The surge did NOT bring down violence in Iraq
samson
131852.html
Anybody care to guess what the "highly classified techniques"
the US used to bring down violence? My guess: The USC approach.
Payoffs.
S.
Orange J. Dood
> Anybody care to guess what the "highly classified techniques"
> the US used to bring down violence? My guess: The USC approach.
> Payoffs.
I saw Bob Woodward was talking about that on Bill Mahre Friday night.
I wondered why Obama hasn't jumped all over it.
--
Cheers,
--Jeff
Read the damb FAQ.
http://www.rsfckers.com/faq.htm
"Don't watch 'The Return of Jezebel James'... It's the kind of
awful that makes you want to claw your face open so your skeleton
can hop out and kickfuck your TV to death."
--Wm. Steven Humphrey
Matthew Hennig
news:MPG.235283a2d...@news.supernews.com:
Now thats an authoritative source!
MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006
"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002
samson
ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com says...
> samson <nos...@nospam.spam> wrote in
> news:MPG.235283a2d...@news.supernews.com:
>
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/woodward-bush-said-his-ir_n_
> > 131852.html
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4knng3
> >
> > Anybody care to guess what the "highly classified techniques"
> > the US used to bring down violence? My guess: The USC approach.
> > Payoffs.
>
> Now thats an authoritative source!
>
> MH
Confirmed by the White House.
S.
Dan S.
Even if they did, and I'm not saying that I think they did or they
didn't, but, isn't reward money for terrorists pretty much the same
thing? It's a matter of symantics.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Generic Sig Holder
Charles Board
Like he said..."Now that's a authoritative source!"
Matthew Hennig
news:MPG.23529772f...@news.supernews.com:
> In article <Xns9B2E6EB6FAE2...@207.115.17.102>,
> ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com says...
>> samson <nos...@nospam.spam> wrote in
>> news:MPG.235283a2d...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/woodward-bush-said-his-ir_n
>> > _ 131852.html
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/4knng3
>> >
>> > Anybody care to guess what the "highly classified techniques"
>> > the US used to bring down violence? My guess: The USC approach.
>> > Payoffs.
>>
>> Now thats an authoritative source!
>>
>> MH
>
> Confirmed by the White House.
According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to Woodward's actual
article, the title is "Why Did Violence Plummet? It Wasn't Just the
Surge." That would then make your title incorrect. In fact, reading
that article makes your whole premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part
of a multi-front change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did
nothing to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual article
either.
HTH
Orange J. Dood
<ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
> According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to
> Woodward's actual article, the title is "Why Did Violence
> Plummet? It Wasn't Just the Surge." That would then make your
> title incorrect. In fact, reading that article makes your whole
> premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part of a multi-front
> change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did nothing
> to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
> post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual
> article either.
As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
saying something.
Matthew Hennig
news:Xns9B2ED2435...@72.52.237.249:
> Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Matthew Hennig
><ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
>
>> According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to
>> Woodward's actual article, the title is "Why Did Violence
>> Plummet? It Wasn't Just the Surge." That would then make your
>> title incorrect. In fact, reading that article makes your whole
>> premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part of a multi-front
>> change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did nothing
>> to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
>> post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual
>> article either.
>
> As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
> Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
> saying something.
Even so, the original post and the huffpo post are misrepresentations of
Woodward's story that talks about several pieces all coming together,
including the surge, to help us rebuild Iraq. That's one of the problems
with taking stuff from the huffington post as fact without reading more.
OrangeDood
> "Orange J. Dood" <no_this_isnt@my_email.com> wrote innews:Xns9B2ED2435...@72.52.237.249:
>
>
>
> > Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Matthew Hennig
> ><ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
>
> >> According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to
> >> Woodward's actual article, the title is "Why Did Violence
> >> Plummet? It Wasn't Just the Surge." That would then make your
> >> title incorrect. In fact, reading that article makes your whole
> >> premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part of a multi-front
> >> change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did nothing
> >> to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
> >> post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual
> >> article either.
>
> > As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
> > Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
> > saying something.
>
> Even so, the original post and the huffpo post are misrepresentations of
> Woodward's story that talks about several pieces all coming together,
> including the surge, to help us rebuild Iraq. That's one of the problems
> with taking stuff from the huffington post as fact without reading more.
"rebuild Iraq" is that what you kids are calling it these days?
Where I come from we call that "hostile invasion of a country that was
no direct threat"
Cheers,
--Jeff
Matthew Hennig
news:ca121542-9479-450b...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, Matthew Hennig <ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com> wrote:
>> "Orange J. Dood" <no_this_isnt@my_email.com> wrote
>> innews:Xns9B2ED2435B7D
> FCloc...@72.52.237.249:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Matthew Hennig
>> ><ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
>>
>> >> According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to
>> >> Woodward's actual article, the title is "Why Did Violence
>> >> Plummet? It Wasn't Just the Surge." That would then make your
>> >> title incorrect. In fact, reading that article makes your whole
>> >> premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part of a multi-front
>> >> change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did nothing
>> >> to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
>> >> post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual
>> >> article either.
>>
>> > As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
>> > Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
>> > saying something.
>>
>> Even so, the original post and the huffpo post are misrepresentations
>> of Woodward's story that talks about several pieces all coming
>> together, including the surge, to help us rebuild Iraq. That's one
>> of the proble
> ms
>> with taking stuff from the huffington post as fact without reading
>> more.
>
> "rebuild Iraq" is that what you kids are calling it these days?
>
> Where I come from we call that "hostile invasion of a country that was
> no direct threat"
We can argue all we want about whether or not we should have gone into
Iraq in the first place, in fact that's been done many times over with no
minds changed. What I called the rebuilding part of Iraq was the part of
wresting control from the terrorists/insurgents and then helping to
rebuild the Iraqi Army/Police to take over their own country. That part
started in earnest with the surge and change in tactics.
Orange J. Dood
<ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
>> "rebuild Iraq" is that what you kids are calling it these days?
>>
>> Where I come from we call that "hostile invasion of a country
>> that was no direct threat"
>
> We can argue all we want about whether or not we should have
> gone into Iraq in the first place, in fact that's been done many
> times over with no minds changed. What I called the rebuilding
> part of Iraq was the part of wresting control from the
> terrorists/insurgents and then helping to rebuild the Iraqi
> Army/Police to take over their own country. That part started
> in earnest with the surge and change in tactics.
Yes, makes sense, thanks, and all at a cost of only a little under a
trillion dollars to the American taxpayers too! So far, that is. I'm
so glad we're finally getting Iraq all straightened out, it's money
well-spent if you ask me.
Now, how much is this Wall Street bailout gonna cost again? I can't
seem to remember.
Tom Enright
> Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Matthew Hennig
> <ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
>
> > According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to
> > Woodward's actual article, the title is "Why Did Violence
> > Plummet? It Wasn't Just the Surge." That would then make your
> > title incorrect. In fact, reading that article makes your whole
> > premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part of a multi-front
> > change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did nothing
> > to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
> > post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual
> > article either.
> As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
> Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
> saying something.
Woodward has long ago spent any capitol capital he may have had. He
is neither respected nor liked by many.
-Tom Enright
> --
> Cheers,
> --Jeff
> Read the damb FAQ.http://www.rsfckers.com/faq.htm
samson
34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, freddy...@yahoo.com says...
> On Oct 5, 8:40 pm, "Orange J. Dood" <no_this_isnt@my_email.com> wrote:
> > Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Matthew Hennig
> > <ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
> >
> > > According to Woodward, that is. As well, if you go to
> > > Woodward's actual article, the title is "Why Did Violence
> > > Plummet? It Wasn't Just the Surge." That would then make your
> > > title incorrect. In fact, reading that article makes your whole
> > > premise wrong. The 'surge' was a key part of a multi-front
> > > change in approach to Iraq. Saying that the surge did nothing
> > > to bring down violence is just wrong. Looking at the huffpo's
> > > post, the author didn't even seem to read Woodward's actual
> > > article either.
>
> > As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
> > Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
> > saying something.
>
> Woodward has long ago spent any capitol capital he may have had. He
> is neither respected nor liked by many.
>
> -Tom Enright
How many copies of your book have sold, Enright?
S.
Tom Enright
> In article <49c79062-14c6-42b1-9c66-a2abe5a3861a@
> > > As journalists go, Bob Woodward's credibility is better than most.
> > > Even Bush respects him and talks candidly to him, and that's really
> > > saying something.
> > Woodward has long ago spent any capitol capital he may have had. He
> > is neither respected nor liked by many.
> >
> > -Tom Enright
> How many copies of your book have sold, Enright?
Are you agreeing with me or not?
Both right-wingers and left-wingers have bitched about Woodward.
-Tom Enright
> S.
Orange J. Dood
<freddy...@yahoo.com>?
> Both right-wingers and left-wingers have bitched about Woodward.
That's a good sign IMHO.
xyzzy
1. Ethnic cleansing is pretty much finished.
2. We paid off the Sunni militias
It really is that simple.
James Schrumpf
rage.
> Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Matthew Hennig
> <ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.com>?
>
>>> "rebuild Iraq" is that what you kids are calling it these days?
>>>
>>> Where I come from we call that "hostile invasion of a country
>>> that was no direct threat"
>>
>> We can argue all we want about whether or not we should have
>> gone into Iraq in the first place, in fact that's been done many
>> times over with no minds changed. What I called the rebuilding
>> part of Iraq was the part of wresting control from the
>> terrorists/insurgents and then helping to rebuild the Iraqi
>> Army/Police to take over their own country. That part started
>> in earnest with the surge and change in tactics.
>
> Yes, makes sense, thanks, and all at a cost of only a little under a
> trillion dollars to the American taxpayers too! So far, that is. I'm
> so glad we're finally getting Iraq all straightened out, it's money
> well-spent if you ask me.
>
> Now, how much is this Wall Street bailout gonna cost again? I can't
> seem to remember.
>
About as much as one year of Medicare/Medicaid.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Let there be no doubt tonight -- no doubt!
That they shouldn't have played the Old Gold and Blue.
Not tonight!