Dems are the party of National Security?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Really? Where in this thread did I falsely attribute comments to you?

 

Hypocrite, thy name is Scraps.

650723[/snapback]

 

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

[KRC]

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

650729[/snapback]

 

You'll have to ask Scraps.

[Scraps]

Where in this thread did I falsely attribute comments to you?

650723[/snapback]

 

I don't know that you did. You did state the following

 

As far as Afghanistan, I imagine that the troops there are real pleased with the Dems saying that they are not doing a good enough job (oh, yeah, it is not their fault. It is Bush's fault since Bush is the one on the ground running the operations). "Yeah troops. You suck."

 

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.

[KRC]

I don't know that you did.

650735[/snapback]

 

...but you did to both BiB and myself and are incapable of admitting it, even though the evidence is in plain view within this thread. Why is it so hard for you to admit your mistake?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

...but you did to both BiB and myself and are incapable of admitting it, even though the evidence is in plain view within this thread. Why is it so hard for you to admit your mistake?

650746[/snapback]

 

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.

[KRC]

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.

650756[/snapback]

 

Context? Why the hell would you want to put it in context? It would make things way too complicated.

[Scraps]

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.

650756[/snapback]

 

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

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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

650775[/snapback]

 

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

[Scraps]

...but you did to both BiB and myself and are incapable of admitting it, even though the evidence is in plain view within this thread. Why is it so hard for you to admit your mistake?

650746[/snapback]

 

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

[Scraps]

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

650777[/snapback]

 

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?

[KRC]

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?

650780[/snapback]

 

Oh...yeah...you apologize to him for making sh-- up, but refuse to apologize to BiB and me.

[KRC]

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

650778[/snapback]

 

Why won't you admit your mistake?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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?

650780[/snapback]

 

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.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Oh...yeah...you apologize to him for making sh-- up, but refuse to apologize to BiB and me.

650791[/snapback]

 

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...

[Scraps]

Why won't you admit your mistake?

650792[/snapback]

 

Why don't you go first? You're the first one to put words into other peoples mouths. Here is what you said

 

As far as Afghanistan, I imagine that the troops there are real pleased with the Dems saying that they are not doing a good enough job (oh, yeah, it is not their fault. It is Bush's fault since Bush is the one on the ground running the operations). "Yeah troops. You suck."

 

Where in the documents in question does anyone criticize the troops?

[Scraps]

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,

650794[/snapback]

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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.

 

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.

 

You have some points, but until others who were involved contradict him,

650809[/snapback]

 

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.

[KRC]

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?

650803[/snapback]

 

So, you are not going to admit your mistake?

[KRC]

Actually, he just admitted the possibility that he could be mistaken about my reading habits.

 

650797[/snapback]

 

Scraps is having a pretty bad day. People are not just sitting around and allowing him lie about what they said (or did not say). Shame.

[Scraps]

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.

650812[/snapback]

 

Speaking of putting words in other people's mouths, where did I fault the Afghans for Bernsten not getting 600 Rangers.

 

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.

 

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.