The Vice President.

He doesn’t get 100% agreement with his statement. It’s not absolute, like so many other things. But it’s becoming more clear – not that there isn’t a lot of print out about it already – that the Office of Special Projects (OCP) under Cheney politicized the intelligence to make the case for war on Iraq. I’m sure there’s more of this to come. BTW, nice strawman “you’re no longer sure where you stand”. Whatever. I sleep, and it takes time to formulate arguments based on printed articles, rather than just strawman arguments & ad hominem attacks. In the end, to call our rhetorical discussions (and yes I include myself) an “argument” is mostly laughable.

you say “I have no idea how well this ADMINISTRATION has done in the “WOT”, or how effective its policies have been in preventing another terrorist attack.” then you ask for definitive proof of that efficeincy.

so… the absence of ANY successful terrorist attacks on America is in your opinion what? lazy terrorists/luck ? give me anything I can sink my teeth into other than you have no idea. thats obvious.

- Bang

Do you recognize that FAILURE to change that policy or do you ACTUALLY think you have a point still about troop numbers?

/end sharp as a knife mind
Don’t know how you stayed up so late ST!
/begin go to bed sequence

Talk about echo chamber. Get exposed to new info and you run! We on the right are CONSTANTLY exposed to the other side of the debate. It’s what makes our debate strong! We’ve grown up with the other side of the debate. Many of us used to be liberals like myself and ST.

That was a great link to Michelle Malkin. I think the fact even Murtha told the NY Times not to run the story, will confuse the hell out of KSH.

Are you saying that Bill Keller LIED about two 9/11 commission members and Murtha pleading for Keller not to run the article? Or are you saying that CNN didn’t actually have that interviewe on the air? You are more WACK than I thought.

LINK