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

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ironweed
What do you do with otherwise normal people who insist that 9/11 was a vast conspiracy involving controlled demolition charges placed in the towers, remote-controlled planes (or maybe a missile in the case of the Pentagon) and the continuing silence of the thousands of people who must have been in on it? Or are the words "otherwise normal" inapplicable here?

We don't usually agree, but I agree. Those people are nutso! It explains Clinton's popularity.

eta: Merde! STP!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can some one explain to me how this resolution will help the country?

Gates: Iraq Resolution 'Emboldens' Enemy

Jan 26 3:04 PM US/Eastern


By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Roberts Gates said Friday that a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq amounts to undercutting U.S. commanders in a way that "emboldens the enemy."
At his first Pentagon news conference since taking office, Gates was asked his reaction to the debate in Congress over the effect of such a nonbinding resolution. "It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries," he said.

Gates talked to reporters as Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill prepared for the start debate next week on the resolution of opposition to President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 U.S. forces into battle in wartorn Iraq. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Friday that a quick test vote would likely be taken if Republicans try to delay or block the move.

Gates was referring to Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who was confirmed by the full Senate on Friday to replace Gen. George Casey as the top American commander in Iraq. Petraeus has said he needs all 21,500 extra troops that Bush has ordered to Iraq in order to quell the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad.

"I think it's hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks," Gates said, referring to the anti-government forces in Baghdad. He added that he was certain this was not the intent of those who support the congressional resolution.

"But that's the effect," he said.

Aide and comfourt to our enemy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I can't because it doesn't. But it is a result of having a POTUS who is the lamest of lame ducks, who hasn't lead the country in this (I believe initially misguided) conflict and who has shown no capacity for adapting to changed circumstances. But this resolution is pure CYA for the '08 election.

I know you realize this and yours was merely a rhetorical question, but c'mon spank.

Of course I know this, but I wanted to see how they would rationalize it, and knew someone like Ty would provide me with that rationalization (and actually believe it).

Congress pressuring the President to adopt a different undefined strategy, now there is a good way to conduct a war. Maybe if in past wars we had a hundred senators and four hundred and thirty five members of the house influencing strategy by pressuring the commander in chief through resolutions the wars would have gone better for us. Maybe congressional committees should choose bombing sites and review every platoon's tactical plans.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe congressional committees should choose bombing sites and review every platoon's tactical plans.

Enh, couldn't be much worse than having George do it. I wish that I could believe that the military is getting what it actually thinks it needs. I'm happy to give Gates some time, but when the President does his dopey "i'm the decider"/"i'm the decision-maker" thing, it makes me a little queasy.

[Not Bob]

Thought bubble: Am I on "Punk'd"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you realize your every thought is colored by the blogs you read to get this "information?" At least i know I'm ignorant.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We don't usually agree, but I agree. Those people are nutso! It explains Clinton's popularity.

eta: Merde! STP!

and coincidentally, if 9/11 had happened while Clinton was still Prez, you would likely be one of them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

remember the acid trip movies from health? you only think you know what you see.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course I know this, but I wanted to see how they would rationalize it, and knew someone like Ty would provide me with that rationalization (and actually believe it).

Congress pressuring the President to adopt a different undefined strategy, now there is a good way to conduct a war. Maybe if in past wars we had a hundred senators and four hundred and thirty five members of the house influencing strategy by pressuring the commander in chief through resolutions the wars would have gone better for us. Maybe congressional committees should choose bombing sites and review every platoon's tactical plans.

If Democrats were merely trying to use the issue to punish the GOP in the next election, they'd be a lot more confrontational, in the hopes of getting the Norm Colemans of the world to stick with the President and then have to take the heat in '08. Instead, they went with a relatively mild, non-binding resolution designed to pick off the Norm Colemans and bring them over to the anti-escalation side. That they did this tells you that they care more about trying to change Iraq policy than about trying to flip (e.g.) Norm Coleman's seat in (less than) two years.

But I'm sure it's hard for you to imagine that Democrats would put the national interest ahead of their own partisan ends, since the Republicans never tried in the last several years.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Enh, couldn't be much worse than having George do it. I wish that I could believe that the military is getting what it actually thinks it needs. I'm happy to give Gates some time, but when the President does his dopey "i'm the decider"/"i'm the decision-maker" thing, it makes me a little queasy.

When Patreus says under oath in front of a Senate committee that this is what he needs why would you second guess him? He is going to be the guy in charge so why shouldn't you let me him do things the best way he knows how? What possible good could it do to leave him in charge but not give him what he asks for?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Democrats were merely trying to use the issue to punish the GOP in the next election, they'd be a lot more confrontational, in the hopes of getting the Norm Colemans of the world to stick with the President and then have to take the heat in '08. Instead, they went with a relatively mild, non-binding resolution designed to pick off the Norm Colemans and bring them over to the anti-escalation side. That they did this tells you that they care more about trying to change Iraq policy than about trying to flip (e.g.) Norm Coleman's seat in (less than) two years.

But I'm sure it's hard for you to imagine that Democrats would put the national interest ahead of their own partisan ends, since the Republicans never tried in the last several years.

Do these guys think they are reading Patreus's mind and really know what he is thinking? Even if they think he is lying what gives them the temerity to think they know what he really wants? And why do they think he doesn't really want the troops? In what management class did they learn to put some in charge but tie his hands on the job? Maybe it would make sense to complain about who the president puts in charge, but to support this man taking over, and then question his requests is just pure stupidity.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you are a Democrat, you count them in your voter base.

So it's the Dem equivalent of the neocons' Vince Foster Nutjob Litmus Test? Now I get it.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do these guys think they are reading Patreus's mind and really know what he is thinking? Even if they think he is lying what gives them the temerity to think they know what he really wants? And why do they think he doesn't really want the troops? In what management class did they learn to put some in charge but tie his hands on the job? Maybe it would make sense to complain about who the president puts in charge, but to support this man taking over, and then question his requests is just pure stupidity.

Newsflash: Bush is the Decider. Not Petreus.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Newsflash: Bush is the Decider. Not Petreus.

Do you think Patreus is lying when he tells the Senate committee he wants the troops? Do you think he is lying when he says that the plan to secure Iraq with these fifty new security points is his idea? Is he lying when he says he needs these extra troops to secure those nexuses?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
When Patreus says under oath in front of a Senate committee that this is what he needs why would you second guess him? He is going to be the guy in charge so why shouldn't you let me him do things the best way he knows how? What possible good could it do to leave him in charge but not give him what he asks for?

Was he under oath? I can't find anything either way.

Why would I second guess him? Because other generals in the past 4 years have said the same thing and later said something different. Because I don't trust what this president says anymore than Penske trusts what Clinton says. Because I do believe that, whatever else, Patreaus (i) believes that the president is the CiC, and therefore his commanding officer (i.e. follow orders or resign) and (ii) believes that he can get the job done, even if it's not exactly what he'd want in a perfect world.