The essence of the relevant ISG quote (which I just reposted) confirms what TP has asserted. It would appear I missed my foot, but that you’ve been shooting your mouth off with nothing to back it up.

Comment by barfly — July 10, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

Yeah, that’ll be why you didn’t want to quote what TP stated the ISG report said.

So basically, it confirms what TP said it does if you forget what TP said and you pretend 8 months is an extended escalation so that what is written becomes the opposite of what is written.

Well I’m convinced.

Yet my original question remains. If you actually believed that’s what the report said and this was a direct confirmation of your assessment, you wouldn’t quote something else instead.

So you’re on your own there buddy. Not even TP is intellectually dishonest enough to pretend they believe what you do. Heh.

That is exactly what has happened. How long are our troops expected to search and hold each neighborhood they clear? Sooner or later they will have to leave. Our presence is fueling this civil war because our presence is used as a recruiting tool by the insurgents who see us as occupiers and invaders. There are more terrorists there today than there were before we invaded Iraq. We are less safe because of it.

Comment by Kilo

Let’s see now, the thread is about Alexander’s support for a bill that doesn’t set a timeline for withdrawl – in effect, a bill that makes the surge more than temporary.

From the ISG report:

“We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.”

Short term, Bunky. TP is saying that Alexander supports a bill that has no timeline for withdrawl; meaning it isn’t what the ISG suggests.

[Quote from the report]: “Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.”

Sustained increases, Bunky.

Kilo: “Did they ? Well why didn’t you quote them saying that instead of what you have quoted ?”

The essence of the relevant ISG quote (which I just reposted) confirms what TP has asserted. It would appear I missed my foot, but that you’ve been shooting your mouth off with nothing to back it up.

Does anyone think the Iraq Study Groups findings would still apply? I can’t imagine those ideas would still work, we seem to have fallen off that cliff long ago.

Comment by Jersey — July 10, 2007 @ 2:13 pm

Which ideas would these be ?
The ideas the ISG expressed or the ones that TP just lied about them expressing ?

DO SOMETHING….CALL CONGRESS…202-244-3121… TELL THEM TIME TO IMPEACH…. THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY HAS TO GO… TELL THEM THE PEOPLE ARE COMING….

“Are you just lazy or do you really not understand what you read ?”

Comment by Kilo — July 10, 2007 @ 11:12 am

It took me about two minutes to find this ISG quote. It would seem TP isn’t the only lazy one, Kilo.

Comment by barfly — July 10, 2007 @ 11:37 am

I’ll take lazy over stupid any day of the week.

Honesty, there’s shooting yourself in the foot, then there’s shooting yourself in the foot and gloating about it.
Way to go there hopalong.

Kilo, From the ISG report:
…
“We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.”

Comment by barfly — July 10, 2007 @ 11:32 am

Not sure you’ve understood the premise here.
TP stated that the ISG argued against the surge.
I said why didn’t they post that then.
You have posted an excerpt from the ISG which says they could support the surge.

You realise the rule is that you’re never supposed to disagree with TP right ? Even when they’re clearly being misleading for partisan political purposes.
Posting this is enough to qualify you as a troll around here.

Quick, say you’ve been impersonated and flee.