Scraps

I don't believe you provided much context, hence it is understandable for someone misinterpret which part of the Afghan conflict you are talking about. However if you are in know it all pit bull mode, you may be unable or unwilling to understand that and give someone some leeway during a conversation.

I don't believe I was being irrelevant. I was replying to what you said, though I don't claim to have the mind reading capabilities that you think you enjoy. Hence I misinterpretted what part of the war led to the !@#$ed up situation you referred to.

I'm not blaming it on the Afghani people. An yeah, it was a bizare situation, which doesn't seem all the surprising since it was a unique war.

Just not gonna let you skate. Your trying to make this issue about me because you don't want to answer the questions. This is what you said Where in the documents in question does anyone criticize the troops?

Speaking of putting words in other people's mouths, where did I fault the Afghans for Bernsten not getting 600 Rangers. I have read a few books to get a better understanding of the history of the region, and I have a few more I intend to read. Bernsten does have some history in the region, as he was deployed to Afghanistan in 1999 as I recall. By the way, Swami, if your going to lecture me on what I don't comprehend about a particular book, you might want to at least spell the author's name correctly.

Whoa, a !@#$ed up situation in Afghanistan where a nutball group of religious fanatics control 80% of the country and a bunch of fueding warlords control the rest. Gee, thanks for setting me straight. You have some points, but until others who were involved contradict him, I'm not going to say he is inventing stuff. I'll take his POV into consideration as well as others with a degree of caution. What reputation is he trying to protect? Who knew about him just 2 years ago?

Why don't you go first? You're the first one to put words into other peoples mouths. Here is what you said Where in the documents in question does anyone criticize the troops?

I made an assumption based on your reply to someone who heard about the book on the radio. I could be mistaken. If so, I aplogize. Have you read it?

Well why don't you just answer the questions I posed and this whole thing could be cleared right up.

It is one of several sources. I hardly take it as gospel. You however have damned it without even reading it.

I don't know that you did. You did state the following Try as I might, I could not find any example of Democrats blaming the troops in Afghanistan in the documents that started this whole thread. Isn't that putting words in peoples mouths? Hence I asked you some questions. You have been dodging ever since. Mind you, I am highly skeptical of the Democrats and have stated so in this thread.

Hypocrite thy name is Ken.

These were your comments Ken that started this I asked you questions to clarify these and you have been avoiding those questions ever since. I think its because you know full well that the Democrats have not criticized the troops and you don't want to admit you were wrong.

Actually Ken, your the one making ups comments. You won't answer because you know you'd be exposed as a fraud.

During the Afghan operation, I wondered about the stories of larger numbers of jihadists coming in from Pakistan. I didn't understand why these convoys weren't attacked to discourage people from joining the fight. Bernsten claimed that they knew about the people coming in and made a conscious decision to allow as many of them as possible to get in, get them to the front lines, cut them off from escape and kill them so the US wouldn't have to face them in the future.

No, just saying you couldn't B word if you actually answered the questions.

Having read Bernsten's book "Jawbreaker : The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander" and Schroen's book "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan", it is pretty clear that the CIA was days or weeks ahead of the military in many places. It would appear that they were willing to take greater chances. Bernsten describes a good working relationship with the military. He is also highly complimentary of GWB and Franks except in one respect. I would suspect that a large part of the decision to not use rangers in Tora Bora had to do with the fear within the CENTCOM and the government of losing public support for the war should some soldiers lose their lives either in action or due to an accident. I say this because it is a fear that is often repeated in almost any military operation these days, because he describes the possible loss of support to the Northern Alliance should a singl US Spec Ops soldier losees their life and because of the change in operating procedures the CIA placed on their operatives after Mike Spann was killed. As for a civilian being in charge of Tora Bora, well most of the operatives were ex-military and control was supposed to be turned over to a military officer and there were special forces soldiers there. I think a bigger issue was the way the Afghans would fight, returning to their families every night during Ramadan and having to retake the same ground every day, and the fact that the Afghans, the Pushtuns in particular, would gladly take our money but were just as glad to be bought off by Al Qaeda. Several key commanders were fight us just a few week earlier. How reliable were they?

Well if you answered the question, you couldn't B word about me making up your comments.

Actually I gave you the answer I was looking for earlier in this thread. Who's making sh-- up now?

Well, if you would actually answer the questions originally posed, maybe there could be a discussion. I'm not trying to engage in a Mickey topic, though I doubt there is any chance of convincing you otherwise.

No, I'm actually trying to have a discussion about the responsibilities of the president and when they can be criticized. I am drawing similarities between two administrations and how they are viewed. You and BiB are claiming that Bush can not be criticized wrt Afghanistan.

Brings us full circle. I asked you a question. You basically said read BiBs responses. If you disagree with his responses, answer the question yourself.

Did I claim you brought up Clinton? Where did I do that? I've been pretty specific that I asked a question. You are simply dodging it.

You seem to imply that the sources I used were not balanced.

In the original question I asked, which I have repeated below since you have such a hard time going back and seeing it Can you show me where the Democrats are criticizing the troops in Afghanistan? Why isn't it legitimate to criticize the administration for failing to provide either troops, equipment or unified command to succesfully prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Is it okay to criticize Clinton for Somalia?