|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 30, 2008 15:51:30 GMT -5
I am glad that violence is down in that area and I can't see how I offended you or our men or women in uniform. I was simply pointing out that the article states the success is from a new strategy, not more forces on the ground. Maybe more forces were required to implement the new strategy but it doesn't state that.
Regarding al-Sadr, he could have declared a cease fire for a multitude of reasons. His forces could be regrouping, moving, or outnumbered because of the surge. It is a definite possibility but not a certainty.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 16:11:36 GMT -5
Yes, it does. But, like most Liberal Americans, if it is not spelled out in Black and White for you , you just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 30, 2008 17:32:19 GMT -5
Neither of those are evidence of a surge. The first has to do with trying a new strategy (probably implemented by David Petraus who seems like a more effective general) and the second one is Muqtada al-Sadr declaring a cease fire. Neither one is directly related to numbers of troops on the ground. You have got to be kidding. Not directly related? If there weren't more boots on the ground, both ours and Iraqi, what impetus would there be exactly for there to be less violence? The strategy is the surge in overall troop strength. The tactical implementation of it seems to be what you are hung up on. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 30, 2008 17:43:35 GMT -5
Okay, we can debate that in the war on terrorism forum.
Getting back to the topic of this one: McClellan's book reveals the inner workings of an administration that lied to the American people and sold their war on false pretenses. It brings to light many of the things we knew were happening but the White House adimently denied.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 30, 2008 19:08:25 GMT -5
Saunterelle I am honestly not sure how you function in daily life.
If you cannot see that LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND ------------INCREASED TO THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED-----IS A SURGE.
Seriously are you fully functional?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 30, 2008 20:00:29 GMT -5
i'm sure santurelle supposes that all this would have happened anyway, with or without a surge. all i can do in response to his posts on this topic is slap my forehead over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 30, 2008 20:01:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 30, 2008 22:25:06 GMT -5
[off topic]
I dunno. I am trying really hard to figure this out. The HuffPo is one of the central linchpins of the progressive movement these days. From what I peek at there it seems to mainly be Clintronistas.
MSNBC, and Keith Olbermann in particular, have been rather openly carrying Obama's water for quite a while now. In fact more than a few ombudsman types in the media have raked both the cable channel and the former sports anchor pretty hard for their rather shameless cheerleading for Obama.
What does this tell us... that the HuffPo is not happy with Olbermann for dissing on their candidate. Not news... funny as all get out, but not news.
[/off topic]
Back on topic... I repeat my earlier question. Who here has actually read McClellan book? Saunterelle... have you? If not then your assertion in the post above about what the book "reveals" is hyperbole at best.
For what it's worth, credible reviewers are coming in some cases saying there is nothing new anywhere in it. And we've already determined above that McClellan, given his position at the time, was in no position at all to have been close to the intel or the decision making.
So what, exactly, is he "bringing to light"?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 30, 2008 23:16:40 GMT -5
what strikes me as odd is how these liberal looney types are eager to extoll mcclellan's book as fact even though there are reported to be no evidence or sources to support his claims. with this line of thinking why don't the libs also believe books by or about other "insiders" such as:
paula jones
dick morris
gennifer flowers
hillary clinton
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 31, 2008 0:01:45 GMT -5
Oh we do acknowledge Clinton's downfalls too. This is about this administration....please stay on topic.
Today, after the aftermath, it seems McClellan may be expected to appear before Congress. Will this answer some questions of if he is looking into the monetary value of exposure? Was it Scott's words or his publisher's? Was this "bushie" really a "bushie"? How much more can this administration afford.....to hide the truth?? Is the country brave enough to face it?
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 31, 2008 1:18:26 GMT -5
I marvel at the affirmation of the narrative: that GWB is an evil liar who started a war to help his friends make money.
Each McClellanish book will be hailed as validation of the narrative. It will live on forever much as Roswell, Bigfoot or anthropogenic climate change.
A complete lack of evidence will never dampen the spirit of the true believers.
And therein lies the fatal weakness.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on May 31, 2008 23:49:18 GMT -5
Give it up, guys. Saunterelle will never admit that the surge in Iraq has been a success because, to do so, he would have to admit that Bush did something right. Not gonna happen!
Just as the progs will not admit that there was a case made for regime change in Iraq prior to 2001. Bush didn't lie - he just convinced us that it was worth doing. I think that's the main reason why progs are so angry - they were led to a decision that they now abhor.
Imagine the shock that they will sustain in the event that Obama is elected and - surprise! - he learns that he really can't withdraw the troops in 16 months without risking a bloodbath in Iraq. Who wants to have that on their hands?
Saunterelle, who do you have more pity for: the suffering tribesmen in Darfur, the suffering Buddhists in Tibet, or the Iraqis who could be slaughtered for cooperating with the Americans?
|
|
