Dems are the party of National Security?

[Ghost of BiB]

THAT is an excellent question.  It's also the one that the administration, in their marketing stupidity, hasn't answered well.  (At this point, I'm not even sure they could: they're not exactly the personfication of coherent and intelligent answers, any coherent and intelligent answer would get twisted to something overwhelmingly negative anyway.)

649363[/snapback]

 

If "something other that what was there" is the answer, they already are.

 

Things tend to drift back to a point of comfortable equilibrium. And that's what we are trying to change. Many forget that the whole region was the Ottoman Empire up until about 1920, and some of these people have long memories. France owned Syria, Great Britain owned Iraq. GB originally started the Jewish Homeland thingy in Palestine. And, after become allied with Nazi Germany they ended up all getting screwed around again after the war.

 

Autonomous democratically elected governments that aren't trying to kill the other party? Is that the answer? Maybe the borders need to be re-looked, but I doubt Iran would have much interest there.

[Scraps]

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."

647049[/snapback]

 

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?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

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?

649562[/snapback]

Now that is a good question???, speaking of double double standards. But there is part of the Dem P.R. problem, we have never been very good at countering that one. Part of it is because those argueing against don't care what the answer is, they just keep repeating the same old lies.

 

We are getting better at countering it, but the lie part still rubs too many off us the wrong way. Clinton was good at it, but he is the exception, rather than the rule.

[Ghost of BiB]

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?

649562[/snapback]

 

Yup.

[Scraps]

Yup.

649853[/snapback]

 

So you disagree with KRC then? We are okay to criticize Bush for mistakes in Afghanistan?

[Ghost of BiB]

So you disagree with KRC then?  We are okay to criticize Bush for mistakes in Afghanistan?

649857[/snapback]

 

I think it's OK to criticize anyone. Just make sure the basis of the argument is accurate, encompases everything involved, and not constructed through cherry picked information. Often, that's the hard part.

 

The entire war room of the Bush admin needs to be taken out behind the woodshed for post invasion Iraq (I still agree with going in). Afghanistan is apples to oranges what Iraq is.

 

Where am I disagreeing with Ken?

[Scraps]

I think it's OK to criticize anyone. Just make sure the basis of the argument is accurate, and not constructed through cherry picked information. Often, that's the hard part.

 

The entire war room of the Bush admin needs to be taken out behind the woodshed for post invasion Iraq (I still agree with going in). Afghanistan is apples to oranges what Iraq is.

 

Where am I disagreeing with Ken?

649864[/snapback]

 

Your ilatlicized quote is quite interesting. I'd say that same thing regarding the basis for selling this country on a war.

 

Ken is hiding behind the troops in the Afghan argument. He is saying that any criticism of the Afghan campaign is defacto a criticism of the troops because it is the troops on the ground that are running the operations. If that is true, the same is true for Somalia. It was troops on the ground that decided to make a daytime snatch in the middle of Mogadishu.

[Clinton, Bill]

Is it okay to criticize Clinton for Somalia?

649562[/snapback]

 

No.

 

But it is OK to criticize me for getting a BJ from a fat chick.

[Scraps]

No.

 

But it is OK to criticize me for getting a BJ from a fat chick.

649869[/snapback]

 

Which one?

[Ghost of BiB]

Your ilatlicized quote is quite interesting.  I'd say that same thing regarding the basis for selling this country on a war.

 

Ken is hiding behind the troops in the Afghan argument.  He is saying that any criticism of the Afghan campaign is defacto a criticism of the troops because it is the troops on the ground that are running the operations.  If that is true, the same is true for Somalia.  It was troops on the ground that decided to make a daytime snatch in the middle of Mogadishu.

649868[/snapback]

 

Which was a tactical decision well within their purview. In Mogadishu, Clinton wanted to maintain a low profile, and refused them armor and gunship support. After the Rangers and Delta basically got chewed to pieces, he stood the operation down to avoid public backlash over American troops being killed. With the Bosnia thing, the official mandate given to the Pentagon by the WH was that there would be NO, repeat no American casualties. You can form whatever impression or opinion you want on that, but it makes for difficult war planning.

 

In Afghanistan, the people on the ground ARE running the operations. There is one very specialized task force in particular working there that has basically free reign. Outside of certain diplomatic issues involving Pakistan, Washington pretty much stays out of it. So, maybe Ken has a point. Iraq as I said, is a different animal. Iraq's problems are more political than military. Afghanistan's are still more military (and covert type ops) than political.

[Scraps]

Which was a tactical decision well within their purview. In Mogadishu, Clinton wanted to maintain a low profile, and refused them armor and gunship support. After the Rangers and Delta basically got chewed to pieces, he stood the operation down to avoid public backlash over American troops being killed. With the Bosnia thing, the official mandate given to the Pentagon by the WH was that there would be NO, repeat no American casualties. You can form whatever impression or opinion you want on that, but it makes for difficult war planning.

 

In Afghanistan, the people on the ground ARE running the operations. There is one very specialized task force in particular working there that has basically free reign. Outside of certain diplomatic issues involving Pakistan, Washington pretty much stays out of it. So, maybe Ken has a point. Iraq as I said, is a different animal. Iraq's problems are more political than military. Afghanistan's are still more military (and covert type ops) than political.

649875[/snapback]

 

Requests for 800 Rangers to block the escape routes from Tora Bora were denied. Requests regarding the number of Apache helicopters were denied. Requests for artillery were denied. Requests for an increase in CIA operatives were denied. With the exception of the CIA issue, these decisions were based on a desire to maintain a small footprint. Still our troops make tactical decisions using the assets on hand. I'd say that is remarkably similar to Somalia, except Clinton gets blamed and Bush skates.

[Ghost of BiB]

Requests for 800 Rangers to block the escape routes from Tora Bora were denied.  Requests regarding the number of Apache helicopters were denied.  Requests for artillery were denied.  Requests for an increase in CIA operatives were denied.  With the exception of the CIA issue, these decisions were based on a desire to maintain a small footprint.  Still our troops make tactical decisions using the assets on hand.  I'd say that is remarkably similar to Somalia, except Clinton gets blamed and Bush skates.

649888[/snapback]

 

You basing this argument on Bernsten?

 

I wasn't aware that he was within the CENTCOM chain of command.

[Scraps]

You basing this argument on Bernsten?

 

I wasn't aware that he was within the CENTCOM chain of command.

649895[/snapback]

 

Bernsten, Naylor and others. What is wrong with that? Are you saying Bernsten had no interaction with CENTCOM? Are you saying the CIA had no involvement in Afghanistan? Do we have to wait for somone from CENTCOM to make public a criticsims before it is deemed legitimate? Can a soldier criticize his superiors publically? If someone in CENTCOM did reveal issues regarding the disposition of units, wouldn't they be revealing classified information. Wouldn't they then be attacked as traitors? Nice Catch 22. Seems to met that you are trying to build a protective cocoon to protect Bush from legitimate criticism.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Bernsten, Naylor and others.  What is wrong with that?    Are you saying Bernsten had no interaction with CENTCOM?  Are you saying the CIA had no involvement in Afghanistan?  Do we have to wait for somone from CENTCOM to make public a criticsims before it is deemed legitimate?  Can a soldier criticize his superiors publically?  If someone in CENTCOM did reveal issues regarding the disposition of units, wouldn't they be revealing classified information.  Wouldn't they then be attacked as traitors?  Nice Catch 22.  Seems to met that you are trying to build a protective cocoon to protect Bush from legitimate criticism.

649916[/snapback]

Sneeky isn't he, need to send him a Gollum avatar!

[Ghost of BiB]

Bernsten, Naylor and others.  What is wrong with that?    Are you saying Bernsten had no interaction with CENTCOM?  Are you saying the CIA had no involvement in Afghanistan?  Do we have to wait for somone from CENTCOM to make public a criticsims before it is deemed legitimate?  Can a soldier criticize his superiors publically?  If someone in CENTCOM did reveal issues regarding the disposition of units, wouldn't they be revealing classified information.  Wouldn't they then be attacked as traitors?  Nice Catch 22.  Seems to met that you are trying to build a protective cocoon to protect Bush from legitimate criticism.

649916[/snapback]

 

No, Bernsten was the only reference I'm familiar with off the top of my head, he's the one who wanted the 600 rangers and CENTCOM told him no. As far as the CIA quip, that's sort of dumb to ask me since Bernsten is CIA. I'm not trying to build a cocoon around Bush, but those were Tommy Frank's calls. I think there is plenty of room in Iraq to pick on W for letting his inmates run the asylum.

[Scraps]

No, Bernsten was the only reference I'm familiar with off the top of my head, he's the one who wanted the 600 rangers and CENTCOM told him no. As far as the CIA quip, that's sort of dumb to ask me since Bernsten is CIA. I'm not trying to build a cocoon around Bush, but those were Tommy Frank's calls. I think there is plenty of room in Iraq to pick on W for letting his inmates run the asylum.

649925[/snapback]

 

When attacking a critic doesn't work, find someone to fall on his sword, blame it on Franks. Plausible deniability Bush can not be blamed. The buck does not stop at the White House, at least not as long as GWB is president.

[Ghost of BiB]

When attacking a critic doesn't work, find someone to fall on his sword, blame it on Franks.  Plausible deniability  Bush can not be blamed.  The buck does not stop at the White House, at least not as long as GWB is president.

649935[/snapback]

 

OK, Bush bad.

[Scraps]

OK, Bush bad.

649941[/snapback]

 

Typical PPP discussion.

 

Step 1. Ignore the points made, attack the person making the points

 

Step 2. Find a scape goat

 

Step 3. Innoculate the discussion with "Bush Bad" and other assorted one liners. I'm sure the back slap society will be here soon to add some hot pockets and dings for you.

[Ghost of BiB]

Typical PPP discussion. 

 

Step 1.  Ignore the points made, attack the person making the points

 

Step 2.  Find a scape goat

 

Step 3.   Innoculate the discussion with "Bush Bad" and other assorted one liners.  I'm sure the back slap society will be here soon to add some hot pockets and dings for you.

649951[/snapback]

 

Once again, no. I just don't think Bush was sitting in the CENTCOM J33. Maybe he was, but I doubt it. I'm not ignoring the points made, either. There was a particular strategy and OPLAN lined out for Afghanistan and whether anyone thinks it was flawed or not, it's what was being worked with. Hell, friggen Al Jazeera has one of the more comprehensive write ups on it. If you are convinced that the way normal military operations works is to receive personal presidential approval for deploying a battalion or a helicopter company, I can't stop you. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? More to the point, what do you want me to say? The Somalia debacle was some Ad Hoc sidebar not related to the UN committment. The Admin had their hands much more directly involved there as it was a sidebar project. Cinton himself made calls. When you can show me that Bush personally approved or disapproved field generated resource requests, I'll take this more seriously. I don't think even Bush thinks he has enough of a clue to make those calls. I don't think it even made it to Rumsfeld.

[Scraps]

Once again, no. I just don't think Bush was sitting in the CENTCOM J33. Maybe he was, but I doubt it. I'm not ignoring the points made, either. There was a particular strategy and OPLAN lined out for Afghanistan and whether anyone thinks it was flawed or not, it's what was being worked with. Hell, friggen Al Jazeera has one of the more comprehensive write ups on it. If you are convinced that the way normal military operations works is to receive personal presidential approval for deploying a battalion or a helicopter company, I can't stop you. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? More to the point, what do you want me to say?

649955[/snapback]

 

That the Commander in Chief is responsible for what happens under his command? That principle applies to Captains in the Navy. They are relieved for mistakes happening under their command whether they have the watch at the time of the mistake or not.

 

As for the OPLAN, when do you break from the OPLAN? If your intelligence sources on the ground who paid and are working directly with your surrogate army tells you that your surrogate army is unreliable and not anxious to engage the enemy, is that a good time to break from the OPLAN?

 

The Somalia debacle was some Ad Hoc sidebar not related to the UN committment. The Admin had their hands much more directly involved there as it was a sidebar project. Cinton himself made calls. When you can show me that Bush personally approved or disapproved field generated resource requests, I'll take this more seriously. I don't think even Bush thinks he has enough of a clue to make those calls. I don't think it even made it to Rumsfeld.

 

We could have a discussion about mistakes in Somalia and who was responsible for what. I'd probably agree with you on many mistakes attributable to Clinton but I believe that is best left to another thread. However, if Clinton was more heavily involved in Somalia, which you describe as a sidebar, than Bush was in Afghanistan, which was a war we had to fight after over 3,000 of our citizens were killed, that doesn't say much positive about either administration.