Crap Throwing Monkey

A misunderstanding is when I say "I like cheese" and you hear "I have to sneeze". When I say "If there's a CIA field commander in a military op, it's !@#$ed up" and you read "Afghanistan is !@#$ed up because of the people that live there" because you're too thick to twig on the key words "field commander" and "military op", that's not a misunderstanding, that's a plain and simple lack of reading comprehension skills (or lying...but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you're simply dense). Which again gets back to what I've been saying: there's a difference between reading about Afghanistan and understanding what you read.

No, it really wasn't funny. Which is not to say that VABills would know funny if it walked up and bit him in the ass. Frankly, considering he thinks Daddy Day Care was a better movie than Saving Private Ryan, it's a safe bet he doesn't know the first thing about funny. But it still wasn't funny.

Hypothetically, even if I were to stipulate that (which I wouldn't, as any halfwit should have been able to discern I was talking about command and control)...that still doesn't explain why you interpreted it as something I never even mentioned. How the hell is it my fault you assumed I was talking about Afghani politics and society when I was talking about the American effort? Or is this just some bull sh-- face-saving attempt by you to try and admit you were wrong without actually saying you were wrong?

No, you replied to what you read...but once again, you didn't understand it and failed to establish context. And it wasn't even difficult. Anyone with half a brain could have twigged that I was talking about US performance and not the Afghani people, by the simple fact that I never mentioned the Afghanis. "Misinterpreted", in this case, is just a fancy word for dodging responsibility for yet again making sh-- up.

In other words, you brought up an irrelevancy. C'mon...say it: "What I said was irrelevent." You can do it. Five little words...

Might be harder than you think. This is Indiana you're talking about. All the Belgians would have to do is throw cups at Ron Artest...

When I mentioned, for the second time, that having a "CIA field commander" indicates a !@#$ed-up situation, and you followed it up with: So either it was a completely irrelevent non-sequiter, or you're blaming the US command-and-control problems I'm talking about on the Afghani people. Take your pick...either way, you're a moron for bringing it up. How you want to be a moron - either by introducing a completely irrelevent non-sequiter, or by making a clearly dumbshit statement - is up to you.

Pickle juice? Or is that optional?

I'd believe you...except I've never known a Marine who'd turn down a goat. Though I will admit the possibility that you're intimidated by them because they're so much taller than you...

Goats don't control my life. What's with the goat obsession, anyway?

So now it's the Afghani's fault Bernstein didn't get his 600 Rangers? Like I've been saying: there's a difference between reading something and understanding it. What, you can't think for yourself? Try learning something about the history of the region before 2001. It gets to my other point: context. Bernstein doesn't have any. Neither do you. You don't realize it, because you don't understand, you just read.

As well you should. It really wasn't that funny.

The difference is, we have lower standards for VA. We know he's not funny. But we expect more from you.

Actually, he just admitted the possibility that he could be mistaken about my reading habits. Which is awfully !@#$ing generous of him, considering how much insight he has on the topic...

More than that; I understood it. Particularly, I understood that a "CIA field commander" bitching about military support in a military operation relying on indigenous troops is little more than ass-covering. The simple fact that a "CIA field commander" (what the !@#$ is that supposed to be?) was on the scene demonstrates that it was a !@#$ed-up situation WELL before the fighting started, and your whole "600 Rangers" nonsense is just that: nonsense. Bernstein comes of as someone who's trying to make his role bigger than it actually was, in an attempt to shift blame - when he's not actually inventing it - all over the place to protect his own rep.

Where did I say I haven't read it? You're making sh-- up again.

You have to ask? Scraps might be very good at reading...but there's a difference between reading and understanding. It's also why he's accepts Bernstein at face vaule with absolutely no critical thought on the points of the book...or even any attempt to put Berenstein's points into the greater context of Afghani social fabric and history. He reads it, therefore it is Holy Writ, be it from you, BiB, or anyone else. Context is for suckers.

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

But upon reflection...it can't be much worse than how Donahoe built the team...

But why'd you bring Bill Clinton into the discussion?

I was at the bookstore this weekend; he's got a new book out. Fiction. With the tag line "Sometimes you can tell more truth through fiction."

I'm not looking until I get independent verification that it's not some Linda Blair screaming head stupidity.

The wife wants me to sell it anyway.

WRT Bernstein...I think the simple fact that there was a "CIA field commander" in a military operation has more to do with any "failures" at Tora Bora than anything else. Either Bernstein's self-titled...and full of sh--. Or he was apparently in the chain of command...which is indicative of far larger problems than his simplistic complaint of "We didn't get the extra Rangers we asked for", and he's STILL full of sh--.

Ebola Reston. Wile E. Lizardman specifically mentions Ebola Reston is 1) airborne, and 2) 90% lethal. He just neglects to mention that it's only lethal to monkeys.