Obama looking for Afganistan Exit Strategy

[nodoginnafight]

You again and obviously did not read the link to McChrystal's recommendations, or you are now deliberately lying about it.

Oh I read it, but your characterization of what it contains leads me to believe that you have not. On the Time-critical element that you describe like a unit being over run and suffering heavily casulaties while waiting for help from a dithering commander - McChrstal describes it very differently:
" ... but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) ..."
Paints a very different picture than you did - did you do that deliberately or was it a case of just not understanding what you read?

Did you understand that the overwhelming emphasis was a recommendation to change the strategy and approach? Do you understand that McChrystal was ASKING the president to review strategy? Are you aware that the main emphasis of your link is a review of strategy and NOT a "plea for help from those in harm's way" as you describe?

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

Your apologies certainly are inconsistent with your claim of non-partisanship.

A military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The "Good War","Changing the Tone of Washington","Hope and Change"...Blah Blah Blah! Simple mantras for simple minds. They are all lies in the end. More & more people are beginning to see this. How sad.

 

[Si modo]

Oh I read it, but your characterization of what it contains leads me to believe that you have not. On the Time-critical element that you describe like a unit being over run and suffering heavily casulaties while waiting for help from a dithering commander - McChrstal describes it very differently:
" ... but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) ..."
Paints a very different picture than you did - did you do that deliberately or was it a case of just not understanding what you read?

Did you understand that the overwhelming emphasis was a recommendation to change the strategy and approach? Do you understand that McChrystal was ASKING the president to review strategy? Are you aware that the main emphasis of your link is a review of strategy and NOT a "plea for help from those in harm's way" as you describe?

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

Your apologies certainly are inconsistent with your claim of non-partisanship.

A military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

One phrase, out of context, in that entire file? You are reaching to apologize for the one you worship.

As I said, a military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Your apologies certainly are inconsistent with your claim of non-partisanship.

A military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

One line, out of context in that entire file? You are reaching to apologize for the one you worship.

As I said, a military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

In perfect context and EXACTLY on point, from McChrystal himself:
"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

I guess he's just showing his partisan colors, huh?

 

[Si modo]

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

One line, out of context in that entire file? You are reaching to apologize for the one you worship.

As I said, a military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

In perfect context and EXACTLY on point, from McChrystal himself:
"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

I guess he's just showing his partisan colors, huh?

Nothing partisan at all from my end, unless you want to characterize my intolerance for indisivieness by a president at the cost of those in harms way.

You single phrase is completely out of context. It applies to the ISAF and just a few words later, he says in addition to the resources required to meet the goal of making the ISAF more effective - only a single point made in the entirety of the recommendations.

Your grasping at that single point (applying to the ISAF, no less) and ignoring the entire message is pathetic.

The entire document makes it crystal clear to those who have read it that help is needed for those on the ground and time is critical.

 

[nodoginnafight]

One line, out of context in that entire file? You are reaching to apologize for the one you worship.

As I said, a military commander has asked for resources (help) for those on the ground (in harms way) and has said several times that time is critical. Yeah, that's what I call a plea for timely help for those in harms way.

In perfect context and EXACTLY on point, from McChrystal himself:
"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

I guess he's just showing his partisan colors, huh?

Nothing partisan at all from my end, unless you want to characterize my intolerance for indisivieness by a president at the cost of those in harms way.

You single phrase is completely out of context. It applies to the ISAF and just a few words later, he says in addition to the resources required to meet the goal of making the ISAF more effective - only a single point made in the entirety of the recommendations.

Your grasping at that single point (applying to the ISAF, no less) and ignoring the entire message is pathetic.

The entire document makes it crystal clear to those who have read it that help is needed for those on the ground and time is critical.

I don't believe you even read the document you linked. If you had, you would realize that what McChrystal is asking for is a review and revision of tactics and strategy. He makes it very clear that more resources are NOT the crux of his reccomendation and in spite of McChrystal's own words contradicting you - you just keep repeating the same phrase over and over again.

So you either didn't read the document or completely misunderstood what it said. And since it is written is such clear and concise terms, I find it hard to believe that someone of your intelligence could fail to grasp the meaning. My only logical conclusion is that you didn't read it.

"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The "Good War","Changing the Tone of Washington,"Hope & Change"...Yada Yada Yada! My God,how could so many buy into such blatant lies?

 

[Si modo]

In perfect context and EXACTLY on point, from McChrystal himself:
"Nonetheless, it must be made clear: new resources are not the crux"

I guess he's just showing his partisan colors, huh?

Nothing partisan at all from my end, unless you want to characterize my intolerance for indisivieness by a president at the cost of those in harms way.

You single phrase is completely out of context. It applies to the ISAF and just a few words later, he says in addition to the resources required to meet the goal of making the ISAF more effective - only a single point made in the entirety of the recommendations.

Your grasping at that single point (applying to the ISAF, no less) and ignoring the entire message is pathetic.

The entire document makes it crystal clear to those who have read it that help is needed for those on the ground and time is critical.

I don't believe you even read the document you linked. If you had, you would realize that what McChrystal is asking for is a review and revision of tactics and strategy. He makes it very clear that more resources are NOT the crux of his reccomendation and in spite of McChrystal's own words contradicting you - you just keep repeating the same phrase over and over again. ....

Those few words you keep grasping at like the last breath of the dying, are in regards to the ISAF.

Your apologies for the unforgivable are pathetic. When one worships, one is often blind to reality.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Si - don't get all mad at me because McChrystal's ACTUAL request doesn't match up with your rhetoric. Creating a strawman - inventing my "worship" - is seriously beneath you.

McChrystal makes it clear that his "short-term" refers to a period of 12 months. McChrystal makes it clear that the crux of his request is not a plea for more troops but a request to review strategy.

Apparently you just listened to some hate-mongering pundits and assumed they were accurately reflecting McChrystal's request. And now you've found out that they were not. Now you realize that they were twisting the reccommendations into something that they clearly are not just to try to gin up a club to beat the administration over the head with.

Feeling a bit used and duped you react with anger - understandable. But directing that anger at me simply because I was the one who showed you irrefutably where McChrystal's request is in direct conflict with that ginned-up rhetoric is wrong. Surely you understand that.

If not - well ..... so be it.

You are obviously entitled to cling to whatever you feel you need to and to form and support whatever opinion you choose. That's your right. As it is my right to form and support a contradictory opinion. But it's obvious that the evidence and McChystal's own words support my opinion - not yours.

Have a terrific weekend. I have enjoyed the give and take and look forward to future discussions. I hope my agressive defense of my position has not been offensive and I appreciate your aggressive and respectful defense of your position.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"EEEEEETZ DA GOOOOOOOOOD WAAAAAAAAR!!!! EEEEEEEEETZ DA BOOOOOOOOOSHH!!! EEEETZ DA FOX NOOOOOOOOOZ!!!!!" Are people still buying this B.S.?

 

[Si modo]

Si - don't get all mad at me because McChrystal's ACTUAL request doesn't match up with your rhetoric. ....

But it does. You just don't like his message as it makes Obama's inaction look really, really bad.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Si - don't get all mad at me because McChrystal's ACTUAL request doesn't match up with your rhetoric. ....

But it does. You just don't like his message as it makes Obama's inaction look really, really bad.

Really??? I could care less if Obama looks bad. I've even started threads critical of his decisions.
Again Si - your rhetoric just doesn't match the facts.

You can pretend that my position is based on "unwavering support" for every decision Obama has made but why would you? Does it make it easier for you to ignore all the data and documentation I've produced that contradict your expressed opinions?

I'm producing the actual words McChrystal wrote and you are presenting strawmen - just made up babbling.

You're better than that Si.

 

[Si modo]

Si - don't get all mad at me because McChrystal's ACTUAL request doesn't match up with your rhetoric. ....

But it does. You just don't like his message as it makes Obama's inaction look really, really bad.

Really??? I could care less if Obama looks bad. I've even started threads critical of his decisions.
Again Si - your rhetoric just doesn't match the facts.

You can pretend that my position is based on "unwavering support" for every decision Obama has made but why would you? Does it make it easier for you to ignore all the data and documentation I've produced that contradict your expressed opinions?

I'm producing the actual words McChrystal wrote and you are presenting strawmen - just made up babbling.

You're better than that Si.

And I've produced the entire document where McChrystal states that the help is needed for those in harms way and that time is critical. You pulled a single phrase out of that huge document and are pathetically grasping at it, a phrase that applies to the ISAF, no less.

I have to wonder if you have a grip on what context even means.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But it does. You just don't like his message as it makes Obama's inaction look really, really bad.

Really??? I could care less if Obama looks bad. I've even started threads critical of his decisions.
Again Si - your rhetoric just doesn't match the facts.

You can pretend that my position is based on "unwavering support" for every decision Obama has made but why would you? Does it make it easier for you to ignore all the data and documentation I've produced that contradict your expressed opinions?

I'm producing the actual words McChrystal wrote and you are presenting strawmen - just made up babbling.

You're better than that Si.

And I've produced the entire document where McChrystal states that the help is needed for those in harms way and that time is critical. You pulled a single phrase out of that huge document and are pathetically grasping at it, a phrase that applies to the ISAF, no less.

I have to wonder if you have a grip on what context even means.

You post a document in which McChrstal clearly defines his "short-term" as a 12-month period and in which he states very clearly that additional resources are NOT the critical part of his recommendations.

You've produced nothing to counter McChrystal's words only equally erroneous speculations about MY motives and your oft-repeated denial that McChrystal didn't mean what he wrote in his document.