Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 17 December 2006

I had a '66 LeMans convertible - midnight blue with a white top! and about 8mpg!

#438, that is so scary it is hard to comprehend how the Libs and the DBM have followed Mr. Alinsky to the letter. They really need to be showcased for the Doctrine that they are trying to make America follow. People need to be made aware, and up until now with the DBM believing all that Communist Crappola who was going to tell the truth to the People?

O U C H !!

:)

LOL

And yes as you say, "discriminating" has bitten the dust at the hands of the public schools and the libs.

Pretty sickening.

Remember how utterly shocked the media commentators were when President Bush said that he did not get his news from the papers.

LOL. He was supposed to be finding out from them what he should be doing. I think the President has his own primary sources.

Churchill.... what a man.

****

"If you are going through hell, keep going." — Winston Churchill

Sounds good to me.

Hillary and now the entire Democrat Party live by old Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". ........... Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

Madame Hamhocks has them written on her ample thighs.

#455, well he has always been a "good old boy", and went to "Boys State" with former Congressman (soon to be Florida Attorney General replacing Governor elect Crist) Bill MCcollum. They are as opposite as night and Day, and it seems that Nelson went the same way that the Late Governor "He Coon" Chiles did. He mostly dropped his strong Panhandle South Georgia accent, and Chiles tempered his good ole Boy Central Florida talk to please the Liberals like everything else he did to get elected as a Democrat. They both sold their souls to get the Democrat backing, and now in Nelson's case some days he reverts back. He looks gaunt and has a silly far away look with a smile that looks almost like "chuckie". His Campaign Ads made me do double takes and say "Ruh Roh!" If you get a chance to see anything on tape from say 5 years ago of him, then look at his interviews and the debate recently, it is very obvious. If he was 95-100 years old like Strom Thurmond it would not be as obvious, but he is only in his 60's.

Hey Newt, We sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam at the height of our involvement. How did that work out for us?

Curious, did Newt say where he was going to get the 500,000 troops for Iraq?

Newt has become a perfect machine politician. He simply is picking up on what the DC Political-Media complex wants to hear and saying it. He and McCain are basically the singing the same one note DC Marching song. This way both of them can placate the Right by saying "See we are supporting the troops" and still suck up to the DC noise machine by being against how the Iraq mission is being run by the President.

It is short attention span theater time again. The American people simply lack the emotional or intellectually discipline to face anything that requires sustained effort. So as usually the political snake oil salesmen are crawling out of the slime with the usual simplistic answers and easy fixes. Only problem is what they are trying to selling on Iraq is pure poison. The DC "Conventional Wisdom" on Iraq is, as usual, neither conventional nor wisdom

What Newt SHOULD be doing is listening to what Gen Abizaid told the US Senate when he came back from Iraq to testify to the US Senate in mid November. Newt should become Gen Abizaids standard bearer. Position himself as the guy covering our troops back from the idiots in DC who STILL have learned nothing since LBJ screwed up "Nam.

For example, Newt could be raising the point that when asked specifically about troop levels by Sen McCain, Gen Abizaid (who only happens to be the actual commander on the Ground in Iraq) all but told McCain he is an utter idiot on Iraq. Gen Abizaid made it clear he did NOT need more troops. Newt should cut himself out of the 2008 pack by being the sane serious voice on Iraq backing up the Military rather then merely howling after the Junk Media pack. This "More Troops" propaganda line is both stupid political strategy and stupid military strategy.

There are 4 reasons why too many troops can be as bad as too few troops in a Counter Insurgency Mission.

Retardation, Marginalization, Friction and Unrealistic expectations.

Too many troops retards the locals efforts to develop their own military/political structure to govern . It takes time and effort to train and blood troops. It especially takes time to train up the cadre to run a serious military. Good NCOs and Officers are not born, they are made. This was on of the major US mistakes in Vietnam. It was easier to just have the US troops take over doing everything then work through the leaning curve of the locals. Problem was once the US no longer had the political will to carry on the mission they simply dumped the problem on an under developed Vietnamese political/military structure.

There is this odd American arrogance that seem to think ONLY Americans can do anything. Everyone else is incompetent and or corrupt. Only problem is the American public, like most spoiled brats, lacks the emotional or mental discipline to stick with unpleasant difficult tasks. Too many US troops would simply retards all efforts to get the locals to the point they can contain or break the Insurgents for themselves then when the petulant American people simply decided they wanted us to go home, there would be no one to pick up the bat for us.

Too many troops also marginalizes efforts to develop a counter political structure strong enough to break or contain the Insurgency. It deligitmizes the locals efforts and makes them simply look as lackeys of the occupying power. Having the US run everything marginalizes the political credibility of the local political structure and spurs the Insurgents propaganda and recruitment efforts.

The more troops the more friction with the locals. Face it, having a bunch of hyper aggressive mostly young mostly male Americans suddenly descend on you town is NO ones idea of a good time. Even in our own military towns there is a lot of friction between the locals and the military. Think how much worse that would be in an alien culture with a living memory of being a colony in everything but name? A heavily armed society with an exaggerated sense of male empowerment? Basically you have two aggressive testosterone drive heavily armed dominate male groups in close proximity.

Unrealistic Expectations. Send a lot troop and the expectation is you can quickly and easily solve all problems and bring the boys home. No, not in a Counter Insurgency. Counter Insurgency is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It takes time and lots of back breaking effort.. Sending a whole lot of troops simply exhausted your fiscal and military resources faster.

There are other things such as the added friction both on the locals and the US forces of having heavily armed, under trained conventional troops performing close combat operations in civilian areas. The counter productive results of a "kill people and wreck stuff" Conventional mentality in dealing with a Asymmetrical threat etc etc etc.

Frankly the DC Noise machine should simply shut up and get out of the US Military's way. They studied Vietnam hard and actually have the right answers here. As in Vietnam, the problem here is the "Washington Knows Best" mentality of the entrenched political media power structure who simply will sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid having to admit GW Bush has been right about Iraq all along.

And the lessons of history are ignored by those who hate this country with such a passion.

Great analysis, we conservatives get bashed for blaming the Clintons for so many evils but the truth is they brought much of this on.

#459, actually I have it etched in my Mind by freepers and History that it was an Oldsmobile otherwise I could not tell unless I looked at the "oldsmobile" written on the front and rear ends. My youngest brother who was very quiet and shy could tell a "fitty nine" (59) Dodge Dart from half a mile away when he was three, and would climb into the bay window, point and announce it loudly to anyone that would listen. I remain clueless unless it is a vehicle that is really ugly or unique.

Absolutely correct and she has unfortunately spawned much of that into a cruel empire that thrives on pure power for power's sake.

#461, I agree with you about Powell and Bremer. I met and spoke with General Jay Garner who was head of the Recovery forces after the initial Defeat of Saddam. He was the Honored Guest speaker at our 2004 Statesman Dinner even though he is a Democrat. He is A Floridian and has many Republican friends, and came as a Favor to our Chairman. He is a little guy, but packs a wallop. His wife was with him and they are both Conservative. I was very impressed with everything he had to say, and I wished then and now that he had stayed instead of Bremer and the State Dept and Colin Powell taking over, and screwing things up. General Garner had many wonderful and funny stories, and I would love to have him come back again. He is such an upbeat, Positive Guy, but no nonsense. He loves the Iraqis, but he really loves the Kurds and their fantastic ability to make something out of nothing. I know that Bremer had a lot of close calls with the violence and he was a target, but I think Garner would have been better in that position. Garner is also a very humble man, and he and his wife make a very Cute Couple with a lot of class. I guess you can tell I like to watch "Little People" on Discovery channel. At 5'2" I can relate to little people and The General and I could see almost eye to eye.

These are the real stories that are not being told Cindy, thanks for putting these out.
I read one link that told about how the terrorists are using the web to incite jihadism(along with the daily kos) worldwide and it's a scary scenario! Glad you and others are on to them, its a huge job.Great work.

Jonah Goldberg has a nice, and I think correct, comment about Newt and his appearance today:

"Gingrich On Meet The Press [Jonah Goldberg]

I'm a critic of what appears to be his burgeoning front-porch strategy for the White House and I'm skeptical about his chances generally, but he really is the best conservative talker in America right now. He simply has no peer, save for Bill Clinton, in the ability to extemporaneously explain an idea — or beat one back — and sound perfectly reasonable in the process."

#464, that would be type casting in the Movies. He is a Juvenile, and never will grow up just like his fellow LIbs/Demrats.

Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

I've never seen them all together at one time. This is the very template the Democrats have been using since 1992.

It worked perfectly in 2006. The GOP PTB better get their acts together, quick, and figure a way to counter it successfully because it is going to be "more of the same" in 2008 - this time for the Big Enchilada, once again.

Frankly, I doubt they even figured out how and what they were hit with in 2006. They still appear to me to be clueless.

Thanks Rodguy911.

OPINION: Well, it's readers like you (and me and a large number of freepers) who will not be surprised when we are attacked again (and maybe again, again, and again).