A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Hhmmmm, I'm sure glad my confidential IM convos are confidential....

I said nothing to him about our break. For the record.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I said nothing to him about our break. For the record.

:sniffle: :sobbing: :wtf??:

[Tables R Us]

This lovely lady went to Iraq to help a republican policy group, but was killed in a Sunni attack after switching teams to help a demo policy group. Coincidence?

LA Times Article

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
:sniffle: :sobbing: :wtf??:

So you must have told him about a break. A break of which I was unaware.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So you must have told him about a break. A break of which I was unaware.

confidential to ltl/fb:

PM me. ASAP!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. Lt. Gen. (Ret) Oden -- past head of the NSA, had an interesting perspective on this in a recent NPR interview I heard.

He said that our invasion of Iraq has certainly promoted one form of terrorism (i.e. the Iranian/Iraqi/Hezbollah connection) which did not exist under Hussein and which he says was inevitable as soon as we overthrew him.

He also said that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq (which I get the impression he doesn't favor at this time) would have the benefit of effectively eliminating Al Qaeda in Iraq because, while they are presently coordinating with some Sunni/Baathist insurgents to fight Americans, _every_ group in Iraq has scores to settle with Al Qada in Iraq and will do so as soon as possible, because those guys are killing lots of Iraqis.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is a second form of terrorism that our invasion promoted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Charles Krauthammer opposes the surge, attempts to generate a Plan B. His reasons for opposing the surge sound right. His Plan B doesn't seem to have any legs, though.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Charles Krauthammer opposes the surge, attempts to generate a Plan B. His reasons for opposing the surge sound right. His Plan B doesn't seem to have any legs, though.

I'm not sure he is too far off on his Plan B. Outside of 1) incresing troop strengths (meaning more than a meaningless surge), 2) staying the course, and 3) pulling out, the only other option I can come up with is some sort of partition, which is functionally what Krauthammer is talking about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
I'm not sure he is too far off on his Plan B. Outside of 1) incresing troop strengths (meaning more than a meaningless surge), 2) staying the course, and 3) pulling out, the only other option I can come up with is some sort of partition, which is functionally what Krauthammer is talking about.

He says:

• What is missing is a fourth alternative, both as a threat to Maliki and as an actual fallback if the surge fails. The Pentagon should be working on a sustainable Plan B whose major element would be not so much a drawdown of troops as a drawdown of risk to our troops. If we had zero American casualties a day, there would be as little need to withdraw from Iraq as there is to withdraw from the Balkans.
  
  We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: Let us down, and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province, where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch. You can have your Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.
  
  This is not a great option, but fallbacks never are. It does have the virtue of being better than all the others, if the surge fails. It has the additional virtue of increasing the chances that the surge will succeed.

I don't think he's talking about partition. I think he's talking about keeping U.S. troops in the country but out of harm's way. What I don't understand is how this is all that functionally different from withdrawing to (e.g.) Kuwait. If you think a bloodbath is going to come with withdrawal, this gets you to the same place. I think the difference is that Krauthammer wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq so that they can threaten Iran.

eta: He wants to leave Baghdad but to stay in Anbar province? To what end? He seems to think there's some salutory value to fighting fights that you're winning.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He says:

• What is missing is a fourth alternative, both as a threat to Maliki and as an actual fallback if the surge fails. The Pentagon should be working on a sustainable Plan B whose major element would be not so much a drawdown of troops as a drawdown of risk to our troops. If we had zero American casualties a day, there would be as little need to withdraw from Iraq as there is to withdraw from the Balkans.
  
  We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: Let us down, and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province, where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch. You can have your Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.
  
  This is not a great option, but fallbacks never are. It does have the virtue of being better than all the others, if the surge fails. It has the additional virtue of increasing the chances that the surge will succeed.

I don't think he's talking about partition. I think he's talking about keeping U.S. troops in the country but out of harm's way. What I don't understand is how this is all that functionally different from withdrawing to (e.g.) Kuwait. If you think a bloodbath is going to come with withdrawal, this gets you to the same place. I think the difference is that Krauthammer wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq so that they can threaten Iran.

eta: He wants to leave Baghdad but to stay in Anbar province? To what end? He seems to think there's some salutory value to fighting fights that you're winning.

How about partitioning off "kurdistan", letting them declare soverignty, recognising them and guarantying the sanctity of their new nation; and

Securing the oil fields or at least a portion and a secure corridor for one, or more, of the pipelines out of Iraq, so that we can take their oil (to (i) reimburse our previous costs; (ii) aid to Kurdistan); and

Leave them the rest of the country, including Baghdad, do with as they, Iran, al-Qaeda and the UN wish.

I would suppourt that plan as alternative to the surge.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How about partitioning off "kurdistan", letting them declare soverignty, recognising them and guarantying the sanctity of their new nation; and

Securing the oil fields or at least a portion and a secure corridor for one, or more, of the pipelines out of Iraq, so that we can take their oil (to (i) reimburse our previous costs; (ii) aid to Kurdistan); and

Leave them the rest of the country, including Baghdad, do with as they, Iran, al-Qaeda and the UN wish.

I would suppourt that plan as alternative to the surge.

War with Turkey.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
War with Turkey.

NATO. Our French and German allies can save us.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Gattigap
War with Turkey.

The Thanksgiving equiv to the War on Christmas? Fucking vegans.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
War with Turkey.

And all the sides?


eta: Blast you, Ollie.

[SlaveNoMore]

This thing speaks for itself:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rev. Jesse Jackson, a leader in the African-American community and two-time presidential candidate, told CNN Thursday he is all but certain to endorse Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Illinois, likely bid for the White House.

"All of my heart leans toward Barack," Jackson said. "He is a next-door neighbor literally. I think he's an extension of our struggle to make this a more perfect union."

"I will talk to all of them, but my inclinations are really toward Barack," he added.

Jackson also spoke highly of others seeking or likely to seek the Democratic nomination, and said Obama cannot take the African-American base of the party for granted.

"It will be a feisty, competitive campaign," he said. "I don't think it will be hostile, or nasty, but it will be a very competitive campaign."