LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Kos, MNF ... You make a lot of assumptions about what "our" "chosen venues" are.

That was you with the Slate article, wasn't it?

Assumptions based on clues can be meaningful. For instance, I bet I would be accurate if I guessed you've not visited the MNF site before today.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
A simple yes or no would suffice.

Ah, yes. A fivefold improvement in readiness is indeed a positive development, and I cheer it. From what to what is a different analysis, I suppose, but the improvement is positive, I agree.

Good night and farewell, sweet sock.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, I've googled (the news search gave me "Your search - "level 1 readiness" iraqi army - did not match any documents") and I can't find any definitive answer. The web search brought up the stories from late September, which talked about the number dropping from 3 to 1 (like this one from the Washington Post) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092902085.html

To be fair, level 1 readiness is a high standard, as noted by General Casey when he spoke to Congress.

That's the thing. There's a lot of career-minded individuals parked safely in desks in the Pentagon spending more time sucking up than actually defending our country, and they come out with this language that is as incomprehensible as anything out of any other govmint agency. What does "in the lead" mean? Can I get an idea of how much US support is encompassed by "varying levels of US support" ? I'd love an impartial source of information about how things really are on the ground in Iraq right now, and the direction that things are going. There's too many people out there with axes to grind that have nothing to do with security in Iraq. All I can tell for sure is that the US casualty rate doesn't seem to be slowing down.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'll start reading that when you start citing to Josh Marshall.

No, no, I'm Bilmore. Ty is the one with the dreadlocks and the cane, standing over by the tofu machine.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
That was you with the Slate article, wasn't it?

Assumptions based on clues can be meaningful. For instance, I bet I would be accurate if I guessed you've not visited the MNF site before today.

MNF = Monday Night Football? It's Tuesday.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
That's the thing. There's a lot of career-minded individuals parked safely in desks in the Pentagon spending more time sucking up than actually defending our country, and they come out with this language that is as incomprehensible as anything out of any other govmint agency. What does "in the lead" mean? Can I get an idea of how much US support is encompassed by "varying levels of US support" ? I'd love an impartial source of information about how things really are on the ground in Iraq right now, and the direction that things are going. There's too many people out there with axes to grind that have nothing to do with security in Iraq. All I can tell for sure is that the US casualty rate doesn't seem to be slowing down.

Funny, I've read the weekly reports and the analyses, and the numbers and terms are fairly straightforward. But, I suppose that, compared to having to say "wow, yeah, we're actually doing a lot better over there than I thought", this "but english is so hard!" response is a lot easier and more palatable.

Nanny nanny boo boo!

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
That was you with the Slate article, wasn't it?

I subscribe for the pictures.

Quote:

Assumptions based on clues can be meaningful. For instance, I bet I would be accurate if I guessed you've not visited the MNF site before today.

Frankly, you'd have to explain the acronym to me.

To the extent that you care, my daily media diet these days seems to revolve around:

WaPo
LA Times
The Economist
Slate
ESPN.com
The Defamer
Wonkette
InstaPundit
Andrew Sullivan
The Cunning Realist
Buzz Machine
TPM Cafe
DemocracyArsenal.org
and whereever those links seem to take me.

From my limited exposure, Kos gives me indigestion, and I feel I glean enough from your and Hank's posts about DU to get the gist without even going there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Of course. They get free weapons.

Killings Linked to Shiite Squads in Iraqi Police Force
With loyalties to banned paramilitary groups, the fighters have kidnapped, tortured and slain Sunnis, officials and witnesses say.

By Solomon Moore, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — Shiite Muslim militia members have infiltrated Iraq's police force and are carrying out sectarian killings under the color of law, according to documents and scores of interviews.

The abuses raise the specter of organized retaliation to attacks by Sunni-led insurgents that have killed thousands of Shiites, who endured decades of subjugation under Saddam Hussein.

And they undermine the U.S. effort to stabilize the nation, and train and equip Iraq's security forces — the Bush administration's key prerequisites for the eventual withdrawal of American troops.

In recent months, hundreds of bodies have been discovered in rivers, garbage dumps, sewage treatment facilities and alongside roads and in desert ravines. Many of them are thought to be victims of Sunni insurgents, who are known to target Shiite civilians and Iraqi security forces, and even Sunni Arabs believed to be collaborating with U.S. forces or the Iraqi government. But increasingly, the Shiite militias operating within the national police force are also suspected of committing atrocities.

The Baghdad morgue reports that dozens of bodies arrive at the same time on a weekly basis, including scores of corpses with wrists bound by police handcuffs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6089453.story

Sounds like Philly in the 70s.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
MNF = Monday Night Football? It's Tuesday.

I go to nfl.com, but just to read Easterbrook.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Funny, I've read the weekly reports and the analyses, and the numbers and terms are fairly straightforward. But, I suppose that, compared to having to say "wow, yeah, we're actually doing a lot better over there than I thought", this "but english is so hard!" response is a lot easier and more palatable.

Nanny nanny boo boo!

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "impartial" sources. When you cite to the Bush Administration house organ, and Centcom's PR office*, well, I'm surprised if you haven't booked your 2006 family vacation in Basra yet!

I assume MNF = MultiNational Forces. If not, please advise what the hell you refer to by your casual oh-so-in the know acronym.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
I subscribe for the pictures.

Frankly, you'd have to explain the acronym to me.

To the extent that you care, my daily media diet these days seems to revolve around:

WaPo
LA Times
The Economist
Slate
ESPN.com
The Defamer
Wonkette
InstaPundit
Andrew Sullivan
The Cunning Realist
Buzz Machine
TPM Cafe
DemocracyArsenal.org
and whereever those links seem to take me.

From my limited exposure, Kos gives me indigestion, and I feel I glean enough from your and Hank's posts about DU to get the gist without even going there.

I read LGF and RedState.org, but, I admit, only for the comedic value.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I go to nfl.com, but just to read Easterbrook.

Frank? I had no idea he was into the NFL.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Frank? I had no idea he was into the NFL.

No, his brother Gregg.

Quote:

Wait. so when terrorists blow up the recruit lines they are just killing other terrorists? So the bombings are good?

Were you notme?

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
The Republican resolution was an absurd ploy that was completely transparent.

I don’t know about absurd, but it was quite clear and transparent, unlike the doubletalk you Dems are famous for.

Quote:

Anyone who can't understand how a person might feel that it's time to start trying to extricate ourselves from Iraq and still vote against a resolution that says "We all go home right now" is a fucking moron. Yes, I say that realizing that there is a good chance a majority of Americans fall within that definition of moron.

Calling for “immediate troop withdrawal” (“We're done in Iraq and we should pull out in mid-December”) is the same as “having a feeling that we should start trying (not try, but START trying) to extricate troops from Iraq”?. Right, okay then.

You guys got caught with your pants down and are pissed. You want to pander to the unwashed, peacenik, uneducated, anti-war masses with your “get out of Iraq rhetoric” but don’t want to get called on it on the Senate Floor, where the company is more washed and educated (and politically important). Knock it off with the “we’re only saying we should get out of Iraq when it makes sense” bullshit. Cause Repubs are saying that too. You guys have called for everything from “immediate withdrawal” to imposition of a 6 month time frame, with no wiggle room. The “6 more months only” rhetoric reached its peak back in the summer of 2004. Which means some in your party would have had the troops home well before the Constitution was put in place and would have pulled them out no matter how smart it was to pull out from a strategic standpoint. (And don’t forget, some of you schnooks actually voted for immediate withdrawal. Suckas)

Trying to have it both ways is always going to cause embarrassment when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is, and rectify your panderings with your “official” position. Take Kerry. The guy gave the thumbs up to attack Iraq but then wanted to be perceived (in anti-war circles only) as the “candidate against going to war”. When asked whether he voted to go to war or not, a yes or no answer was in order. Instead he had his mouthpieces explain, “what Kerry voted for was to hold Saddam Hussein accountable”. Really? Must have been a close vote, with all those people against accountability and all. How about a resolution requiring accountability for all statements concerning the war. I’m for that.

Shit or get off the pot. Thottam did. He wants all troops out of Iraq now and aint scared to say so. You can find him giving an “update” on Iraq, followed by highly accountable “drumming music” at the Liquid Cube Coffee House at Cal State Northridge. Have a blast.