<p>“Yeah, it’s because we didn’t play enough ping-pong with Osama that he decided to attack us. It’s always our fault.”</p>
<p>FF, </p>
<p>Do you HONESTLY not know what that phrase means?</p>
<p>yes, I do; but do you?</p>
<p>guess ff should talk to the joint chiefs…seem they think Bush is kind of clueless as well…</p>
<p>^^As does Colin Powell.</p>
<p>superstarr - here’s a tip for when you get into college and have to write a paper. It’s usually best to support your view with supporting data. Good luck.</p>
<p>alwaysamom, same advice for you, but you should be old enough to know better.</p>
<p>supporting data, as requested:</p>
<p>“The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.”
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html</a></p>
<p>"“It’s grave and deteriorating,” Colin Powell said of the situation in Iraq on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” “And as Secretary-designate of Defense Bob Gates said at his confirmation hearing, we’re not winning. So if it’s grave and deteriorating and we’re not winning, we are losing.”</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice, FF. Forgive me for thinking that you would have viewed GWB’s good friend Bob Schieffer’s interview of Colin Powell on Sunday morning. Or, even if you happened to miss that, that you probably would have seen or heard his comments printed or repeated many times in the days since. My apologies. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.</p>
<p>drb an alawaysamom, perhaps I missed it in your “supporting” data, but I failed to see the word “clueless” or anything close that in your snippets. Having seen the Powell interview personnaly, I can assure you that there was no indication of him saying Bush was “clueless”.</p>
<p>Lead paragraph today.</p>
<p>The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.</p>
<p>Enough said.</p>
<p>Using the “logic” that if you disagree with someone that the other person is “clueless”, that implies that the joint chiefs also view the ISG clueless, Harry Reid clueless and Murtha/Pelosi less than clueless.</p>
<p>It would be great if we could skip the meaningless argument regarding cluelessness, and return to the gist of the discussion, which is the promotion of a military strategy that is “unanimous(ly)” opposed by the most senior military staff.</p>
<p>“yes, I do; but do you?”</p>
<p>Absolutely, that is why your response didn’t make sense. Why don’t you expand on your theory a bit and share a bit of wisedom. It seems in history this concept has worked for the United States pretty well. Why don’t you feel it won’t work?</p>
<p>
So, let me get this straight, if G Bush follows the advice of the military as he has done until now its all his fault and if he strays from the advice of the military it still all his fault. And BTW, the approach to increase troop size in Baghdad is proposed by a former member of the Joint Chiefs.</p>
<p>Opie, if we want to improve relations with a sovereign nation that also wants to improve relations with us for its own best interest, a little game of ping-pong may be useful to break the ice. Since al Qaeda fits neither into the sovereign nation category and openly wants to kill as many of us as they possibly can, I hardly think that it’s time to bring out the ping-pong paddles.</p>
<p>Since Al Quaeda was never in Iraq (indeed, there were no suicide bombings at all in that country, until our invasion and occupation), there goes that argument, FF.</p>
<p>Let me ask you an honest question, as Driver has left you holding the conservative apron strings…is there anything wrong with the way GWBush is handling things in Iraq, or do you think this is all going swimmingly?</p>
<p>I thought the original proposal (from the military) for a large occupation force was considered by Rumsfeld to be unnecessary, so a history of “following the advice of the military” is arguable. And the opinion of a former member of the Joint Chiefs is elevated over the unanimous opinion of the present ones?</p>
<p>This is, plain and simple, political posturing. Bush knows the American public will no longer support their sons and daughters dying in the name of an ill-conceived and failed neocon fantasy (i.e. a democratic and stable Iraq). By blustering now about increasing the troops, which will not happen, he can blame the Dems for the disasterous outcome of this mission not-accomplished.</p>
<p>"Opie, if we want to improve relations with a sovereign nation that also wants to improve relations with us for its own best interest, a little game of ping-pong may be useful to break the ice. Since al Qaeda fits neither into the sovereign nation category and openly wants to kill as many of us as they possibly can, I hardly think that it’s time to bring out the ping-pong paddles. "</p>
<p>Yes, but the countries that allow osama room to roam do play sports. Probably the best point of the commission was “we have always talked to our ememies before…” that to me is where we are going wrong. Our refusal to communicate except the rattling of swords is a big part of the problem. </p>
<p>Ping pong diplomacy was probably one of the best things ole tricky dick pulled off. For GW, opening dialog with Iran via competition (wrestling, soccer their strongest sports) would get him some positive historical references. Right now the guy is lining up to be considered the worst president in our history. If he could open dialog with these “ememy” states and begin the dipolmatic process, it would be harder for the osama’s to make headway. </p>
<p>You have to understand how sport can break down barriers between nations.</p>
<p>
Nice statement and typically used by the left, but please provide the report that backs this up (I can provide several to counter this view.)</p>
<p>
Same response as to AM - typical rhetoric that you hear these days but please provide the report that backs that up.</p>