The picture of Scarborough was at WFAN. Did you notice the "Mike and the Mad Dog"/YES Network backdrop behind him? That's where Mike Francesa typically sits, unless he's hosting solo, as he and Chris Russo alternate during the summer. As we speak, Harris Allen is doing the 20/20 flashes (updates at :00, :20, :40 past the hour), while Tony Paige is hosting.
Anyway, more great audio from John Gibson Radio. Thank you, Johnny.

Here's the back-peddling by Scarborough as reported by TVnewser:

http://tinyurl.com/6rfsff

Fascinating......Your clip has an extreme right wing demogogue radio host calling someone a belated liar for clarifying a comment that he made about someone whom he never named after assumptions were made about who he was ACTUALLY talking about.

Lets see now......Joe Scarborough is a 'truth teller' when you assume he agrees with you.....but he becomes a 'liar' when he claims you are wrong......even though HE is the only one who REALLY knows who he meant when he made the comment. Even if your assumptions are right, you are guilty of lionizing Joe for doing the same thing you have demonized Keith for doing (refusing to criticize others within his own network).

That said, why isn't anyone talking about the real subject matter at hand here, ...... which is the fact that the Sunni Awakening DID begin much in advance of the so-called "Surge", and that John McCain had nothing to do with it?

Now let me get this straight? If a presidential candidate talks about adding more troops WAY before the surge was ever implemented, and then the current president does exactly what that presidential candidate had been asking for, and THEN the violence stops drastically it has nothing to do with our president OR that presidential candidate's thoughts or for that matter our brave soldiers, as it has all to do with the Sunni awakening?

The fact that that presidential candidate had the foresight to know what to do what the current president eventually did with grand results is somehow lost on you Mike?

Do you think that maybe the surge may have had something to do with the Sunni "awakening" whereas they saw it as their chance to take control?

You know like the British being able to re-establish themselves after we attacked the beaches of Normandy in WWII. Not that they didn't do a miraculous job of holding off the Germans until then, but do you think they really would have had an "awakening" throughout the whole war if it wasn't for the US joining in?

Come on Mike, call a spade a spade just once PLEASE when it comes to ANY candidate correctly making the right decision.

You can hate this war all you want, and the reasons of why we are in it, but to consistently denounce America or a candidate when the right choices are made AFTER what you say was a mistake to begin with, is disingenuous to say the least.

And, if you noticed, I didn't say the candidates name nor what the other candidate said about how he was positively sure that the surge wouldn't work. At least HE owned up to his mistake, and I think at times you have to do the same.

It just seems that ANYTIME something good is accomplished by the US (yes, even if you think the bad done before the good was irrefutable) that you will spin it to make the US look bad.

I happen to believe that EVERYTHING done in regards to the Iraq war was done with the right purpose in mind by our government, and you obviously disagree, but at the same time what is done is done, and any positive achievements after that decision was made (again whether you disagree with that decision) I think you should appreciate strictly as a US citizen.

Because afterall, the more postive goals that are met by our military the quicker they will get out, and the quicker that region will become more stable. I mean, isn't that what you've been asking for since this all started?

"as it has all to do with the Sunni awakening?"

Nothing is ever all or nothing. That is the problem with the "Surge" debate as it is being discussed today. Only an idiot would say the surge had nothing to do with the current situation.....but to assume it has everything to do with a calmer Iraq is every bit as silly in my view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can hate this war all you want, and the reasons of why we are in it, but to consistently denounce America or a candidate when the right choices are made AFTER what you say was a mistake to begin with, is disingenuous to say the least."

First off, nobody is 'denouncing' America, least of all, me. However, i become annoyed whenever the assumed success of The Surge is used to imply that the original decision to invade was the right after all. I also become annoyed with any candidate who says or even implies that the other candidates opinions regarding war and peace are entirely politically motivated, as McCain just did yesterday.

It is not disingenuous to acknowledge that the Sunni's were already becoming angered and disallusioned by Al Qeada's tactics long before The Surge was initiated, .... and that was ALSO a major factor in getting to where we are today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It just seems that ANYTIME something good is accomplished by the US (yes, even if you think the bad done before the good was irrefutable) that you will spin it to make the US look bad."

And that is exactly where you are misreading me, and others like me: .............. IF so many on the right would stop using the success of the surge in order to defend the original premise of invading Iraq, then we could have a more honest discussion. But in general, they steadfastly refuse to do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because afterall, the more positive goals that are met by our military the quicker they will get out, and the quicker the region will become more stable. I mean, isn't that what you've been asking for since this all started?

The fly in your ointment comes with the unsanswered question of what our long term goals might be regarding keeping troops in Iraq. The popular thing at the moment is for BOTH candidates to claim a goal of bringing the troops home.....But do BOTH candidates REALLY want to bring all the troops home?....... Or does one of them still to keep many of them there indefinitely?

The other question is far more ominous to me: Do BOTH candidates NOW understand the dangers of starting wars except as an absolute LAST resort.....Or does one of them STILL believe in the Neoconservative ideology?

"Nothing is ever all or nothing. That is the problem with the "Surge" debate as it is being discussed today. Only an idiot would say the surge had nothing to do with the current situation.....but to assume it has everything to do with a calmer Iraq is every bit as silly in my view."
By MikeH on July 24, 2008 7:17 PM

Only an idiot? Well your hero Olbermann said it you moron. What you call someone who watches and idiot? You are as brainless as Olbermann.

Again Mike attacks the troops to protect his hero Olbermann. There would be no "Sunni Awakening" without the surge. Who the hell do you think the Sunnis ran to when they wanted Al Qaeda kicked out of their town? The only reason the Sunni felt comfortable about turning in Al Qaeda is because they new that the American solider would protect them. Who exactly would the Sunni have asked to get rid of Al Qaeda if there were no American troops in Iraq?

Factor: "Only an idiot? Well your hero Olbermann said it you moron."

No he didn't. I don't see where he said the surge had "nothing" to do with it. Questioning whether the surge is the whole story is NOT the same as saying it had "nothing" to do with the current situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What you call someone who watches and idiot?"

Not nearly what I would call a gutless somebody who calls other posters 'morons', 'brainless', and 'cowards' behind the safety and anonimity of his computer screen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again Mike attacks the troops to protect Olbermann."

And here we have someone who can't tell the difference between 'attacking the troops', and questioning foreign policy issues......and HE calls ME a "moron"!.......LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be no "Sunni Awakening" without the surge."

But there already was....Well BEFORE the surge.....and it was ALREADY having a major effect on Al Qeada's effectiveness in that region. But you probably would have never heard about this by watching Bill O'Reilly discuss the latest San Franscisco secular threat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who exactly would the Sunni have asked to get rid of Al Qeada if there were no American troops in Iraq?"

In order to accept this fallacy, you have to accept also the fallacy that Al Qeada was our major enemy in Iraq......and then you have to also ignor the fact that there was no Al Qeada in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Factor: "What you call someone who watches and idiot?"

I think you should ask yourself that question since you obviously watch O'Reilly.

MikeH: "That said, why isn't anyone talking about the real subject matter at hand here, ...... which is the fact that the Sunni Awakening DID begin much in advance of the so-called "Surge", and that John McCain had nothing to do with it?"

The real subject? McCain was asked to respond to Obama's response to KC's repeated questions regarding the success of the surge, whether he would, in hindsight, 'CHANGE' his opposition of the surge or his prediction that the surge would fail. Obama refused to acknowledge the surge had suceeded, refused to acknowledge his prediction was wrong and wouldn't even utter the word "surge."

The Anbar Awakening was a result of numerous and continuing atrocities commited against the Anbar Sunni population by AQI, which went unreported by the MSM (reported by Michael Yon). This unanticipated development was immediatley supported by the US commander in Anbar. The Sunni sheiks asked for our help and help was given. This is how it's supposed to work. The new counter-insurgency tactic of clear and hold had begun.

If not for the surge (reinforcement) the Anbar Awakening would not have survived. It would not have spread. It would not have succeeded.

If not for the surge, the partial Mahdi Army ceasefire would not have been reiterated. The surge allowed Malaki to project the duly-elected government's authority throughout the country. The surge and the subsequent increase in offensive operations resulted in significant Mahdi Army casualties whenever they decided to fight. Basra, Sadr City and other Iranian-backed Mahdi Army strongholds have been cleared, held and when possible, turned over to the control of the Iraqi government's security forces. That is how it's supposed to work.

There is something disturbing about a grown man being unable or unwilling to admit being wrong. The open and prompt admission of mistakes is a hallmark of being a healthy adult. The perception of infallibility by a leader is a cause for concern.

"I was wrong, the surge has been successful."

Now, how hard is that? Really?

All right, guys. Break it up.

ramjet I believed cleared it up very neatly, and I have to admit myself that I was in error when I said that Obama apologized for his mistake in saying the surge wouldn't work.

Unfortunately this "grown up" hasn't come clean with his apology yet.

And, as far as you're concerned Mike C. "break what up?" Are you actually saying it is best to not have an opposing view on this site like the guy you seem to loathe so much has everyday on his show?

Having this debate is probably the healthiest thing for all concerned, and that includes Mike H, and if it wasn't for the likes of The Factor and a few others on here this site would fade away.

Getting mad like the Factor does and others is most understandable as opposed to just trying to be cute. Obviously to The Factor there's nothing "cute" about how olbermann acts nor to what he says, and his obvious love for his country comes out every time he reads what Mike H says.

God, I long for the days of Phony Soldier and even miss Anonymous with his "higher than thou" attitude because after each statement made from the two of them there was sure to be a heated debate from both sides.

Now we're stuck with comments from some (not all, but certainly more than one) that wouldn't make Howdy Doody blush..."orange man does it again"..."oh, and did you see how old his girlfriend is?"..."jeesh, his fatass can't even fit on the screen anymore"...ad nausem.

Who gives a flying f..k what he looks like and to who he's seeing now? How about getting to the substance of just how insecure the "man" is, and to how his rhetoric is not only ludicrous but dangerous as well?

Going toe to toe is what makes the world go round, and may the best man win. Get the blood circulating Mike C and get off this "I can be cuter than you are shit".

Even olby sucks hasn't been heard from in a while, and I'm sure it's because there's not much to add to all the "cutesy" stuff being blown around this site now.

Give me the old days where every other reply was in response to some libnut hating on America, so that I didn't have to sit back in my quiet little world believing that everybody thought just as I did.

Knowing that wasn't true is one thing, but actually hearing the enemy state their believes is a good reminder of what us Americans are up against. Seeing it first hand everyday kept me sharp, and more prepared for what's to come.

Maybe Bob has got to open this site up to a few (not all has some were truly a..holes who loved hiding behind their screen) more of the not so unknowledgable liberals who could find a way of having a decent debate.

ANONYMOUS comes to mind for one, as he (although being obnoxious at times) could carry on a debate with the best of them when he wasn't trying to smother you with his intelligence.

I mean even the 3 fly girls haven't been heard from in a while, and I'm sure it's no coincidence. How many times can you stand to hear "I agree, and what about his girlfriend getting a job through him?"

Nah, I'm sorry Mike C, but the time I stop from fighting to what I believe in, and especially when it comes to defending my country from the likes of olbermann's fans, is the time I sit back and start watching Perry Mason reruns. In other words when I die...

Kick it up a bit homey's, and if we are stuck with only one dissenting view in Mike H then stop being afraid to let him know what you feel. Maybe in time a few more will be let in, and then we'll really get this thing going, because in the meantime I feel like we are all participating in olbermann's show.

Do you get it man? No dissenting views, all in agreement everyday 24/7, and one guy trying to "outcute" the other guy...Christ, it's like I'm wating for Bill Murray to show up at anytime.

Ramjet: "If not for the surge (reinforcement) the Anbar awakening would not have survived. It would not have spread. It would not have succeeded."

The problem with your analysis is that it is based on conjecture and unprovable hypotheticals. It is impossible to make an accurate fact based conclusion about what "would have" happened in the event of having not chosen the alternative path.

This is the problem with much of the analysis regarding the Iraq war by it's supporters......So many alternative outcomes and predictions are presented as absolute facts even though there is no way of proving an outcome of a fork in the road that was not taken.

At least you have acknowledged that the Anbar Awakening was well under way prior to the onset of The Surge, which is more than some will do. However, there is no evidence that it would have died without our help because Al Qeada had made the unpardonable sin of losing the hearts and minds of the people whom they needed in order to survive and thrive.

I disagree with your assertion that the awakening went unreported by the MSM. That is how I heard about it......LONG before The Surge. I do agree that the surge SEEMS to have had a major effect on calming the ethnic Sunni/Shiia violence and keeping the Madi Army at bay.....But that is a different argument.

Well Wolverine, at least we agree about how boring this site has become and how some posters inexplicably seem to like it that way.

However, it is interesting how you lament the departure of Laura Bush, who was SO over the top and selfish in his approach that many on your side of the debate believed he was a sock puppet.

It is also interesting how you lament the departure of ANONYMOUS, who DID indeed make some very articulate and persuasive posts when he resisted allowing himself to be derailed by the never ending trolling and taunting of Olby Sucks (formerly "Royal King"). As for "Sucks", I have my own theory as to the reason he has disappeared, but he might prove that theory wrong at any time. I also miss "Sir Loin of Beef", even though he was a little to far left even for me at times. Being the only disenter left is getting a little tiring.

That said, and on moving on to your pet peeves, you unwittingly expose your own "un-American" ideas every time you say or imply that someone you disagree with is expressing "un-American" ideas. The irony of such thinking is that America was built into the greatest country in the world with disent, freedom of expression, and a bedrock understanding of the principle that NO ONE ever has a lock on what is best for America.

Interestingly Wolverine, you have posted more than once that you believe disenters like KO would have been jailed at any other time in our history. That is the reason I thought you were younger, because it is amazing to me that anyone who lived through the sixties and seventies would believe something THAT preposterous.

Later.

Ramjet: "There is something dsturbing about a grown man being unable to admit he was wrong. The open and prompt admission of mistakes is a hallmark of being a healthy adult. The perception of infallability of a leader is a cause for concern."

Wow! I could have sworn you were talking about Gorge Bush. That certainly is who you SHOULD have been describing with a statement like that!

Mike H: "The problem with your analysis is that it is based on conjecture and unprovable hypotheticals."

I did not make an analysis, I did not base anything on conjecture, I did not state a hypothetical. Pre-surge Iraq was a cluster f*ck. We were loosing the war. Little, if anything, was going our way. Continuing the strategy in place would have resulted in failure, failure to prevent a full civil war, failure to stem sectarian violence, failure to defeat AQI, failure of the Awakening Movement, failure of the Iraqi government.

The surge was proposed, authorized and implemented. Predictions that it would fail were made by Pelosi, Reid, Wes Clark, Gen McPeak, Murtha, Wexler, all the Obama cheerleaders on Countdown, the Head Obama Cheerleader on Countdown What's His Name and Obama, plus many others. Does the phrase "doubling-down" ring a bell.

What has happened? The surge has worked. AQI is defeated. Remnants of AQI are getting out of Dodge. Bin Laden has given up on defeating the US in Iraq. The Mahdi Army is being disarmed of heavy weapons. Political progress is being made. The Iraqi Legislature has a higher approval rating than the US Congress.

MikeH: "I disagree with your assertion that the awakening went unreported by the MSM."

That's not what I said. It was the numerous and continuing atrocities commited by AQI that went unreported by the MSM.

I did not mispell "disturbing." The President has admitted making mistakes. Obama will not, just like What's His Name won't admit being wrong about O'Reilly and Wexler and no state income tax in FL.

Ramjet: "That's not what I said. It was the numerous and continuing attrocities commited by AQI that went unreported by the MSMS."

Yet somehow I heard about them throught the MSM. It was also widely reported by the MSM you disdain that those attrocities were the root cause of the Sunni Awakening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramjet: "I did not make an analysis. I did not base anything on conjecture, I did not state a hypothetical. Pre-surge Iraq was a clustrer f*ck. We were losing the war. Little if anything, was going our way. Continuing the strategy in place would have resulted in failure."

Nobody, but NOBODY recommended keeping the same strategy that was in place at the time. We had an alternative strategy proposed by the Iraq Study Group that was ignored after pretending to be open to it. There is no proof that following that strategy would not have help produce equal or better results today.

Your assumptions are much like someone going to bed with a very bad headache and choosing to take aspirin instead of Tylenol, and then waking up with a lesser one.....and then assuming that Tylenol would not have worked. Also, the assumption that Iraq would have continued to rage on at it's previous level of kaos had we done something different is just that....comjecture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramjet: "The surge was proposed, authorized and implemented. Predictions that it would fail were made by Pelosi, Reid, Wes Clark, Gen McPeak, Murtha, Wexler, all the cheerleaders on Countdown....."

Yes, and many of th proponents of the surge were ALSO sceptical about whether or not it would wrok....and were touting it as a last resort. No one seemed particularly confident....including the backers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramjet: "The president has admitted making mistakes. Obama will not."

The fact that Obama HAS amitted making mistakes aside, the president has not admitted to his MAJOR mistakes like invading Iraq....preferring instead to focus on the choice of words he used in some of his cheerleading efforts.

In my opinion, Obama did not make a "mistake" in choosing to oppose the surge in favor of alternative strategies, therefore he has nothing to apologize for just because something he opposed seemingly has gone as intended.

PS Ramjet, I did not mean to imply that you misspelled "disturbing". I'm the one who accidently misspelled it because I am working from a laptop with a touchpad that makes it difficult, if not impossible to capture and drag quotes.....therefore I retype the quote manually and sometimes make the same kind of unintentional grammatical mistakes I make in my own postings.

The historical revisionism is amazing and dangerous.

I looked back to the archives of OW in 2006....NO MENTION OF THE SUNNI AWAKENING BY THE LEFT! Such brilliant posters from the left like Sir Loin of Beef, A N O N, etc. never mentioned this piece of the puzzle. Lessers, like the left's sole defender in this thread, never mentioned it either. The domestic political argument from the left was thus: The war is lost because the Iraqi Shia and Sunni are engaged in a civil war the US can do nothing about. It is tragic, but not in our national interest to stay so withdrawl by 2008 should start immediately. ALSO: the left said that Bush was only delaying the inevitable to another President and the surge would make things worse. That was the left's argument, that was Obama's argument at the time in late 2006 after the dems won the congress on the promise of getting the troops home, and that was ALL that was spoken of here at OW....

NOT ONE MENTION OF THE SUNNI AWAKENING. In fact, the left was making the argument that Bush sould have known the Iraqi Sunni and Shia would never get along and Saddam was needed to keep these very radical people apart. My argument was all along that there were radical elements of the Shia and Sunni sparking violence that lead to a greater civil war...THIS WAS THE INSURGENCY! The argument that more troops helping the moderate shia and sunni elements stop these irritants (ESPECIALLY AL QUEDA) would work....this was John McCain's argument and despite it being domestically politically unpopular all throughout 2006 and 2007 he stood by that position and he was proven right.

Obama and the dems were willing to abandon the moderate Iraqis to the minority jihadists and withdrawl. This was only because the war was now unpopular and they could make political gains here in the US. THAT WAS MY ARGUMENT AFTER THE 2006 ELECTION and their behavior since has proven me right.

Now we hear of revisionist history saying the moderate Sunni could have overcome their extremist cousins and Al Queda and stop the violence. WHAT A JOKE! Please. Again, if that was a fact, why did I not hear that argument from those touting it now when the surge was being debated? Hello? All Obama had to say back in 2007 when he was saying our increasing involvement under General Petraeus' counter insurgency plan would MAKE THINGS WORSE AND FAIL, was "There are signs that the Sunni in Anbar are increasingly going against Al Queda in Iraq and willing to work with us. Why do we need more troops if the Sunni are coming along?"

The reason why he could not make that argument is because that was not sufficient in the situation because the insurgency needed to be stopped with more force and the Iraqi security forces were not yet up to that task. General Petraeus and George Bush AND JOHN MCCAIN were wise to know that moderate Sunni (and the Shia majority) would not come along side them if security was bad. THE SURGE WAS NECESSARY!

So....I am sick and tired of people saying two things. The surge was not key in turning around the Iraqi democracy movement and strengthened the moderates' position against the despotic jihadists. And two, the democrats, including Obama, made a POLITICAL calculation in 2006 to be against the surge and now are trying to make it appear as if that was not the case.

These types of lies are dangerous because they mean someone is not learning a lesson. If Obama is to be trusted as CiC with his lack of experience as only being a 1 term senator and community organizer, he must admit his mistake in his characterization of General Petraeus' counter-insurgency plan (AKA the surge), as doomed to fail and would make the civil war worse.

I doubt he will make such an admission because this would inflame the far left which he is counting on in this election.

The arrogance of some to suggest that helping the Iraqi people in 2006 was not ok and in our national interests, but now it is the honorable thing to do makes me just sick.

It is wrong to lie about a political position in a decision that affects national security.

Oh, and in my quick scan of the archives, one silly poster who has shown his total lack of ability to be logical and persuasive posted this little moronic ditty back in 2007:

"DO I 'want to win in Iraq'? ....HELL YES!....Just as long as not another American life has to be sacrificed, ....and not another dime has to be borrowed to finance it, ....and we don't have to sacrifice any more of our cherished principles in the process, ....and we can get out of there tomorrow as part of the deal!"

By Mike on July 16, 2007 12:12 AM

###
In fairness, this was only part of a larger inane response to Rico about achieving a good result (or what I would call winning) in Iraq. Responses like this make Obama look like a rookie in the "spin and don't answer the question" department. But it is yet another example of the poster's lies about he himself "never talking about Iraq in terms of winning or losing."

I hope the victim of his slander, OS, gets this piece of good news.

And then there is this revealing piece of wisdom from the same poster:

"Saddam was brutal and an enemy, but he was not really an Islamic terrorist....he was in fact an enemy of the enemy that actually attacked us (Al Qeada). Saddam's brutality was exactly what kept a lid on that sectarian powderkeg we call Iraq. The best we can hope for today is to somehow put a lid BACK on that powderkeg, and not end up with a country that is completely hostile to us. Thats obviously a tall order.

"There is no evidence that staying there is going to achieve that, nor is there any hard evidence that leaving is going to automatically create the hostile state many are predicting either. We just don't know! ... Therefore, we should not keep wasting American lives in what really amounts to little more than a colossal crap shoot."

By Mike on July 16, 2007 2:45 AM

###
Ah, the democrat's argument and what the popularity polls demanded. Well, we see now that the characterization of the majority of Iraqis not willing to be our friends because we were there has melted away....MORE TROOPS DID NOT MAKE THE SECTARIAN VIOLENCE WORSE. Now we are withdrawing responsibly like Bush and McCain wanted and not irresponsibly like some here demanded. How about that!

And to say that Saddam did not support terrorism is a lie. Too bad I was not there to get him on this at the time....His support for Hamas terrorists against Israel is fact AND who knows what side Mr. Hussein would be courting now with a nuclear pursuing Iran next door....perhaps his Sunni cousins in Al Queda would have overlooked his secularist tendencies for access to his WMD aspirations and the HUGE resources that he had at his disposal....Knowing Saddam's previous actions in gassing, raping and torturing his own people, I am sure he would not be cooperating with the US in the war on terror (to say the least)....But that argument in removing him always falls on the appeasement left's deaf ears. Saddam was fine to stay in power, right?

Ok, let's cut to the chase so we can get back on topic.

My problem with Obama is, just like What's His Name, he won't admit his predictions that the surge would fail were wrong and he won't acknowledge that the surge is succeeding.

He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

"We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

"My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

"Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

Just prior to his "Tour of Duty," the Obama campaign website changed his statement regarding the failure of the surge.

Obama reccomends a surge in Afghanistan.

Over & out.

Correct ramjet....and this disqualifies Obama from being commader in chief of the US armed forces. His lack of judgement and willingness to place personal political considerations in front of national security as a US Senator and candidate for POTUS is obvious.

Ramjet: "OK lets cut to the chase and get back on topic."

Well, I tried to stay on topic about the surge, but then the site's most fanatical Neocon, who was recently rendered irrelevant for posting blatant lies about taxation rates, decided to jump in with his usual BS.

I had to skip past all of that noise in order to get to your response.

My point was and remains that the surge was only one of several strtegies that could have been pursued at the time, and no one can offer enything but conjecture regarding the relative reasons for the lowered violence levels we see today....the surge being but one of several factors involved.

The surge mainly targeted the ethnic sectarian violence in the Baghdad area and it may have been the major factor in calming that city down.....but this conversation began regarding the Anwar Province violence and the effect of the surge there....and when it began.

Obama is right to recommend a surge in Afghanistan because that is where the 911 plot was hatched, and Afghanistan is and always has been the central front on the war on terrorism.....and it NEVER was Iraq. He is also correct in asserting that adequate resources cannot be trained on the Taliban and Al Qeada there as long as we remain distracted in Iraq.

Wolverine, I just didn't want you to give Mike what he wants by taking his bait. But go ahead. I'm sorry I got in your way.
I applaud those registered users that haven't taken Mike's bait. Now, I'm headed on to more recent posts.

You're probably right Mike C, and in being an ex-boxer I'm always looking for a good fight but as you say I fell for his bait... hook line and sinker too...I won't be so spontaneous the next time.

Nothing was meant against you though, as I sometimes lose my head when trying to contain my anger towards most of his replies (not all but most) and I'll think better of it next time.

I never quite picked up on why most of the fellow poster's here don't reply right back at him towards something he says to them, but I think I understand now.

You know bro, like missing the forest because of the trees, which is what will happen at times with my love for America...

Wow. I haven't checked in here for a while and it's great to see mikeh has been gettin' boxed around like a red headed step child. Unfortunately, no matter how many facts are put in his face, he still yells "you're wrong" with no evidence. I also see a fat juicy piece of hypocrisy by mikeh:

"Not nearly what I would call a gutless somebody who calls other posters 'morons', 'brainless', and 'cowards' behind the safety and anonimity of his computer screen."

by mikeh

I could post at least a hundred of mikeh's posts where he has done just what he is ridiculing someone else for. Thanks, mikeh!

You're forgiven, Wolverine. I'll just try to avoid looking at the comment where you got mad at me. I was looking out for you and other people here because I was a victim of bullying in an AOL chat room called "Long Island" (there was essentially a bully clique in there) back when I was addicted to chat and looking for a girlfriend in there or spillover rooms (Long Island 1, Long Island 29, etc.). I gave that up a year and a half ago.

Wolverine: "You're probably right MikeC"

Oh I see Wolverine.....So you DO like the way this site has degenerated into a gossip session about KO's girlfiriend, how he dresses, Orange man, Fatass, etc, etc. One thing I find interesting about this site is the way I see point of views I have NEVER encountered in real life in my 56 years....Now it seems that I've just been called a 'bully' by someone who literally acts like a sissy on this site......another first!

MikeC: "Wolverine i just didn't want you to give Mike what he wants by taking his bait."

What I "want" is to better understand the inner workings of the minds of right wing extremists.

However, It rarely works very well because it usually degenerates into me being implicated or called things like "traitor", "un-American", "coward", "moron", etc. (and now 'bully') in place of recieving a respectfull resonse to what was originally a respectfull post.

I certainly can't make any claims to understanding the Neoconservative mind any better.....but it does serve to accentuate the obvious need for Americans to get them out of power as soon as possible.

Mike, I never said you were a bully, because if I felt that way I'd never stop going toe to toe with you, but I do agree with what Mike C said about how you will try baiting people into continuing an argument even when you know you're wrong.

You've never, (to my knowledge) ever admitted when you were wrong (I'm talking about the facts and not your opinions) which in turn leaves for a deadend debate every time.

This is so obvious when it comes to the current discussion about Olbermann's lies towards O'Reilly, in which it is blatantly clear he lied in which you will defend his lies to the end.

No chance for a debate there, and yet you somehow will try to continue it knowing full well, as I know you're smarter than that, that KO lied once again.

Johnny $ made it even clearer to you about his lie, and yet you tried once again to bate him further. Yes, you do try to bait people into an argument when you know there's no way they can win if you'll never admit to something that even you know is true.

"Bait and then debate" should be your real moniker...

You are totally wrong again Wolverine. First off, I didn't say you called me a bully. But MikeC certainly DID make that implication 3 posts up from this one. How did you miss that?

Lets start with Johnny Dollar: I made postings about the Scarborough comments on a thread DEDICATED to the Scarborough comments. Then along comes J$ who tries to bait me about comments made by Olbermann about O'Reilly, which was NOT the subject of the thread.

Now lets get one thing straight....I could care less WHAT Keith Olbermann says about Bill O'Reilly, just as long as he tells the truth regarding REAL issues such as the war. On the flip side, I could care less about all the absurd and ridiculous comments that O'Reilly has made about NBC and others in the media either.

That said, I find it un believable that a web site dedicated to trashing a Newsman dedicated THREE threads to a situation in which the object of their scorn made a TRUTHFUL statement about the timing of the Sunni Awakening just because some clueless newsman from the same network criticized him for doing it.

How can this website endorse the criticism leveled at someone for telling the truth without making itself look like a fool? But that is exactly what this it did, yet I am the ONLY one who will even address this point......But then I'm supposed to forget about that and worry about some gossip KO leveled at Bill O'Reilly? Do you REALLY find that logical?

I actually respected you, but then you capitulated to MikeC, who has been arrogantly trying to control this website by scolding others for posting things he doesn't personally approve of, even though the REAL owner of this site has encouraged political debate......Is that REALLY what you are about, Mr. former boxer?

I didn't "bait" anyone. I was dead on the subject of the thread, but then J$ tried to bait ME onto a different subject.....See the difference?

As for me not admitting "facts", you state what you BELIEVE to be facts that are really only opinions, and then you become frustrated when I disagree with that opinion.....See the difference?

No Wolverine, I am NOT an easy kill. I've been all over this world. I've served honorably in the military during wartime. My father was a four tour veteran of three wars. I've managed many employees in Corporate America, and now I am successfully self employed. During that entire time, I have always paid keen attention to politics and world affairs. That said, The revisionism that is being applied to history and politics these days is absolutely astonishing to me.

I shouldn't be acknowledging you, Mike, but I have to say a few things. I'm only a moderate Republican, far from a "right wing extremist." My language on this site has been TV-PG-rated, to say the least. Yes, I've referred to Keith as "Fat Ass," but to me, that means "Heavy Donkey/Mule."
I never called you a traitor, un-American, or a coward, and wouldn't want to. I've just had some bad experiences in my life with people that have attacked me either online or in person.
I do not want to be on your bad side. I come in peace, and I mean that sincerely. I have friends that share your point of view, even if they don't use the same terminology you've used. They don't like Bill O'Reilly or Fox News and prefer Keith and MSNBC. It's their choice. It's frustrating that those are their preferences, but I don't hold it against them.
I'm not scolding anyone here; I'm just making friendly suggestions. The trouble with typed words is you can't hear any emotion or inflection in them. Emoticons only help a little. I have OCD and Asperger Syndrome. It's easy for people to misconstrue my actions for arrogance and scolding, but once people are aware, it helps them understand where I'm coming from or why I act the way I do.
I know I'm saying far too much here, but I needed to get all this off my chest. Again, I don't want to be an adversary. Please understand that. Thank you for reading.

Nuff said!

What do you mean by that?

Never mind. Mike and I sorted everything out in the Friday recap comment thread. :-)