I was thinking of posting something along the lines of what Scott (#4) said, but he nailed it perfectly.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/04/18/mcclatchey-misreports-iraq-war-report/

I found this over at Prairie Pundit, who dug it up at SWJ, and the bottom line is that, IN COLLINS OWN WORDS…

“The Miami Herald story (”Pentagon Study: War is a ‘Debacle’ “) distorts the nature of and intent of my personal research project. It was not an NDU study, nor was it a Pentagon study. Indeed, the implication of the Herald story was that this study was mostly about current events. Such is not the case. It was mainly about the period 2002-04.”

. . . . . .
SWJ Editors Note: Unfortunately this is not the first instance - nor will it be the last – of highly selective use of source quotes and excerpts as well as distortion of context by members of the “mainstream media” in reporting on recent events and trends in Iraq…”

GOT THAT? It doesn’t mean what you thought it did, because those who told you lied. Why do you keep believing them?

So, what I was reacting to was the Liberal bias of the cherry-picking MSM, which distorted the content and intent of the study. Naturally they would have latched onto something that would have appealed to their lunatic base. I stand by my comments, though now I know they don’t apply to Collins, but to Dougy and the Miami (Pinko) Herald.

Everything they know is wrong!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307352099/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=1619512661&ref=pd_sl_7nlne996o9_b

Bush et. al., are accused of “…a failure to partner successfully” - doug

LOL

I posted the accusation, but I didn’t make it; Joseph J. Collins made the accusation.

Why is this distinction important? Who is Collins?

He’s a “Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College since 2004. Prior to this assignment, he served for 3 years as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations. From 1998 to 2001, Dr. Collins was a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he researched economic sanctions, national security policy, and homeland security. In 1998, after nearly 28 years of military service, Dr. Collins retired from the
U.S. Army as a colonel. His many publications include books and articles on war in Afghanistan, Operation Desert Storm, military culture, defense transformation, homeland defense, and the way ahead in Iraq.” –See his report.

“Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz asked Collins to serve as his special assistant. Shortly thereafter, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed Collins as deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28841

Therefore, this charge that yonason makes regarding the left:

Anytime, and I mean ANY TIME the Right doesn’t agree with the Left, we are accused of being obstructionist, stubborn, bullies, and are compared to Hitler and threatened with whatever they think will frighten us, sometimes even being falsely accused of crimes and having careers ruined just for spite for not being good “partners” (not succumbing to the Left’s Sharia equivalent). And you want us to “partner” with that scum?!

…holds no water here; as Collins is not affiliated “with the left” since he was appointed by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and worked with them during the Iraq invasion.

Additionally, Collins’ conclusions were based, in part, “on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations, …” and, hence, his conclusions are shared by others.

Consequently, this is why Collins’ report is so poignant.

Have you seen this debunking of the Katrina myths?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2

It’s quite thorough, and informative. I’ve heard some ad hominem criticism of it, but nothing that’s based in reality. Despite the fact that it was one of, if not the, biggest national disasters, the response was faster than any other, including Andrew. I live in Florida, and remember while driving on Rt 75 seeing caravans of utility and other aid vehicles headed north to render assistance. It was massive, and fast. But the Left never will let go of a good lie.

After all the MSM BS I had been hearing while following the storm and it’s aftermath, I heard a Nat Guard officer say that before they could go in they needed permission. How long did it take? They requested the forms from Louisiana govt., received them by FAX almost immediately, filled them out and FAXed them right back, and were immediately responded to with permission to come in. And he said the whole process took about 1/2 an hour. A lot fewer people screwed up on both sides than any partisans are willing to admit.

LOL

What a load of PC nonsense! Look at Chamberlain! He “partnered” with Hitler successfully…for Hitler.

Anytime, and I mean ANY TIME the Right doesn’t agree with the Left, we are accused of being obstructionist, stubborn, bullies, and are compared to Hitler and threatened with whatever they think will frighten us, sometimes even being falsely accused of crimes and having careers ruined just for spite for not being good “partners” (not succumbing to the Left’s Sharia equivalent). And you want us to “partner” with that scum?!

Like the spoiled little brat who throws a tantrum in the store because his parents are being so unreasonable for not buying him EVERYTHING he wants, they start causing a scene and sometimes damage which the parents have to pay for, just for spite. Too bad his parents just didn’t know how to “partner” correctly, eh?

The term “partner” means confederate, friend, supporter, etc., i.e., it means you are in agreement, in cahoots, share a common goal with the people you are “partnering” with. If you strongly disagree with them, but you support them anyway, it means at best that you have no backbone, no character, you stand for nothing. At worst, it means you are one of THEM! In fact, by accusing us of not “partnering” with them on their foolish ventures (nearly all) they are really giving us a tremendous compliment. We must be doing something right.

I am fed up with “partnering” with malicious idiots, and I hope most of America is, as well. And I’m fed up with their made-up words that mask reality to make it easier for them to con us.

The mistake you seem to be making is the one we have all been programmed to make, i.e., that Hitler was “Right Wing,” while Marx was “Left.” What the Left has done is to confuse the definition of what a Leftist is and what they stand for, and that makes seeing the threat they pose all the more difficult (They often change the meaning of words to obscure reality in order to camouflage their malicious intentions). I remember what an eye opener it was to find that Hitler was a Leftist. After that, a lot of things that didn’t make sense before started to.

Remember, Hitler came to power as a Leftist “opposing” Communism, even though they were both socialist movements, and had almost every essential feature in common. The major difference, as I recall, was that in Germany there was no internal threat to rally a “revolt” around, so it wouldn’t have gotten Hitler anywhere. By contrast, in Russia revolution was the ticket to building a power base, (Leftists are opportunistic parasites, after all.) But, as to their social policies, there wasn’t any real difference.

See John Ray’s wonderful material for more info.
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

So, yes, Roosevelt and Kennedy were both Leftists, even though they might have evaluated other Leftists differently based on superficial considerations.

Also, see what Chris G. said. It’s a bit more direct and to the point.

Disagree? Fine.. that’s part of our country’s strengths. But the partisan attacks have sunk to a new low over these past years.

The Nat’l Defense University’s accusation of “failure to partner successfully” translates into the more real analysis of a “failure to acquiesce to DNC/MoveOn.org demands”. For Congress DNC were never willing to partner or compromise. And that can not be laid at the feet of the Commander in Chief.

jpm100, yes it is a mixed bag. And most of us have some beefs with #43 and domestic issues, original war plan strategy and planning, etal. However all POTUS have “mixed bag” performance. This President has never been given credit for any of the pluses… most of which will be more obvious as time passes.

i.e…. when Iraq can handle their own under the next CIC, that (possibly) DNC President will take credit for events that could never have happened if the DNC had their way in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

And the electorate will buy that because they can’t remember history from yesterday.

…
One consistent problem demonstrated by George W. Bush’s administration
has been a failure to partner successfully, and this can be laid
at the feet of the President and the people who dominated the national
security apparatus. In the interagency, with the Congress, and with our
allies, senior U.S. national security officials exhibited in many instances
an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and
bargaining might have had a better effect. In war planning, in managing
the detainee issues with Congress, in routine discourse with allies, and in
building international coalitions, the United States executive branch was
often seen as trying to be lord and master, instead of primus inter pares.
In the end, the failure to partner successfully increased friction among
Defense, State, and CIA, increased partisan bickering with an already
fractious Congress, complicated the detainee policy, lowered allied participation
in Iraq, and hurt U.S. standing abroad.
…

-page 27.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

…And for those who want it abridged:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/ex-rumsfeld-dep.html

He so poorly handled criticisms, being both too little and too late in his responses, he gave legs and sometime credibility to the wildest of accusations. This is why he has the reputation he has now. That wouldn’t be bad if it only affected him. But it didn’t. The Republicans lost both Houses because of the negativity he allowed to flourish. The Democrats have a chance at the WH also because of that negativity against Republicans.

Yes, the media was stacked against him. But so was it against Reagan who still did great and also against Bush Sr. who held his own. Reagan didn’t have talk radio and Bush only had a little bit of talk radio at the time. Neither had the internet or blogs to help communicate the message.

Going after Saddam was the right thing to do, but his execution of the war in total is mediocre at best. The beginning and likely ending are good, but we lingered for 3-4 years continuously degrading in the security situation inbetween.

He failed on illegal immigration. Failed on border security. Turning the ports over to Dubai, wtf? Let’s face it. Philosophically Bush has an internationalist streak which is different that just wanting open international trade.

Your arrogance and insults are beyond asinine. After coming from a funeral of a WWII vet, your ignorant, arrogant leftist lie of “They hated Stalin but liked Hitler” boils my blood. Pure BULLSHIT!!!!!!

I despise BOTH of those men and ALL they stood for. Socialism, no matter if it was Lenninism or National Socialism is a cancer upon humanity outwardly fooling the ignorant with “hope” and a “utopia”, but inwardly full of nothing but death and oppression.

But, as usual, you are a drive by poster so why bother.

yonason 10 - Doug left wing knuckle dragger 0

Just keeping score