The great Iraq debate has begun...

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I certainly have an ego. No doubt about that. I bet you do too. I also have the chops to back my ego up.

Put up or shut up then.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yep. And so long as you continue with your bullshit I'll continue to use those tactics until I've owned you so thoroughly you'll either reply with your tail between your legs or simply back away in digrace.

The choice is up to you. Keep making your weak and continually failing attempts at knocking heads with me, and continue getting beaten to a bloody pulp, or try actually having a decent discussion sans all the rhetoric and hyperbole. It's up to you to extend the olive branch. If not, expect more debating scars, many more.

After what happened in that other thread I highly doubt you want to keep talking about how knowledgable you are. I think it amply showed that just because you can type things into google doesn't mean you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Still bitter about the Gore thread, eh?

I understand.

If you think that your argument in that thread was a valid one you are either very young, or very ignorant. In effect it was you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala". I felt myself getting stupider trying to pound such simple points into your head that I gave up... because at that point you were choosing to remain willfully ignorant. It's not something to be proud of, it really isn't.

I was actually referring to your expert view on the validity of CIA estimates (basically you said "I don't agree with them even though I have no evidence to the contrary") and your laughable attempt to act like you know something about Islamic insurgencies ("Oops! I googled a bunch of insurgencies and forgot to check if they were Islamic or not.")

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

So an Exit Strategy has timelines for everything, hard and fast dates that must be adhered to, and doesn't make room for any contingencies because it's so simple to forecast outcomes when you're dealing with a project on such a massive scope and scale?

You aren't looking for an Exit Strategy. You're looking for a firm commitment that you can use as a club to beat over the heads of the Bush admin the first time something doesn't go exactly as planned. It seems that's what pisses the anti-war crowd off the most. They're angry because they don't have a "GOTCHA!" they can use to declare instantaneous failure.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

That may be why TLC can not find it online. A painted turd makes a pretty prop for TV but you do not want anyone taking a closer look.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yep. And so long as you continue with your bullshit I'll continue to use those tactics until I've owned you so thoroughly you'll either reply with your tail between your legs or simply back away in digrace.

The choice is up to you. Keep making your weak and continually failing attempts at knocking heads with me, and continue getting beaten to a bloody pulp, or try actually having a decent discussion sans all the rhetoric and hyperbole. It's up to you to extend the olive branch. If not, expect more debating scars, many more.

After what happened in that other thread I highly doubt you want to keep talking about how knowledgable you are. I think it amply showed that just because you can type things into google doesn't mean you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Still bitter about the Gore thread, eh?

I understand.

If you think that your argument in that thread was a valid one you are either very young, or very ignorant. In effect it was you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala". I felt myself getting stupider trying to pound such simple points into your head that I gave up... because at that point you were choosing to remain willfully ignorant. It's not something to be proud of, it really isn't.

I was actually referring to your expert view on the validity of CIA estimates (basically you said "I don't agree with them even though I have no evidence to the contrary") and your laughable attempt to act like you know something about Islamic insurgencies ("Oops! I googled a bunch of insurgencies and forgot to check if they were Islamic or not.")

Excuse me if I take your brief description of my comments with a grain of salt. So often my comments are mischaracterized in here and so many work so hard attempting to misconstrue my statements that I would have to claim that your ascertions are more than likely to be clouded by the obvious fact that you simply don't like me.

Thanks for trying though. I do appreciate your effort.

Edit: btw. Your comments in the Gore thread were not based on anything but partisan apologisms. You really ended up looking pathetic. Nor am I ignorant and, unfortunately, no longer young either.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

So an Exit Strategy has timelines for everything, hard and fast dates that must be adhered to, and doesn't make room for any contingencies because it's so simple to forecast outcomes when you're dealing with a project on such a massive scope and scale?

You aren't looking for an Exit Strategy. You're looking for a firm commitment that you can use as a club to beat over the heads of the Bush admin the first time something doesn't go exactly as planned. It seems that's what pisses the anti-war crowd off the most. They're angry because they don't have a "GOTCHA!" they can use to declare instantaneous failure.

No, we're looking for a bonifide exit strategy (remember "blood and treasure"), not another song and dance act or a bunch of BS excuses. You on the other hand are looking to prolong the war until you can blame it's inevitable failure on the next President and thereby sooth your poor little ego that if everybody had only listened to you everything would have been just peachy.

See how you are.

How's that for a "GOTCHA"?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

So an Exit Strategy has timelines for everything, hard and fast dates that must be adhered to, and doesn't make room for any contingencies because it's so simple to forecast outcomes when you're dealing with a project on such a massive scope and scale?

You aren't looking for an Exit Strategy. You're looking for a firm commitment that you can use as a club to beat over the heads of the Bush admin the first time something doesn't go exactly as planned. It seems that's what pisses the anti-war crowd off the most. They're angry because they don't have a "GOTCHA!" they can use to declare instantaneous failure.

No, we're looking for a bonifide exit strategy (remember "blood and treasure"), not another song and dance act or a bunch of BS excuses. You on the other hand are looking to prolong the war until you can blame it's inevitable failure on the next President and thereby sooth your poor little ego that if everybody had only listened to you everything would have been just peachy.

See how you are.

How's that for a "GOTCHA"?

It doesn't matter what Petraeus says or what kind of information he produces. You and most others in here aren't giving him the time of day anyway so what's the point?

Nor are you looking for any sort of Exit Strategy. You want immediate withdrawal so Iraq can finally become the disaster you keep proclaiming it to be.

So stop fooling yourself because you're not fooling anyone else but yourselves.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

So an Exit Strategy has timelines for everything, hard and fast dates that must be adhered to, and doesn't make room for any contingencies because it's so simple to forecast outcomes when you're dealing with a project on such a massive scope and scale?

You aren't looking for an Exit Strategy. You're looking for a firm commitment that you can use as a club to beat over the heads of the Bush admin the first time something doesn't go exactly as planned. It seems that's what pisses the anti-war crowd off the most. They're angry because they don't have a "GOTCHA!" they can use to declare instantaneous failure.

No, we're looking for a bonifide exit strategy (remember "blood and treasure"), not another song and dance act or a bunch of BS excuses. You on the other hand are looking to prolong the war until you can blame it's inevitable failure on the next President and thereby sooth your poor little ego that if everybody had only listened to you everything would have been just peachy.

See how you are.

How's that for a "GOTCHA"?

It doesn't matter what Petraeus says or what kind of information he produces. You and most others in here aren't giving him the time of day anyway so what's the point?

Nor are you looking for any sort of Exit Strategy. You want immediate withdrawal so Iraq can finally become the disaster you keep proclaiming it to be.

So stop fooling yourself because you're not fooling anyone else but yourselves.

The only thing different know then in the past is our use of the local tribes instead of training them into a unified army. How long do we give this newest idea before we finally have to face reality?

I personally would like to see the "decider" put together an exit strategy. We wouldn't have to be out before he is, but we/HE should have the plan in place so the next President casn hit the ground running.

Instead all we get is the same old song and dance act and in the meantime people are suffering and dying. I care more for our soldiers, but the needless suffering we are causing is dispicable and we need to do something instead of hanging on to the staus quo. I give Petraeus high marks for what he's done so far, but he (and the rest of the war supporters) need to face the reality that his plan just might fail and then address that reality with a REAL exit strategy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and the deal about the exit strategy is so pathetic it barely deserves mention. Patraeus had dates for redeployment through next summer. (taking us back down to the pre surge levels because we can't sustain them beyond that anyway) After that he had a list of nebulous goals with question marks as for the time frame of them. In effect all that little chart said was the exact same thing that the administration has been saying for four years now... when we win we'll come home.

That's not an exit strategy. To label it as such is obviously disingenuous.

So an Exit Strategy has timelines for everything, hard and fast dates that must be adhered to, and doesn't make room for any contingencies because it's so simple to forecast outcomes when you're dealing with a project on such a massive scope and scale?

You aren't looking for an Exit Strategy. You're looking for a firm commitment that you can use as a club to beat over the heads of the Bush admin the first time something doesn't go exactly as planned. It seems that's what pisses the anti-war crowd off the most. They're angry because they don't have a "GOTCHA!" they can use to declare instantaneous failure.

How about an exit strategy that has any dates whatsoever. How about an exit strategy that has anything more concrete to it then incredibly nebulous phrases that can be interpreted to mean whatever the administration wants them to mean?

I'm so glad you mentioned contingencies though... how about the contingency if this plan fails miserably like every single plan has up to this point. The elephant in the room that Bush so adamantly refuses to even give the 'time of day' to is the contingency rendered most likely by historical precedent. You stated that we had an exit strategy. I am telling you if that passes for an exit strategy then the term you are using is so loosely defined as to deprive it of meaning. "If things turn out how we want then we'll leave" is not a strategy, it's a prayer.

And what do you mean we don't have a "GOTCHA"? We have four years of "GOTCHA's". And instantaneous failure? How about slow and creeping failure for more then four years? It's not like this Iraq thing just went bad all of a sudden.

And by the way no, the dates set for withdrawing the extra troops from the surge doesn't count for anything. (the part that they usually neglect to mention is that the troops being withdrawn then HAVE to leave then, because the Army/Marines are simply out of troops and couldn't keep them there even if they wanted to).

PS: Oh, and don't try to continue your stupidity with the Gore thread. Your position was based on ignorance, (funny how you complain about people's ignorance of Patraeus' statements in light of that) and you were flailing around trying to compare global warming to the possibility of proving the existence of god. You are right that I don't like you though... you're far too content with your lack of knowledge.

 

[palehorse]

LOL.. when are you clowns going to realize that the U.S. is going to be in Iraq, with a substantial number of troops, for at least 10 more years; regardless of who takes office in '08 or '12...!??

bet?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL.. when are you clowns going to realize that the U.S. is going to be in Iraq, with a substantial number of troops, for at least 10 more years; regardless of who takes office in '08 or '12...!??

bet?

Well, I'm no clown, but I'd have to agree with you. Both the (R)s and the (D)s are slavishly given to the unwinnable pile of crap that is Iraq.

Do you think political and/or religious reconciliation is possible within that god-forsaken land? I'm talking about nation-wide, not aberrations here and there.

Do you think US troops should be bleeding and dying to prop up a government that most Iraqis have already lost faith in, quite vociferously I might add?

Do you think it's worth the cost of ~$1 Trillion for every 5 years?

Do you think it's worth diverting troops/resources away from the mission in Afghanistan, and the potentially crucial targets of opportunity that may present themselves in Pakistan?

Do you think an administration filled with people who have never been to war should be directing and dictating their own policies while candidly mocking and ignoring experienced military specialists?

If you can answer this final question with honesty, then I may respect you a bit more :

Why was Shinseki's troop estimate ridiculed and discarded by this administration? Exchange at the Senate Armed Services Committee Below :

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" [14] and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. [1] Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.

It curdles the blood to hear these civilians viciously discard the experience and recommendations of a 4-star general because it's not politically expedient. Any idiot could have told you that Iraq was going to be a total mess unless things were managed with extreme caution, preparation, manpower, and an underlying strategy to unite the nation.

EDIT : Sp

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The only thing different know then in the past is our use of the local tribes instead of training them into a unified army. How long do we give this newest idea before we finally have to face reality?

Petraeus is not just using those tribes as proxy fighters and then not training them or incorporating them into the Iraqi security forces. iirc from yesterday, according to Petraeus, 20,000 Anbar tribe members have joined up with Iraqi security forces, military and police. Doing that brings them into the fold and helps them feel a National identity as well as retain their local identity.

I personally would like to see the "decider" put together an exit strategy. We wouldn't have to be out before he is, but we/HE should have the plan in place so the next President casn hit the ground running.

Maybe the next President can become so by putting together a valid Exit Strategy for their campaign and selling ithat plan to the voters instead of relying on Bush to do it for them?

Instead all we get is the same old song and dance act and in the meantime people are suffering and dying. I care more for our soldiers, but the needless suffering we are causing is dispicable and we need to do something instead of hanging on to the staus quo. I give Petraeus high marks for what he's done so far, but he (and the rest of the war supporters) need to face the reality that his plan just might fail and then address that reality with a REAL exit strategy.

People have suffered and died in Iraq for decades and the vast majority of that time was because of Saddam's actions. If Saddam had remained they would have had no hope for their future because one of his evil little devil children would've taken the reigns. At least now, even though it's very hard for Iraqis at this point, they have a hope for a better future.

btw, thanks for a reasoned post with relatively little of your usual rhetoric. (I tossed in a pinch in my reply just for extra spiceyness.) It was actually a pleasure to read and reply to.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. Sometimes it's difficult to divine between the little rhetorical ninjas in here that I constantly have to thwack with my knowledge nunchucks and then bloody with my staff of eloquent prose, and those who are honestly seeking debate. Those seeking honest debate are a seemingly rare breed in this forum.

Unfortunately, until someone posts the charts online that Petraeus used I really can't provide the information you request. It was a bar chart that he used yesterday that showed a planned troop withdrawal process that extended beyond the surge troop withdrawls. It was basd on certain contingencies being met (such as Iraqi military readiness) and implemented progress reviews along the way. Since he only presented it briefly and only spoke about it for a few minutes it was not possible to gather all the details involved, but it basically described a complete security turnover to Iraqi troops so we could bring ours home. If I happen to run across that chart, and surely someone will post it evenually, I'll be more than happy to provide a link and discuss it then.

No problems.

I look forward to a more in-depth discussion when that information does become widely available. I'll keep searching.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How about an exit strategy that has any dates whatsoever. How about an exit strategy that has anything more concrete to it then incredibly nebulous phrases that can be interpreted to mean whatever the administration wants them to mean?

There are intial dates for the drawdown of the Surge troops. Beyond that we need to look at what has transpired, what needs more (or less attention) and consider many of the variables before the dates after that can be set.

That may not satisfy you doing it that way but that is how it is being done. Besides that it keeps those we are fighting against on their toes womdering what we'll do next. If we say "OK, we'll draw the troops down by so many at this date and so many on the following date." all that serves to do is tell the enemy our plans and let's them know how long they have to cool their heels. Setting hard dates would be foolish in this situation.

I'm so glad you mentioned contingencies though... how about the contingency if this plan fails miserably like every single plan has up to this point. The elephant in the room that Bush so adamantly refuses to even give the 'time of day' to is the contingency rendered most likely by historical precedent. You stated that we had an exit strategy. I am telling you if that passes for an exit strategy then the term you are using is so loosely defined as to deprive it of meaning. "If things turn out how we want then we'll leave" is not a strategy, it's a prayer.

There's a bit more detail then just saying "If things turn out how we want then we'll leave" but you choose to ignore that fact. Since you're being flippant on that point I'm just going to ignore it until you can present your point a bit more rationally.

And what do you mean we don't have a "GOTCHA"? We have four years of "GOTCHA's". And instantaneous failure? How about slow and creeping failure for more then four years? It's not like this Iraq thing just went bad all of a sudden.

You were expecting a perfectly executed plan that went off without a hitch and a quick easy exit? You're a smart guy. Surely you didn't buy into that hype?

And by the way no, the dates set for withdrawing the extra troops from the surge doesn't count for anything. (the part that they usually neglect to mention is that the troops being withdrawn then HAVE to leave then, because the Army/Marines are simply out of troops and couldn't keep them there even if they wanted to).

Proof we are "out of troops?"

PS: Oh, and don't try to continue your stupidity with the Gore thread. Your position was based on ignorance, (funny how you complain about people's ignorance of Patraeus' statements in light of that) and you were flailing around trying to compare global warming to the possibility of proving the existence of god. You are right that I don't like you though... you're far too content with your lack of knowledge.

My position in the Gore thread was based on Al Gore's blatant hypocrisy, a hypocrisy that you refuse to acknowledge and tried to apologise for. The problem was not mine, but yours.

As far as not liking me, the feeling is mutual. You tried to pretend that you wanted rational discussion when what you really wanted was to try and force your opinion on me. You got rather bent out of shape when I didn't see things your way and things went downhill from there. If you're expecting me to have some epiphany based on what you believe, it's not going to happen.

As far as your comment about my "lack of knowledge," I'll just let that slide. It's not worth arguing with you over more of your hyperbole. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would suffer fools. If you didn't think I was smart I doubt you'd waste your time replying to me, so the fact that you are replying pretty much disproves your claim.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. Sometimes it's difficult to divine between the little rhetorical ninjas in here that I constantly have to thwack with my knowledge nunchucks and then bloody with my staff of eloquent prose, and those who are honestly seeking debate. Those seeking honest debate are a seemingly rare breed in this forum.

Unfortunately, until someone posts the charts online that Petraeus used I really can't provide the information you request. It was a bar chart that he used yesterday that showed a planned troop withdrawal process that extended beyond the surge troop withdrawls. It was basd on certain contingencies being met (such as Iraqi military readiness) and implemented progress reviews along the way. Since he only presented it briefly and only spoke about it for a few minutes it was not possible to gather all the details involved, but it basically described a complete security turnover to Iraqi troops so we could bring ours home. If I happen to run across that chart, and surely someone will post it evenually, I'll be more than happy to provide a link and discuss it then.

No problems.

I look forward to a more in-depth discussion when that information does become widely available. I'll keep searching.

Same here. No luck thus far either. Hopefully they'll be made available in the next few days.

 

[1EZduzit]

Petraeus can't answer the question "will continuing his startegy for the Iraqi war make America safer?"

Click on the "Senators grill Gen. Petraeus" link

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Petraeus can't answer the question "will continuing his startegy for the Iraqi war make America safer?"

Click on the "Senators grill Gen. Petraeus" link

It's not Petraeus's question to answer in the first place.

If the anti-war crowd really want to get excited they should have watched Chuck Hagel grill Crocker and Petraeus. He asked the most specific, cogent, and relevant questions to date and really put the hammer down. He was the best Democrat* there.

* For those who don't get the joke* in the last sentence, see - Sarcasm

* the Joke applies to the last sentence only. Hagel WAS very good.

 

[Jhhnn]

My favorite part of all this is how TLC claims nobody but him knows what Petraeus said, without referring to specifics at all...

Mostly, that's because Petraeus didn't offer any beyond a minor drawdown in December in addition to the withdrawal of the surge troops next summer...

If I'm wrong, TLC, then tell me what's right... What did he say?

Then we get the nebulous referral to a chart Petraeus used showing more withdrawals...

Really? Post it up, give us a link...

Probably not... Claiming facts not in evidence is entirely too easy, right?

 

[Lemon law]

Fortunately every side of the debate manages to not only win in the so called Patraeus report, they get to label themselves as the smartest people in the room.

Sadly the American and Iraqi people lose because nothing gets resolved.

And the can gets kicked down the road like a toad.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
My favorite part of all this is how TLC claims nobody but him knows what Petraeus said, without referring to specifics at all...

Mostly, that's because Petraeus didn't offer any beyond a minor drawdown in December in addition to the withdrawal of the surge troops next summer...

If I'm wrong, TLC, then tell me what's right... What did he say?

Then we get the nebulous referral to a chart Petraeus used showing more withdrawals...

Really? Post it up, give us a link...

Probably not... Claiming facts not in evidence is entirely too easy, right?

When it's finally posted online I'll be happy to provide a link, Jhhnn. I'm particularly eager to do so now to serve you up a heaping helping of crow and will post it with much pleasure when it does become available.

Thanks for your twittering. You've done me a great service. :lips:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the weird thing is, good news from Petraeus is a good thing for the anti-war movement.

Bush is going to use it as cover to start withdrawing forces and claim a doublespeak victory.

*cough*

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Petraeus can't answer the question "will continuing his startegy for the Iraqi war make America safer?"

Click on the "Senators grill Gen. Petraeus" link

It's not Petraeus's question to answer in the first place.

If the anti-war crowd really want to get excited they should have watched Chuck Hagel grill Crocker and Petraeus. He asked the most specific, cogent, and relevant questions to date and really put the hammer down. He was the best Democrat* there.

* For those who don't get the joke* in the last sentence, see - Sarcasm

* the Joke applies to the last sentence only. Hagel WAS very good.

I heard Bob Kerry was going to run for Hagels spot, so next year there most likely will be a Democrat there.

I don't agree that it wasn't Petraeus's questoin to answer. He answers to Congress too or he wouldn't be there. Congress has the right to ask a question like that and expect an honest answer... and I think they got one too.

 

[Jhhnn]

Peachy, TLC, except that you really haven't corrected what you claim to be misconceptions on my part wrt what Petraeus did, in fact, say... What did he say about troop strength, beyond the withdrawal of a few thousand in December and the surge troops next summer?

If I'm wrong, then set me straight, tell me what the man did say...

Here's the whole set of Petraeus charts, with you apparently referencing #14...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/petraeus-slides/

and what you said about it on page 3 of this thread-

"Petraeus presented a chart of the planned drawdown of troops that went beyond just the drawdown of surge forces by 08. It provided a plan for MNF withdrawal based on benchmarks being met. It was, in essence, an Exit Strategy so to say we don't have one is being dishonest, at best."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/petraeus-slides/

The latest date on that chart is July 2008, the rest of it to be determined by some cosmic forces, maybe an Ouija board, with the next scheduled draw down to be firmly determind in march 2008, honest, subject to change, of course...

I particularly like the way the timeline scale shortens across the page, lending itself to leaving a false impression... and the ongoing presence of ~50K troops even after the still undetermined period of time...

It's not a plan, it's a sales gimmick, a promotional ploy, a bit of good old fashioned tent evangelism... now they'll pass the hat for an additional $50B...

BTW, it took me all of 5 seconds to google it up...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here's a better link John, at least for those who don't feel like getting their hipwaders on in order to click on talkingpointsmemo.com:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pub...ony-Slides20070910.pdf

Damn "nebulous" charts.

Yep, no plan.

lol

btw the slides just came up online not long ago so your Googling claim is laughable at best, but I won't tell anybody you're hiding behind a bit of BS. Doubtful many would really be surprised if you were anyway.