Scraps

BiB's statement is that Bush can not be blamed. Where did I accept that his argument that Bush can not be blamed?

Well then your not being consistent. What did you mean by this?

Nose Pick Mission Accomplished!

Because they were shelved in favor of plans by ne'er-do-well neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Steve Combone, Scooter Libby etc who were convinced that we would be welcomed as liberators and a government led by the likes of Chalabi could be flown in to lead the country.

I don't know that I am blaming them so much as 1) Pointing out that people in the field in Afghanistan have not received the assets they have requested. 2) Expressing skepticism regarding the rational for not providing those assets, i.e. that the Eastern Alliance was eager to engage and destroy Al Qaeda at Tora Bora when intelligence assets involved in the actual combat claim just the opposite.

Deify them? Who am I deifying? You show an amazing lack of reading comprehension. If I deified anyone who criticized Bush, I'd be would be praising the Democratic Agenda, which I have actually criticized. I'd be praising Kerry and Gore. I would not be praising Zinni and Bernsten, who have either endorsed Bush at one time or are far more complimentary that critical of Bush. That charge is just stupid but is consistent with a hypocrite who can't defend his position, so he tries to change the topic. Re-read the statement. I accept his statement as to why one might be worse than the other, not why Bush should be held blameless, which goes back to the original question I asked that you have continuously dodged.

Contrary to the mind reading simians claims, I took Bernsten's piece as just that, a first person account. I thought his writings were frequently over the top, reminding me of a John Wayne movie at times, but he did provide information that dovetailed with what I was reading at the time and accounts by his predecessor in Jawbreaker, Gary Schroen. With respect to Tora Bora, Bernsten provided some details that dovetailed well with open source material I read a few years agos and added some details. He claims that we knew Bin Laden was in Tora Bora based on conversations overheard on a radio. The person who heard this was a CIA linguist who had listened to Bin Laden tapes. He also describes a cease fire in which Al Qaeda wanted to discuss surrender terms. During this time some of the Pushtun surrogates took food and water into Tora Bora and described three people, who looked liked Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and one of Bin Laden's sons. Frank's claims that we didn't know Bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Frank's claims that the Eastern alliance was eager to engage Al Qaeda. Bernsten claims just the opposite. Do you really believe that Pushtuns, some of whom were fighting on behalf of the Taliban just a couple of weeks earlier, were eager to engage Al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense to me.

I has nothing to do with whether or not the response was in line with what I wanted. To insinuate that it was is putting words in my mouth. I guess its okay if you do it Mr Hypocrite. I might accept BiBs arguments and a rational as to why Clinton was worse. I do not see them as a rational to give Bush a pass. This nonsense that the campaigns were executed differently is simply that, nonsense. Are two campaigns ever executed identically? Can your excuses be more lame?

Here are a couple of links to articles I've saved regarding Zinni Zinni at the Middle East Institute Washington Post article on Zinni shortly after Saddam's capture

I remember a discussion we had a couple of years ago regarding whether or not there were "thousands" of casualties in the war in Iraq. You fought long and hard but finally agreed that the "s" at the end of "thousands" was indeed accurate. I know you pride yourself on being an obstinante ass at times. This is one of those times.

No, its from a number of cooberative stories. Zinni's discussion is but one of them.

I'd be shocked but former former SEC NAV James Webb is challenging George Allen in Virginia. I could understand it in a state race like Virginia but have a hard time imagining NY or California Democrats going for Zinni.

Well, they were in previous CENTCOM plans. They were in Frank's original plans. Pity he let Rumsfeld erode that away.

I'll see if I can dig up some articles on him, but from what I've read in the past, he describes himself as a Richard Lugar type of conservative. I can't see him being nominated. He simply isn't liberal enough.

I'm not following you. Zinni was a Republican. He was courted by the Democrats during the last election and rebuffed them. He made it pretty clear that while he did agree with many of the decisions Bush made, but he thought Kerry would be worse. So, where are you going with this?

I doubt it with Zinni.

His legacy it tied to the decisions he made while he was serving. Do you really expect him to change his tune now?

Zinni is, or at least as of the last election was, a Republican and a frustrated one at that. He pointedly refused to endorse Kerry in the last election.

No we aren't. Your just being obtuse.

No, my point was that given the !@#$ed up nature of Afghanistan, and for that matter all its neighboring countries, we had a rather unique war, during the course of which you can find !@#$ed up situations.

That assumes that they get the resources they need to do the job. I've questioned whether or not they have received those resources. I've based that upon Bernsten, Naylor and some other authors. But Jeez o Flip if you suggest anything negative about Bush on this board some people go nuts. Bernsten is actually profuse in his praise of Bush and considers the Ranger issue a blemish on a masterpiece but if the guy finds one flaw he is dismissed or piloried. I wasn't trying to deflect things to Clinton. I don't even like the guy and used examples of his "leadership" as to why I didn't buy into the Democratic documents. I was, however, pointing out that he has frequently been criticized for not providing assetts that were requested on a military mission. There are many ways to deal with this. One could disagree that Clinton was responsible in Somalia and remain consistent. One could come up with a rational on why Clinton's mistake was more egregious. There may be others, but to say that one administration can be blamed and another can not seems two faced to me.

I didn't say it was your fault that I mistook the precise issue you were talking about. Its not uncommon for misunderstanding happen to normal people. Gonna keep going after the red meat?

Of course you will quit now. You were the first person to put words in others mouths and you can't possibly discuss it. Here is what you said Where in the document the Democrats say to the troops "you suck"?

Begging? Hardly.

I apologize for stating that you and BiB just want to say "Clinton Bad" or something to that effect. Now how about you answer the questions?