Replies

Once again, given the opportunity to moderate your bile and gracefully admit a mistake, your resort to the same old juvenile flame-baiting (*You want a freaking bayonet charge when there's a smarter way out? Send your own kid*; *Now get back in your armchair*).

*Next time, try not to change the subject just because you haven't a freaking clue what's going on, as is apparent*

Actually, I didn't "change the subject" a bit: my first post (which you have chosen to ignore) dealt with everything else of substance in your diatribe to me; but I felt the secondary issue--your incessant boasting of how you're practically in the informational chain-of-command with your "sources"--was so important that it deserved it's own post.
Apparently someone agreed, because the thread was yanked (though your fondness for profanity might have also had something to do with that).
In any event, your stated premises *then* where that I didn't know what I was talking about because you had "sources" that made you privy to all sorts of good info on the tactical situation. Now you claim that I simply am not watching enough news! (*The services have been briefing the public as to the military dispositions on the ground. YOU simply haven't wanted to listen, simply because YOU thought that you could outthink the commanders on the ground*)
Ha, ha, what a deal. You remind me of that Japanese Admiral in the movie *Midway*, who couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted his planes armed with torpedoes or bombs. You scurry back and forth between arguments and premises so frequently that it's like watching intellectual ping-pong, without the intellect.

*You want to believe that a catastrophic defeat is at hand when a lot of Marine officers, who know a whole lot more than you, have a clue as to how to handle Fallujah.*

Sheer nonsense, and more inky obfuscation. I've never stated any such thing. I believe the policy to date *has* been marked with *some*--mark the word, sir, *some*--confusion that, *at times*, has bordered on incoherence. I further believe that those decisions have *not* been made by Marine officers in the field, but rather by others high up in the chain-of-command who are sometimes trimming and filling to suit the day-to-day political landscape. That's no way to fight a battle, or ask young troops to die for a mission whose premises seem to shift with every news cycle. That has been my critique--not urging "bayonet charges" or any other such silliness.

*Now get back in your armchair*

Ha, ha...I'm in mine right now. As are you. You really believe such childishness insults me in some way? Ha, ha. Unbelievable.

Look, what I'm saying is rather simple. You flamed me when I didn't deserve it, and then I gave you what you dished out in return. You didn't like it. I cited my sources (to the extent that I could). You didn't like that, then you created a non issue, asserting that I was passing on classified material.

That was b.s.. There is a little red tag down below where you post. It says "loose lips sink ships". I firmly believe in following that warning, just to set your mind at ease.

EVERYTHING I have posted is based on publicly available source material. In addition, my source basically confirms that what I am saying is pretty much on the mark. Fallujah is a tough nut, with perhaps 700 guys in there built around a core group of 300 jihadi (go here to Wretchard's latest for a good update of where things stand).

The fact is, you weren't looking at what was publicly available, not only here, but online at Wretchard's Belmont Club, and through other sources. So you accused me of passing classified information when I did no such thing, nor did my source, which is the most important thing to clear up. You were just too damn lazy to look things up when it was easier to condemn Bush or Bremer before the issue has been fully decided.

The next time you accuse someone of passing classified information, you damn well better have proof. You didn't, and you deserved the flaming you got.

Be Seeing You,

Chris