Senator Dodd gives it a shot: Indeed. We've never really had a strategy in Iraq... hence the difficulty in defining what "winning" means. We pursue tactics dressed up as strategy and discuss strategy that ends up being nothing more than tactics.
To try and elevate the level of discussion here. This is what you said. I've bolded the part where you used different words to say exactly what I accurately claimed you did. You also said this So you did some fortune telling yourself, and certainly used words at least equal to leaving Iraq in chaos. Why do you even try and deny it. You got caught. I didn't attack you. I attacked your arguments which is what one does in a debate.
i have a theory that dm and newyorker are the same person. their posting styles are way too similar. donkey magic is to new yorker as trader jorge is to bigtexx (r.i.p. )
Well, Indeed I did say it. I also said it was a risk to descend into chaos and that's what I really meant...sometimes you don't always couch statements each and every time. But calling someone a fool isn't going to elevate conversation, and you have done that. So don't deny you haven't attacked in this thread, you have. "You are a fool" was your first statement to me, and then talking about elevating the discussion and denying that comment amongst others is disingenious at best.
I did call say that. I think anyone who listens to the administration and their toadies(which I believe Petraeus is) and believes what they say regarding Iraq in the face of counter-evidence is a fool. How many times can one buy into the same line of falsehoods and not be a fool. I won't deny that I did call you a fool. I'm not trying to deny that. But it was unrelated to our current discussion. Thank you for taking responsibility for your previous statements.
ive noticed them replying to and/or chirping in for each other on a few occasions, including the previous page of this very thread. dm at 4:25 and ny at 4:29...hmm.
Well, I think it's debateable whether or not Petraeus is a toadie of Bush,but that's not a debate that will lead anywhere. So my only point is you can't talk about elevating a debate when you basic premise is that I am a fool. It's very much related to any discussion we'll have.
3...2...1. Waiting for NYer to somehow discount why that devastating op/ed doesn't mean much. His indictment of congressional Republicans is on the money. The GOP's unwavering support of Bush on the war shows they have abandoned their supposed principles. If a Democratic president had invaded Iraq and ruined the situation like Bush, Republicans would have burned the White House down by now.
Based on his experiences from a year and a half ago - so he hasn't been able to assess the current situation. It's clear we're making progress against the insurgency right now, and yet you insist on beating the drum of disaster. While the situation isn't good, it certain has improved in the last few months, and this has been recognized by democrats as well. That's all anyone is really saying, yet it's really hard for you to accept. Why?
