Main > Everything Else
"Propagannon" confirmed : Fake reporter in WH press conferences.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on February 14, 2005, 09:37:08 am ---
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 14, 2005, 01:38:30 am ---
No Plan - Said the man who supports a president w/ no post-war plan in Iraq.
--- End quote ---
Really? Why do you assume that?
--- End quote ---
It has nothing to do with assumptions. Maybe I should have added no "realistic" and/or "feasible" post-war plan, to be more clear. He hasn't provided our troops w/ enough armor because he didn't think we'd be policing the streets in the middle of an insurgency ("Greeted as liberators!!", "Flowers & candy!!"). He originally intended to "hand over" Iraq to Chalabi and his crew, until he turned out to be an Iranian spy. That's some plan!! He has yet to set-up an infrastructure capable of training enough Iraqi troops to take over these duties as well. The latest counts show that as little as 5000 Iraqis have been trained to combat ready levels. This administration seem to be throwing guys in uniforms, with little or no training, unarmed in some cases...just to inflate the numbers.
"Instead, only figures for troops "on hand" are issued. The small number of soldiers, national guardsmen and police capable of operating against the country's bloody insurgency is concealed in an overall total of Iraqis in uniform, which includes raw recruits and police who have gone on duty after as little as three weeks' training. In some cases they have no weapons, body armor or even documents to show they are in the police.
The resulting confusion over numbers has allowed the US administration to claim that it is half-way to meeting the target of training almost 270,000 Iraqi forces, including around 52,000 troops and 135,000 Iraqi policemen. The reality, according to experts, is that there may be as few as 5,000 troops who could be considered combat ready"
--- Quote ---While I disagree with being there or having gone there, I suspect I understand what he is trying to do and I do see a plan.
--- End quote ---
Having a desired goal, is *not* the same as having a solvent plan for achieving it.
mrC
mr.Curmudgeon:
Well, in a more than likely vain attempt to get this thread back on track:
"BIG Gannon story coming tomorrow"
by John in DC - 2/13/2005 07:26:00 PM
I'm wrapping it up now. It's big. Very big. I've just contacted him for comment. If he now decides to go public to pre-empt my story, well, you heard it here first. Stay tuned."
Stay tuned people...I hope this pans out. Sounds exciting. I bet Drew can't wait!!
EDIT: Our first hint.
"The watch was a very important clue. Kudos to whomever of you noticed it first a few days ago. Here's another new photo of it you haven't seen before:"
(via: AMERICAblog)
mrC: I certainly hope this is something interesting, since we already know Guckert *is* "Gannon", we didn't need the watch to conclude that. Hmmm....remember, this story has always been bigger than just "Gannon". Drew/fredster, et al. seem to think it's about journalistic integrity, but it's more about the people linked to "Gannon" than anything else. Hopefully, soon, he will become insignificant and we can move to the real "meat" of the story.
mrC
ChadTower:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 14, 2005, 10:14:09 am ---Having a desired goal, is *not* the same as having a solvent plan for achieving it.
--- End quote ---
That appears to the the difference between our opinions. I see a purpose and a plan, both working well. They don't jibe with STATED goals or plans, but I see what I believe to be a coherent plan proceeding fully.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on February 14, 2005, 10:30:09 am ---
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 14, 2005, 10:14:09 am ---Having a desired goal, is *not* the same as having a solvent plan for achieving it.
--- End quote ---
That appears to the the difference between our opinions.
--- End quote ---
Definitely. Out of curiosity though, not that I'm trying to pin anything on you, but what would need to happen for you to consider the plan to be not working?
So far, from my perspective, all Bush has managed to do is take a uniquely secular Arab state and align it more closely with the theocracy next door. Somehow, I have trouble imagining that is part of a "successful strategy" in Iraq.
"But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say."
mrC
ChadTower:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 14, 2005, 10:57:41 am ---Definitely. Out of curiosity though, not that I'm trying to pin anything on you, but what would need to happen for you to consider the plan to be not working?
--- End quote ---
I would conclude that it is NOT working if I could NOT think of a plausible goal based on the evidence I can see. I can see a reason for it to be the way it is, an intentional reason that would in fact be the type of military stratagem that would not be disclosable to the general public. I have faith that it is our seasoned military leaders, and not Bush himself, that are truly running the strategy. Presidents are not military strategists, they simply choose an option from many given them by their professional military men.
If one changes the goal from Democratic, independent, self sufficient Iraq to dependent, unstable Iraq requiring our military presence, the plan could be proceeding well. It is certainly to OUR best military advantage to have a required military presence in Iraq for quite some time.
I consider things a total failure only when I consider myself intelligent enough and in possession of enough information that I cannot see a way to success. I see ways for them to be succeeding in their plans so I will not conclude it to be a true failure yet.