Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Lanny Davis: Maybe They Were Right? [Dan Collins]

The power of persistence:

Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against Al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?

Then in 2005-2006 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi’ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.

And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.

It did allow the Shi’ite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shiite extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and in the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.

This willingness by the Shi’ite–dominated Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi’ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi’ites to turn against the Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban–like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments.

Holy shit. Did he say that? I thought I read him say, “We were wrong.”

OMG! A Georgia Democrat voted for someone other than Obama during the primary! McGehee has the details.

223 Replies to “Lanny Davis: Maybe They Were Right? [Dan Collins]”

  1. ccoffer says:

    Lanny Rodham Clinton is quite the energizer bunny.

  2. JD says:

    The earth quit spinning for a moment.

  3. dicentra says:

    That snap you heard was the seventh seal opening.

    Jesus is coming; look busy.

  4. Honest guy, I’m sure he’ll issue a retraction soon. Can’t have anyone breaking the Omerta.

  5. thor says:

    Spurned as a whining Hillary shill by the Obama-nation, Lanny goes to one knee in hopes of a hug from a war mongering R-winger.

    I say put the flame to the FLIP FLOPPER brand until it’s red hot. May that weenie bear the mark of the FLIP FLOPPER on his forehead forevermore.

  6. thor says:

    bear = bare

  7. Roland THTG says:

    Well, actually, if weren’t for the percieved improvements and the appearance of a reduction in violence, their initial judgements would be correct. Then there was the political debate to consider, and all those hypotheticals….

    Nah, not wrong. Just nuance.

  8. socialism_is_error says:

    “bear=bare”, eh?

    Eliminating the need to heat the branding iron and thus reducing anthropogenic local warming.

    You are a true hero of the collective.

  9. JimK says:

    I just saw a pig go flying by, I’m sure it was a pig.

  10. alppuccino says:

    Not much Bill Clinton campaigning for O in the news. A trial balloon on one more run at convention time?

    What’s up thor?

  11. Pablo says:

    This is not the Lanny Davis that I knew. This one sees the big picture.

  12. quellcrist falconer says:

    I’m more concerned about McCain “getting” it.
    Some serious weasel-wording here.
    Either McCain totally doesnt the Petraeus/Kilcullen model or he’s had another shortterm memory loss.

  13. quellcrist falconer says:

    …totally doesn’t UNDERSTAND the Petraeus/Kilcullen model…
    which is it, Dan?

  14. quellcrist falconer says:

    apparently that rather glaring anti-factualism is why the Times rejected the op-ed.

  15. JD says:

    Meme #3 – MCCAIN IS SENILE !!!!!!!!!!!11eleventy!!!

  16. Rob Crawford says:

    apparently that rather glaring anti-factualism is why the Times rejected the op-ed.

    If only Jeff applied the same standard to you, queefcrest.

  17. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    I love instant Karma. Nishi trying, attempting, begging to, willing to give hand jobs for, to make a point fucks up. Nice.

  18. JD says:

    queef ? Dare I google that?

  19. happyfeet says:

    I think this is Hillary earning her debt repayment by helping Baracky pivot. What Baracky is learning I think is that his Congress doesn’t want to be accountable for the cowardly policies he’s bitterly clinging to, and I think they figure if they build the mountain Mohammad will get his hopey ass to it eventually.

  20. B Moe says:

    Some serious weasel-wording here.
    Either McCain totally doesnt the Petraeus/Kilcullen model or he’s had another shortterm memory loss.

    It isn’t weasel wording, he is very clear in explaining he is using a different definition of surge than is implied by “the surge”.

  21. geoffb says:

    Triangulation as usual. Positioning for whenever Obama implodes.

  22. Trimegistus says:

    Um, “Quellcrist?”

    The article you link contradicts the argument you’re trying to make. If you actually read the article, it shows that McCain understands the strategy of the Surge better than most people do. And there’s nothing “anti-factual” in it. There is some “anti-New York Times Approved Version of History,” but most of us understand the difference.

  23. B Moe says:

    I’ll separate that, because McCain says it often. Most of us equate the surge with troop levels, but for McCain, it has always been about a strategy; to executive the strategy, more troops were needed.

    Stop lying and misrepresenting, nishi, McCain knows exactly what he is saying, if you are too dense to understand it go find a forum more on your level.

  24. Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights.

    Funny, aren’t these the “war criminals” the left wants put on trial?

    This is, btw, total bullshit but watch it become a debate question, an op-ed or two and then an anti-mccain talking point.

    The answer to Lanny is to let us win, then their lives won’t be in so much danger. Let them all move to Detroit, and um… well…at least there’s Starbucks.

  25. quellcrist falconer says:

    Iraq is supposed to be McCain’s “killer-ap”.
    This is a giant gaffe.
    The Anbar Awakening was based on the concept of “trusted networks” and grass-roots organizing at the tribal level.
    Increased troop levels, ie “surging” is simply antipathic to those goals.
    For one thing, the sheiks needed to be percieved as independent actors. Increased american presense, which McCain equivocates with surging, is anathema to independent action by the sheiks.
    McCain got it totally wrong.
    Which is why the NYT didnt publish it.
    It was counter-factual.

    And embarassing I should think.

  26. Sdferr says:

    The question is not an either or for McCain, nishi. The question is whether you understand the history of the place and the meaning of the change in strategy called ‘the surge’. Your devotion to whatever it is that is in your mind as representing the “Petraeus /Killcullen” model is sweet and all, but I’d wager that if you were to ask them, they’d side with McCain’s understanding of the sequence of events and definitions of the change in strategy as against yours.

    McCain has no worries as to his grasp of the events and their implications. You, on the other hand, need to hit the books.

  27. quellcrist falconer says:

    Doesn’t McCain have handlers that fact his stuff?
    Are they also that uninformed and ignorant?

  28. Sdferr says:

    It is you that is ignorant nishi, not McCain. Try harder.

  29. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Your side lost in Iraq, nishidiot.

    Get used to it.

  30. quellcrist falconer says:

    I have read COIN, Kilcullens original paper and everything I could find the Anbar model.
    Increased troop levels is no part of it, and would be detrimental to progress in turning the Sunnis.
    It is based on acculturation and social network theory.
    Why can’t you just say McCain was W. R. O. N. G. ?

  31. quellcrist falconer says:

    Was the left fighting in Iraq?
    and anyways they are not my side.
    you are all cudlips as far as i can tell.

  32. quellcrist falconer says:

    I don’t think McCain is ignorant.
    I think he has age-correlated shortterm memory loss.

  33. B Moe says:

    Increased troop levels, ie “surging”

    That is not how McCain is defining the surge:

    “Prior to that they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counter-insurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.”

    Increased troop levels, and moving into problem areas and establishing a presence, is what lead to “trusted networks” and grass-roots organizing at the tribal level”. According to the people that were over there, none of whom are super-geniuses, granted.

  34. quellcrist falconer says:

    But I do think it is amazing that some aide didn’t proof that op-ed for content.

  35. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Was the left fighting in Iraq?

    I thought you were a “conservative”, nishidiot, or was that last week?

    You lost. Your Messiah was wrong. Get used to it.

  36. alppuccino says:

    who poked the dung beetle?

  37. B Moe says:

    General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.

  38. SevenEleventy says:

    Increased troop levels is no part of it, and would be detrimental to progress in turning the Sunnis.

    The troop surge was in Bagdad, not Anbar. The strategy of the surge was to “clear and hold”, instead of withdraw.

  39. quellcrist falconer says:

    mccain–“…an increase in the number of troops…”

    once again, that is perfectly antipathic to the concept of trusted networks and armed social work.
    there was not an increase in the number of troops in Anbar.
    that was Baghdad.

    McCain forgot.

  40. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Your Messiah was wrong.

    Oh, and McCain is going to eat him alive on that issue, no matter how hard the NYT tries to censor him.

  41. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    once again

    Once again, you prove yourself to be an illiterate liar.

  42. quellcrist falconer says:

    Why can’t you just admit it?
    McCain forgets sometimes.
    If that is ok with you, fine vote for him.
    But don’t try to say it doesn’t happen.

  43. Mr. Pink says:

    They must obscure the fact the surge worked and Obama was wrong. If they do not do that they can not control the Narrative and help make their community organizer look presidential. This is along the same lines of denigrating McCain’s war service, it is just a means to make their guy look like less of a douchebag.

  44. Rob Crawford says:

    I have read COIN, Kilcullens original paper and everything I could find the Anbar model.

    1) I doubt that.

    2) What you did read, you didn’t understand. I know this because you have never shown any ability to understand anything.

  45. B Moe says:

    Why can’t you just admit it?

    lmfao.

  46. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    there was not an increase in the number of troops in Anbar.

    Liar.

    And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we’re sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn’t drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

  47. quellcrist falconer says:

    SBP, once again, there was increase in troop levels in Anbar.
    Just a change in what the troops were doing.

  48. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    McCain forgets sometimes.

    Funny, it seems like it’s Obama (and you) who can’t remember their positions from one week to the next, not McCain.

    You lost, nishi. Get used to it.

  49. happyfeet says:

    Baracky is wrong to think the Anbar Awakening thingy was a factor coequal to the stabilization of Baghdad in the success in Iraq. Baghdad was priority #1 for the surge. Anbar had already been written off by Baracky… the Wakey thing was just more woeful ohnoes sectarian violence until it was expressed as hey, can we have some surge please we think that’s a great policy for reals. And they got some surge and they all lived happily ever after.

  50. JD says:

    You are a fucking blathering imbecile, as far as I can tell.

  51. Hawker Tempest says:

    I think we all need new names, too.

  52. quellcrist falconer says:

    again, sbp, that was 2007.
    that was a surge, which didn’t work, which totally uncorrelated with success of the Anbar model.

  53. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    SBP, once again, there was increase in troop levels in Anbar.

    The troop surge was in Bagdad, not Anbar.

    Now you can’t even remember what you said from one post to the next.

    Better have yourself checked for early-onset, hunnie.

  54. happyfeet says:

    My favorite part was when we killed all the Al Qaeda people that weren’t there before we invaded cause they were somewhere else where we couldn’t kill them but they’re dead now and don’t they feel stupid.

  55. Mr. Pink says:

    Is nishi’s argument today that we should not in any way credit our military with the success of the surge? You are a real patriot nishi.

  56. SevenEleventy says:

    Comment by quellcrist falconer on 7/24 @ 7:29 am #

    mccain–”…an increase in the number of troops…”

    once again, that is perfectly antipathic to the concept of trusted networks and armed social work.
    there was not an increase in the number of troops in Anbar.
    that was Baghdad.

    McCain forgot.

    Comment by quellcrist falconer on 7/24 @ 7:32 am #

    SBP, once again, there was increase in troop levels in Anbar.
    Just a change in what the troops were doing.

    Did you forget what you wrote in a matter of minutes?

  57. Rob Crawford says:

    Nishi, comment #39:

    there was not an increase in the number of troops in Anbar.

    Nishi, comment #47:

    SBP, once again, there was increase in troop levels in Anbar.

    Given her general illiteracy, it’s possible one or the other has an extra or a missing word. But I doubt it; she’s just so dishonest she’ll say anything she thinks will make her point.

  58. quellcrist falconer says:

    i think either McCain doesn’t understand Petraeus’ flagship program, or he forgot.
    which is more acceptable?

  59. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    again, sbp, that was 2007.

    Translation: “I’ve been caught in a lie yet again, so now I’m going to start dissembling”.

    Have a nice day, hunnie.

  60. urthshu says:

    No, increased troop levels weren’t part of the AA – increased troop levels allowed the AA to happen by giving them some breathing room.

    Of course, doing political grandstanding and increased foreign aid whilst running away would’ve done the same thing, I’m sure. Just like when, if you get robbed, you should throw your money on the ground and run away, because then robbers quit robbing people now that they got money and stuff.

  61. JD says:

    nishit suffers from early onset stooopidity.

    Two digit /spit

  62. Mr. Pink says:

    Why do these people rant against any claim at victory or success in Iraq? Seriously, it is like pulling teeth to get them to even admit the surge worked, now it wasn’t us that succeeded it was Iran or tribal sheiks. Pull your head out your ass please.

  63. urthshu says:

    I don’t think McCain is ignorant.
    I think he has age-correlated shortterm memory loss.

    AGEIST!!!11!!

  64. maggie katzen says:

    but you should totally vote for the guy that thinks there’s 57 states! am I right nishfong?

  65. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Is nishi’s argument today that we should not in any way credit our military with the success of the surge?

    That’s the latest pravda upgrade that she’s had installed by Obama headquarters.

    She’s a fucking illiterate parrot.

  66. happyfeet says:

    Baracky bet on the Al Qaeda people driving the US out of Iraq and then he saw the surge coming to ruin his whole narrative and he tried to stop it. He tried and tried, begged and cried. But Baracky could not stop the surge and Iraq was saved and Baracky’s insurgent friends died screaming. Baracky said curses and it would have worked too if it weren’t for your meddling surge.

  67. quellcrist falconer says:

    the 4,000 troops SBP cites went to Anbar in 2006.
    unrelated to the success of the Anbar model.
    like i said, Iraq is supposed to McCain’s “killer app”.
    He really can’t afford to percieved as confused about it.

    I told you before feets, O! is adapting to changes.
    Even GW is advocating meeting with the mullahs now.
    A CinC that can adapt to changing circumstances on the ground and changing data is infitely preferrable to an inflexible zealot like Kos.
    Zealots always loose.
    ;)

  68. Rob Crawford says:

    Zealots always loose.

    Yes, you do.

  69. maggie katzen says:

    the 4,000 troops SBP cites went to Anbar in 2006.
    unrelated to the success of the Anbar model.

    um, when did the AA begin? dumbass.

  70. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    the 4,000 troops SBP cites went to Anbar in 2006.

    Liar.

    Bush didn’t even announce the plan until his SOTU address in 2007.

  71. Sdferr says:

    Once again, with feeling. It is not McCain who is confused. It is you who are ignorant of the facts who is confused and projecting your own confusion on someone else.

  72. quellcrist falconer says:

    just answer the question Proteins.
    Did McCain forget or does he not understand the Petraeus model?
    It’s binary, it has to be one or the other.

  73. happyfeet says:

    But Baracky does not look very flexible when he says he still would have opposed the surge. But now we’re off to surge in Afghanistan cause it’s what all the cool kids are doing.

  74. Sdferr says:

    No nishi, neither of your projections is the case with regard to McCain. You are simply wrong.

  75. happyfeet says:

    I think McCain thinks Petraeus has a very good grasp of the McCain model. You have to know how McCain thinks.

  76. ThomasD says:

    Lanny is only saying this, and saying this now, precisely because he has so little to lose and so much to gain. Sure he’ll tell you he was wrong, he’ll never tell you (i>why he was wrong.

  77. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    You think “understanding” is binary?

    Whatever, liebot.

  78. quellcrist falconer says:

    and look, i told you guys months ago that O! would change his position on Iraq when he was briefed.
    Quite simply, Iraq is working.
    No political leader would ignore those facts an throw that away.

  79. B Moe says:

    that was a surge, which didn’t work, which totally uncorrelated with success of the Anbar model.

    It doesn’t make any sense, but maybe we could give some partial credit for spelling. Trying to look on the bright side, here.

  80. Rob Crawford says:

    Did McCain forget or does he not understand the Petraeus model?
    It’s binary, it has to be one or the other.

    No, it doesn’t. You could be the one who has it all wrong.

    Which is the way the smart money bets, Ms. “All Fetuses start XX and change to XY”.

  81. Swisscakeroll Devourer says:

    I’m all for new names.

  82. B Moe says:

    and look, i told you guys months ago that O! would change his position on Iraq when he was briefed.

    He hasn’t changed his position, dumbass. He told Katie Couric he was still opposed to the “surge” even if it worked.

  83. quellcrist falconer says:

    SBP, is McCain’s understanding of the Petraeus model “fuzzy” then?
    Is that a desireable trait in a CinC?

  84. Rob Crawford says:

    and look, i told you guys months ago that O! would change his position on Iraq when he was briefed.

    Actually, he hasn’t changed his position. He’s simply changed what he’s saying while also saying he was right anyway.

  85. urthshu says:

    He really can’t afford to percieved as confused about it.

    Good thing its only people with the brains of nishis who could possibly convince themselves of that.

    As for the “killer ap” silliness – time ain’t run out yet, and won’t until November.

  86. Mr. Pink says:

    Nishi did you change the direction of your prayer rug this morning to face Obama? He is to the north-east slightly today.

  87. happyfeet says:

    Baracky is still behind the curve. He needs to express what the U.S. interests in Iraq are I think. Why is victory important now Baracky when it wasn’t before?

  88. Rob Crawford says:

    SBP, is McCain’s understanding of the Petraeus model “fuzzy” then?
    Is that a desireable trait in a CinC?

    It’s your understanding that’s flawed. Are you incapable of realizing that, cudlips?

  89. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    SBP, is McCain’s understanding of the Petraeus model “fuzzy” then?

    You’re the one who doesn’t understand.

    Hint: that would be because you are an illiterate liar.

  90. maggie katzen says:

    Are you incapable of realizing that, cudlips?

    most definitely. oh and did we ever get support for the druze claim from the other day?

  91. quellcrist falconer says:

    Just for reading challenged, the Petreaus/Kilcullen model[which worked in Anbar] HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH INCREASED TROOP LEVELS WHICH MCCAIN DEFINES AS “SURGING”.
    And in fact, increased troop levels would be counter-productive to social network theory in that “surging” is a top-down, and not a bottom-up strategy.
    Imposing control from outside the network.

  92. quellcrist falconer says:

    Like i said.
    He forgot.
    Like he forgot the difference between the Sunni and the Shi’ia.

  93. Mr. Pink says:

    Why does Nishi remind me of the idiots in Independance Day that held up welcome signs on the rooftops waiting for the aliens to come kill them?

  94. SevenEleventy says:

    Nishi, you forgot what you wrote within three minutes. What does that say about you?

  95. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Just for reading challenged

    There’s a laugh.

  96. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    He forgot.

    No, you “forgot”.

    You claimed that the Druze were Christians.

    They aren’t.

  97. Sdferr says:

    “…First of all, a surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy,” McCain said….”

  98. JD says:

    Repeating you inaccuracies and lies does not make them any less wrong, nishit.

    here is another binary – Is nishit a liar, or just woefully ignorant. It can only be one or the other. There are no other alternatives.

  99. Rob Crawford says:

    And in fact, increased troop levels would be counter-productive to social network theory in that “surging” is a top-down, and not a bottom-up strategy.

    *COUGH*BULLSHIT*COUGH*

    You really don’t get it, do you? You’re the one with the misunderstanding.

  100. Sdferr says:

    Nishi, bring more stupid. This could be quite entertaining.

  101. Sdferr says:

    “…Most of us equate the surge with troop levels, but for McCain, it has always been about a strategy…”

  102. happyfeet says:

    Swisscakerolls are individually wrapped so you either have to unwrap all the ones you want to eat before you sit down to watch tv or whatever or unwrap them as you go. You either say hey I’m gonna eat five of these here swisscakerolls and then commit or you say okay I’ll have one okay maybe another okay maybe another. McCain is an all in kind of guy I think. Baracky is a dainty little thing that does a lot of oh I really shouldn’t but then goes ahead if he sees people aren’t being too judgey. Cowardly little fella he is which is ironic cause I bet he has more actual swisscakeroll experience from smoking all that pot.

  103. Rob Crawford says:

    Nishi, bring more stupid.

    I think she’s exhausted the Strategic Stupid Reserve.

  104. BJTex says:

    Give it up boys. Once nishi is set on her “McCain is a senile coot” path, nothing short of a nuclear weapon will deter her.

    The fact is that the foundation for both the Anwar awakening and the Baghdad security sweep was troop presence. That is what is meant by clear and hold. The sheiks were merely looking to see who the strongest tribe would be and, once assured that the US Military was committed to being that strongest tribe by having their troops both holding and actively clearing both the worst insurgents and al qaeda then the tribes fealt free to kill, capture, clear and point out large pockets of the thugs when they didn’t feel capable of dealing with the numbers.

    Let’s also remember that al qaeda pretty much brought this on themselves, not just for the horrible attacks on fellow muslims rather than “the occupier” but also by being big ass bullies to the local sheiks, demanding inter-marraiges and sharia along with other brutally configured rules and killing any who denied them their demands. The residents of Anwar quickly learned that while the jihadist thugs had a certain cruel effectiveness in causing casualties to women and children, both their ability to govern and their fighting skills against professional soldiers were lacking. Tribespeople will bow their heads and bend the knee to the strongest leaders and once an alternative was presented and believed (you know due to the troops that actually stayed in Anbar and elsewhere) then the jihadists were toast. They had no real foundation of support just as the Taliban had none in Afghanistan.

    Leave military matters to the adults, matoko.

  105. SevenEleventy says:

    Maybe Senator McCain should use the more nuanced approach, like O! did regarding an undivided Jerusalem, by saying it was poorly phrased.

  106. BJTex says:

    Oh, and McCain has it exactly right and both you and Obama have it exactly wrong.

  107. Sdferr says:

    “…Colonel McFarland, in Anbar province, McCain said, “had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counter-insurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is quote the surge,…”

  108. Hawker Tempest says:

    Why can’t you just admit it?
    McCain forgets sometimes.
    If that is ok with you, fine vote for him.
    But don’t try to say it doesn’t happen.

    Exactly, ‘con. Everybody forgets sometimes.

    Like the time you forgot to reattatch those amputated arms to the proper sides of the amputee.

    Oh, wait. You did that on purpose.

    Nevermind.

  109. Sdferr says:

    “…And the new counter-insurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.”

  110. quellcrist falconer says:

    Most Druze are christians.
    thats the truth.
    Do you know Kuntar’s personal faith?

    BJTex, i guess im the only one here that has read COIN and Kilcullen’s original reports.
    And certainly it seems like McCain has not read those sources.
    Anbar worked because of trusted networks, not strong horse theory.

  111. happyfeet says:

    Also, twinkies.

  112. Sdferr says:

    “…”So I’m not sure frankly that people really understand that a surge is part of counter-insurgency strategy which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people. And then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help insure the safety of the sheiks, to gain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge would continue to succeed as a counter-insurgency.”

    All of the above quotes are from the Ambinder piece nishi linked at post 12. And then went on to misconstrue in order to smear McCain with “forgetting”. What trash.

  113. quellcrist falconer says:

    “General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.”

    That is not Petraeus speaking now is it?
    It is McCain trying to cover up a gaffe.
    I’d be interested in Petraeus answering a question on Anbar and the Surge.
    McCain is obviously confused.

  114. Mr. Pink says:

    Trusted Networks??? Is that the new Facebook?

  115. maggie katzen says:

    BJTex, i guess im the only one here that has read COIN and Kilcullen’s original reports.

    whatever. oh, wait, you’re just mangling and lying as usual. okay. still no actual source for your claims. liar.

    and BJTex, your #104 sounds about right, but there aren’t any ALLCAP words, so, um, I’m not sure I can really accept it. perhaps if you could post it again. maybe slightly changed.

  116. alppuccino says:

    Another downside of the Swisscakerolls as they compare to Ho Ho’s (no racism intended) is that they sit on a thin cardboard palette. If you don’t regulate your ambient temperature, some of the milk chocolate coating can stick to the palette and leave you with a scarred Swisscakeroll. I liken it to an impressionable young person hearing an Obama speech out of context. They get a little of his milk chocolaty goodness stuck on them, but what’s left is a big gash in what’s really important. Or something like that.

  117. Sdferr says:

    I saw Petraeus say precisely that under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, you twerp. You want to accuse McCain, on no evidence, of attempting to cover over something that doesn’t exist. Can you get any lower?

  118. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Most Druze are christians.
    thats the truth.

    You are a liar.

    End of discussion.

  119. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    Quellcrist Falconer? Sounds like a D-list villain from ‘Venture Brothers.’

    Alfred (knocks on door): Master Wayne? Commissioner Gorden phoned, and it appears the Quellcrist Falconer has knocked over the condom display at Walmart. He’d like Batman to do something.

    Wayne/Batman: [sigh] Goddamnit. You tell Gordon I said from now on he can call the Wonder Twins or Apache Chief with this kinda shit. I’m busy. Now go make me a sandwich.

  120. quellcrist falconer says:

    Sdferr, that just sounds like weaselword coverup to me.
    The Petreaus model has nothing to do with increased troop numbers, it has to do with changed troop mission.

    A surge is a counter-insurgency?
    Bullshit.
    Doublespeak to cover up a gaffe.

    You have to wonder….how many Shortterm Memory Loss episodes has team mccain been able to cover for….
    ;)

  121. SevenEleventy says:

    and BJTex, your #104 sounds about right, but there aren’t any ALLCAP words, so, um, I’m not sure I can really accept it. perhaps if you could post it again. maybe slightly changed.

    Try the BOLD tags, they emphasize what is acceptable!

  122. happyfeet says:

    McCain lacks not for courage.

  123. BJTex says:

    CLEAR AND HOLD!!111eleventy!!!111!!!

    How’s that, Maggie?

    No need to respond to someone who quotes nothing, lies about Christians and Druzes, lies about “the surge” and provides no sourcing whatsoever that supplies any basis for the lies.

    LARS LARS PANTS ON FARS! (bonus all caps)

  124. quellcrist falconer says:

    For example, McCain seems to be entirely ignorant ofthis

  125. Sdferr says:

    That would be slander in most contexts, but since McCain is a politician you are free to tell as many lies as often as you wish. No one will respect you for it though. Were I you, I would look to husbanding as much credibility as I could around here, since your credibility is so low to begin with on such unfortunate history, and give up with the smearing and outright lies. But then, it’s your choice.

  126. SevenEleventy says:

    Doublespeak to cover up a gaffe.

    But it’s alright for O! to use doublespeak with regards to an undivided Jerusalem!

  127. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    A surge is a counter-insurgency?
    Bullshit.

    Tell it to General Petraeus.

    As a result, General Casey requested additional forces to
    enable the Coalition to accomplish these tasks, and those forces began to flow in January.

    In the ensuing months, our forces and our Iraqi counterparts have focused on improving security,
    especially in Baghdad and the areas around it, wresting sanctuaries from Al Qaeda control, and
    disrupting the efforts of the Iranian-supported militia extremists. We have employed
    counterinsurgency practices that underscore the importance of units living among the people they
    are securing, and accordingly, our forces have established dozens of joint security stations and
    patrol bases manned by Coalition and Iraqi forces in Baghdad and in other areas across Iraq.

    In mid-June, with all the surge brigades in place, we launched a series of offensive operations
    focused on: expanding the gains achieved in the preceding months in Anbar Province; clearing
    Baqubah, several key Baghdad neighborhoods, the remaining sanctuaries in Anbar Province, and
    important areas in the so-called “belts” around Baghdad; and pursuing Al Qaeda in the Diyala
    River Valley and several other areas.

    Looks like Petraeus is confused about the presence of troops in Al Anbar, too.

    Liebot.

  128. Sdferr says:

    “Doublespeak to cover up a gaffe.

    But it’s alright for O! to use doublespeak with regards to an undivided Jerusalem!”

    Are you therefore conceding the false assertion of ‘coverup of a gaffe’?
    Why bother with the tu quoque when the assertion is false to begin with?

  129. banned in colorado says:

    it’s the cigs, happy, not the swisscakes, that bother me.

    holy-molly, Thor makes an appearance. ’bout time.

    I agree any nitwit that appears anywhere on a propagandistic asswipe like Foxy and Friends deserves to be made into a cartoon feature for Saturday morning kiddies. The dregs of the Democratic Party and that other Party do occasionally rise to the surface of the septic system. That septic system is peopled by people like the Carville couple and O’Reilly and Pukecannon especially.

    Did i piss on the Democratic party? You betchya! I just vote Democratic as the NeoFascist party of discipline isn’t some Whig party anymore nor is it the Democratic one either.

    In fact, I never thought Bush’s Iraq policies were the worst thing he’s done, maybe some good there. It’s everything else he’s done that makes him near the worst president. Especially his “energy policies”, “education policies”, “environmental policies”, and especially his “tax policies”. Maybe Iraq might be the one thing he was right in the end….except he botched the whole job with that going in w/o planning and expecting the Iraqis to have a lovefest after we killed about a half million of them. And expecting to win wars while cutting taxes isn’t feasible.

  130. maggie katzen says:

    McCain seems to be entirely ignorant ofthis

    howso? how does increasing troop numbers not help in population centric tactics?

  131. Education Guy says:

    I think nishi believes that all that is required to build a trusted network is a little fairy dust and perhaps a dash of Obama smile. The idea that you have earn trust by showing your willingness to take and keep all of the land seems never to enter the dear little one’s mind. The idea that the only way to do that is to have enough troops seems to have been pushed out by brainpower needed to believe in the glorious military capability of rainbow maned flying unicorns.

  132. SevenEleventy says:

    nishi petitioning Jeff to post on Jefferson’s intentionalism in 5,4,3…

  133. happyfeet says:

    I don;t know about doublespeak but Baracky doesn’t come across as a particularly honest person I don’t think. I think he would lie about stuff so he would look better. He seems really frantic about winning the presidency. Like when you just get out of college and you apply for your dream job and you get all anxious cause they haven’t called.

  134. alppuccino says:

    nishi, like Obama is the hard candy in the dish on the tables in the waiting rooms across america. It’s there to say “We appreciate you!” But to even the most chronic of sweet toothers, it says “This, technically, is a treat. But it’s not new. It’s been here since the dawn of time. But it’s still good. Trust us. Help us get rid of this shit.”

  135. Sdferr says:

    Part of the mission is to protect people from harm. If you don’t have enough troops to cover the ground included in the mission, you ask for more troops. It isn’t difficult to understand, except for the likes of nishi, who seems to enjoy being confused at times.

  136. Education Guy says:

    Of course arguing with her on who has more military knowhow in an Obama vs McCain match up is akin to arguing with your 4 year old about the benefits of pb&j sandwiches for the workings of the dvd player.

  137. quellcrist falconer says:

    Again, the “Surge” was Baghdad, not Anbar.
    McCain simply forgot and is trying to cover up gaffing his “killer app”.
    The Anbar model involved a change in troop FUNCTION, not in troop LEVEL.
    If you read Kilcullen, increased troop level is DETRIMENTAL to fostering trusted networks.

  138. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Again, the “Surge” was Baghdad, not Anbar.

    Again: you are a clumsy liar.

  139. Sdferr says:

    Really nishi, keep it up, you’re doing so well with that line, er, I meant, lie.

  140. maggie katzen says:

    oh how I miss the days of arguing with Timmy about how just because the surge wouldn’t hit the magic number of “x” troops per 1,000 people it could still work because it was more about their strategy changing. so I guess nishfong is good for something

  141. maggie katzen says:

    The Anbar model involved a change in troop FUNCTION

    and your still ignoring that that FUNCTION change was possible because of an increase in troop numbers. dumbass.

  142. quellcrist falconer says:

    Aren’t u at all curious as to how many times this has happened and the coverup has been successful?
    And why team mccain didn’t proof for content on Mccains op-ed?
    Pretty shabby set of advisors McCain has.

  143. Sdferr says:

    Damn you are thick.

  144. quellcrist falconer says:

    That has been a problem with Bush too….he always valued loyalty over talent.

  145. alppuccino says:

    she’s just griefing, guys.

  146. maggie katzen says:

    yeah, yeah. well, and O! didn’t unnerstand the doctrine at all, but whatevs, he’s pretty.

  147. Education Guy says:

    Your griefing skills are lacking on this one nishi, your claims have to be at least plausible. In this case there is no reasonable doubt, just easily identifiable lies.

    Obama was wrong on the surge, but it probably won’t cost him anything.

  148. Sdferr says:

    It’s a hobby, huh, al?

  149. quellcrist falconer says:

    and your still ignoring that that FUNCTION change was possible because of an increase in troop numbers. dumbass.

    tout meme, “surging” was never part of the Anbar model.
    McCain forgot and confused Anbar with Baghdad, just like he confused sunni with shi’ia.

  150. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    , “surging” was never part of the Anbar model.

    Petraeus disagrees, liebot.

  151. maggie katzen says:

    “surging” was never part of the Anbar model.

    4000 marines were added to Anbar. dumbass.

  152. BJTex says:

    Kilcullen paper, right on top:

    This paper reflects the author’s personal judgments and does not represent the views of any department or agency of the U.S. Government or any other government.

    Matoko, what is the difference between planning, scenario and operations?

  153. alppuccino says:

    It’s a hobby, huh, al?

    I guess. But at least with fly-fishing, you end up with something to show for it.

  154. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    “oh how I miss the days of arguing with Timmy”…

    That’s beneath you. Timmy can only say, ‘Timmah’ in various inflections. You should argue with Jimmy.

    In fact you should get Jimmy and Timmy to argue.

    CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

  155. urthshu says:

    The Anbar model involved a change in troop FUNCTION, not in troop LEVEL.

    Actually, it was neither. I suppose I could do the standard wikipedia linky thingies, but why…? I really should probly do something over here.

    L8r, sk8ters

  156. Rob Crawford says:

    Quellcrist Falconer? Sounds like a D-list villain from ‘Venture Brothers.’

    DO NOT connect queefcrest to the Wonder that is Venture Bros.

  157. SevenEleventy says:

    Why bother with the tu quoque when the assertion is false to begin with?

    Agreed, it was foolish.

  158. happyfeet says:

    Anbar wasn’t as crucial as Baracky thinks anyway. If the surge worked in Baghdad which it did then it was always the plan to move out into the hinterlands. Baracky just makes a big deal out of Anbar cause it involved community organizing and it’s all he knows really. Kind of ironic that it was community organizers that defeated his insurgent pals. That has to sting.

  159. quellcrist falconer says:

    4000 marines were added to Anbar. dumbass.

    and that didnt work, and it wasn’t part of “the Surge” McCain referenced anyways.

    Surely McCain has been briefed on all of this.
    But he said…

    McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

    They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that’s effective. We have a legal system that’s working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts, including an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda’s not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

    Couric: A commentary on what?

    McCain: That Sen. Obama does not understand the challenges we face. And … not understand the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment.”

    Shortterm Memory Loss is the only plausible explanation.

  160. Sdferr says:

    Yeah, alppucino, like the pictures of the trout she caught and released “For Teh Children”.

  161. maggie katzen says:

    *sigh* the marines were added and stategy changed around the same time, but THERE’S NO CONNECTION!!! sure.

  162. happyfeet says:

    That’s just nitpicky really.

  163. quellcrist falconer says:

    the Surge had nothing to do with Anbar.
    the Surge was in Baghdad, the one that congress voted on, that Obama voted against.
    Which is it?
    Does McCain think the Surge went down in Anbar?
    Does he think Baghdad is IN Anbar province?
    He sounds very confused.

  164. maggie katzen says:

    at least he knows what committees he’s on. and how many states there are.

  165. quellcrist falconer says:

    read this again plz
    Because of the Surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it[the Surge] began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

  166. happyfeet says:

    McCain advocated the successful policy while Baracky was embracing a humiliating and consequential defeat. I don’t think Baracky is very patriotic.

  167. quellcrist falconer says:

    intentionalism, anyone?
    lol

  168. Rob Crawford says:

    at least he knows what committees he’s on. and how many states there are.

    I wonder if O!’s gaffes are connected to his history of drug use…

    (No, not really. I think he’s a self-aggrandizing moron, confident that the press won’t highlight his gaffes. Much like Al “Who Are These People?” Gore not recognizing the Founding Fathers.)

  169. Sdferr says:

    No nishi. He is not confused. He understands what happened, as he was often there to witness it for himself, unlike you and your preferred candidate Barack Obama. Wake up, smell the coffee. You don’t know what it is you need to know.

  170. maggie katzen says:

    um, your editing the McCain quote? liar.

  171. JD says:

    intentionalism, anyone?

    Yes, you are apparently intentionally a dumm ass.

  172. Education Guy says:

    Oh the wheels on the bus go round and round
    round and round
    round and round
    Oh the wheels on the bus go round and round
    all through the day.

    Cudlips.

  173. happyfeet says:

    Baracky’s in Germany anyway while all those poor people in Texas are getting rained on really hard. He just doesn’t care about regular Americans.

  174. quellcrist falconer says:

    maggie, this is supposed to be McCain’s “killer app”, the thing he can beat O! with cuz he knows it stone cold perfect.
    that is a simply horrible gaffe.

  175. quellcrist falconer says:

    maggie, aural transcript.
    the Surge they are talking about is the one voted on by congress….see the context.
    i think i got mccains intentionalism correct.
    ;)

  176. Sdferr says:

    Your bracketed “the surge” is a falsehood, plain and simple. He intended Col MacFarland’s protection of the handful of Anbari Sunni’s who were willing, nay, insistant, on standing up to Al Qaeda.

  177. happyfeet says:

    I’m not feeling the horrible gaffe. He was talking to Katie Couric so he was probably trying to distill a complex subject to where she could understand. She gets way bad crinkly nose a lot. He’s a very gracious person.

  178. Mr. Pink says:

    Nishi could you please link to the DailyKos diary which is giving you this information? I would really love to read it thanks.

  179. B Moe says:

    The Anbar model involved a change in troop FUNCTION, not in troop LEVEL.

    WHICH IS WHY MCCAIN SAID THIS IN THE PIECE YOU FIRST FUCKING LINKED:

    “Prior to that they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counter-insurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.”

    You are a functionally illiterate, borderline retard.
    Why can’t you just admit it?

  180. Education Guy says:

    It won’t rain in Obama’s America. Unless you need it to, in which case it will only rain on your flowers. On the other hand, one way to employ the legions of new indentured servants volunteers is to have them standing around on street corners with umbrellas, just in case.

    May I keep you dry ma’am?
    Why yes, thank you dear that would be nice.

  181. Sdferr says:

    Yuengling! Yay!

  182. maggie katzen says:

    i think i got mccains intentionalism correct.

    like your definition of “secular”? or the druze(still no source for your claim) or the number of Supreme Court Justices? yeah, it’s about as right as everything else you spew. which is to say, not at all.

  183. The Lost Dog says:

    Why do these people rant against any claim at victory or success in Iraq? Seriously, it is like pulling teeth to get them to even admit the surge worked, now it wasn’t us that succeeded it was Iran or tribal sheiks. Pull your head out your ass please.

    nishinutbag can’t pull here head out of her ass. It is quite obvious that super glue is a very effective adhesive, and apparently affects logic in a negative way.

  184. B Moe says:

    Did she really say the Druze were Christians?

  185. Sdferr says:

    You can’t get anyone’s intent correctly when you start out with the intent to misunderstand them, except accidentally, on account of your own incoherence and inability to backtrack your falsehoods properly. That will only happen infrequently though, due to the persistence of assumption feedback.

  186. quellcrist falconer says:

    ok, ill take the bracket out…reads the same.
    “Because of the Surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

    sry, McCain is referring to the Surge, the one voted on by congress, the one in Baghdad, the one O! voted against.
    context.
    are you willing to have a CinC that has Shortterm Memory Loss?
    i see no other plausible explanation.
    those are mccain’s own words.
    history.

  187. maggie katzen says:

    Did she really say the Druze were Christians?

    repeatedly. even after others quoted some sources.

  188. maggie katzen says:

    i see no other plausible explanation.

    so what is Obama’s excuse? I’m just curious

  189. B Moe says:

    sry, McCain is referring to the Surge, the one voted on by congress, the one in Baghdad…

    Which of course is why he keeps referring to Anbar.

  190. takeshi kovacs says:

    No, Quellcrist, the Surge,took advantage
    of the “Anbar Awakening” based on the experience of McMaster carrying out similar operations in Tell A Far, Petraeus’s own in Mosul, Mirabile’s early work in Ar-Ramadi, years before.
    This was all happening when the media was focusing on the “Civil War” that wasn’t. Both Maliki and Obama, for their own petty sectarian reasons opposed the surge, and needless to say
    similarly were ‘skeptical’ about the
    works of Abu Sittar, who had to be murdered by jihadists, not unlike Massoud,; before his contribution was
    appreciated, by most. Petraeus’s work is in keeping with his understanding of the tradition of counterinsurgency from the outset. The Special Forces “A” teams whose work was observed by the late Robin Moore, in “Green Berets”. The “Cheiu Hoi” Vietcong defector program, US work in El Salvador in the 80s, that liberals still won’t acknowledge.

    For those not in the know, Quellcrist Falconer, is the name of an anarchist
    terrorist, nee freedom fighter, who carried out a ruthless nihilistic
    ‘insurgency’ reminiscent of the Joker on a planet called Harlan’s World, in a series of far future sci fi noir books
    by Brit Richard Morgan. Think AQ fused
    with the Weatherman and the Unabomber,
    “squared to eleventy” This UN dominated
    universe, where special genetically enhanced commandos called “Envoys” are teleported and downloaded in cloned bodies are his take on what he considers
    “neo-colonial police actions” Morgan, like most of the intelligentsia,soaking in the pidgen marxism of Pilger,Chomsky,
    et al, think the war on terror is a fraud, that outfits like AQ are about the fighting for the poor, all that claptrap. Takeshi kovacs, is one of the “envoys” turned private eye, whose handle I adopted when I saw how easy
    it is for the same poster, to ‘sock
    puppet, ala Greenwald.

  191. maggie katzen says:

    McCain is referring to the Surge,

    sorta. I mean, it’s in response to O!s claim that the Anbar thing just happened (because???) and would have spread and I think McCain is saying that we took what we learned in Anbar and applied it in the larger “surge” thing in Baghdad.

  192. quellcrist falconer says:

    B Moes that is just McCain weaselwording in Ambinder to cover his gaffe.

    /sigh
    read it again.
    “Because of the Surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.”

    McCain goofed his killer app, its that SIMPLE.

  193. B Moe says:

    No, McCain is using a different definition of surge than “The Surge”, he is talking about a change in strategy rather than a simple surge in numbers, and you can’t comprehend it.

    Because you are just that SIMPLE.

  194. Sdferr says:

    And refuse, with intent, to understand.

  195. happyfeet says:

    Well. Either way. Let’s just hope the surge works.

  196. takeshi kovacs says:

    Yes, “Banned” and when were working in Syria, that’s an important factor.Waleed
    Jumblatt, is also a Druze, and he’s sometimes an ally, although he inadver-tently brokered a settlement that
    empowered Hezbollah since 2005. Kuntar, was a Druze too, that doesn’t mean he can’t be a . . .

  197. Sdferr says:

    Is it like an impasse on cake, hf, or is there a fact of the matter in this case?

    However that may be, like you said, let’s hope the surge [into Afghanistan] works as well as the first one has.

    Oh, and did I mention I hate fireants? Cause I meant to. Hate them.

  198. Rob Crawford says:

    Uh, aren’t “takeshi kovacs” and “quellchrist falconer” the same person? I think we’re into some major Crazy here, folks.

  199. cynn says:

    “No, McCain is using a different definition of surge than “The Surge”, he is talking about a change in strategy rather than a simple surge in numbers”

    Against my better judgment, I read this whole thread and became completely confused about the scope and meaning of “surge.” That helps clear it up.

  200. SevenEleventy says:

    Against my better judgment, I read this whole thread and became completely confused about the scope and meaning of “surge.” That helps clear it up.

    Does that mean you’ll be returning to the DU for the celebration of the 1000th post on impeach Bush?

  201. MayBee says:

    Where’s the Druze stuff?
    I’m not asking for me, I’m asking for Karl’s dad.

  202. maggie katzen says:

    um, post about UN a few days ago. I’d search, but i’m at “w*rk” ;D

  203. Ouroboros says:

    “Swisscakerolls are individually wrapped so you either have to unwrap …”

    Goddammit Feets! Now you’ve got me craving swiss cake rolls.. I’m going to have to score some before I can even enjoy my morning coffee.. uh.. I mean ‘caffe’.. D’ya ever try to find Lil Debbies in downtown Seattle? This may take awhile..

    Note to Rob Crawford: “aren’t “takeshi kovacs” and “quellchrist falconer” the same person?”

    Father Damien Karras: I think it might be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Nishi has manifested. So far, I’d say there seem to be three. She’s convinced…

    Father Merrin: There is only one.

  204. cynn says:

    #201: Not sure what DU is, but I don’t want B impeached; I want him deposed.

  205. SevenEleventy says:

    #201: Not sure what DU is, but I don’t want B impeached; I want him deposed.

    You will find kindered spirits at the Democratic Underground.

  206. MayBee says:

    Thanks, maggie. I found it.

  207. happyfeet says:

    I did kinda sense an impasse, sdferr. Oh hey the swisscakerolls thing got started by somebody else. It sounded good to me too but I decided on breakfast truck breakfast but the breakfast truck pulled away right when I got to it. Now I think I’ll just wait and see what NG wants to do for lunch. Probably nothing cause she has Smart Ones in the freezer. What sounds good is twice-cooked pork from the Chinese people next door. I just started ordering that recently. That’s really the only thing on the menu there they make that I’ve ever gone back for. Or it’s just cause it has cabbage. I’d forgotten I like cabbage.

  208. maggie katzen says:

    Probably nothing cause she has Smart Ones in the freezer.

    not if you have them for breakfast. ;D

  209. Rob Crawford says:

    #201: Not sure what DU is, but I don’t want B impeached; I want him deposed.

    Ah. So you’re all for trashing the Constitution.

    Again, I’m amazed at the honesty we’ve been seeing of late.

  210. happyfeet says:

    I might have yogurt for breakfast… I’m not sure if there’s any vanilla left, but we got a ton last week. If Jeff were to post something I could read it while I ate my yogurt. That would be really cool I think.

  211. Aldo says:

    Have you read River of Gods yet? Why not? Hurry up!

  212. happyfeet says:

    Me? It’s on my list at Amazon but it’s out of stock. I will have to scrounge around for a used one or something.

  213. Aldo says:

    That was for matoko, hf. She would love it. I don’t know enough about your tastes in fiction to know whether you would like it or not. The novel is science-fictioney and I usually read lierary fiction rather than sci-fi, but I thought it was thought-provoking and very entertaining. Ian McDonald is really a first-rate writer. Also, Reading Darleen’s latest post reminded me of another (non-fiction) book matoko should read if she hasn’t done so already: The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

  214. Sdferr says:

    Did you get to Red Queen yet Aldo?

  215. Aldo says:

    Sd,

    I haven’t read it yet (River Of Gods was 600 pages. I just finished it.) Red Queen is on my list, though. Maybe I’ll read that next.

    Matoko,

    I haven’t read COIN. I understand in principle that the strategy does not require an increase in troops, since it is based on indigenous networks. In this specific case, though, it seems to me that “doubling-down” our own committment was a necessary predicate for obtaining the trust of the network. Remember that George H.W. Bush stood by and allowed Hussein’s Republican Gaurd troops to massacre Shiites who had rebelled at his own instigation, and the mood in the US was once more clearly moving toward abandoning Iraq prior to the surge.

  216. Sdferr says:

    The strategy requires the number of troops necessary to execute it. Let’s call that number X. If the number of troops on hand prior to execution of the new strategy is X-25,000 then you need to add 25,000 troops to execute the strategy. If the number of troops on hand is X+25,000, then you can safely remove 25,000 troops. This is not that difficult to grasp, unless you really don’t want to grasp it.

  217. happyfeet says:

    Oh. It’s on my list Aldo cause India is the future. I think I first heard about it here.

  218. B Moe says:

    Did you know India and Pakistan don’t get along? It’s true. Somebody should organize those communities over there.

  219. MayBee says:

    You are wrong, B Moe. We are all one world. We all have one-worldish goals.

  220. We all have one-worldish goals.

    to Organize&trade

  221. Smirky McChimp says:

    Wow.

    We have reached the point where people who think themselves clever are going to reach for any ginsu knife to cut off what Bush did (the Surge) versus what the Sunnis did (Anbar’s Awakening), and try to sell us on the notion that they are entirely unrelated. As though extra troops sent to Anbar in 2006 did nothing to indicate commitment (and thus TRUST) to the Sunnis. As though increased troop strength throughout the country would not make permanent the ability to project strength into Anbar and continue to make alliances with the tribes.

    Hilarious, and pathetic. And oh so clever.

Comments are closed.