Flak jackets in Nam were barely protective anyway.

This came up with the "uparmored humvees" business. More armor slows the vehicle and makes it prone to roll-overs, more fatal crashes, etc. Seriously, it is like these reporters don't even bother asking questions anymore.

Well, I've worn both the vietnam-era flaks (during boot) and the flaks we have now, and there's no comparison. Even so, with the plates in it's pretty heavy to run in.

I wore the armor of the 80s - better than the Vietnam era stuff, but in any event, it was heavy, which was tolerable, and restrictive, which was intolerable -- especially if you happen to be as large a fellow as I am.

Plus, of course, it wasn't really bulletproof; rather, it was really only grenade/arty fragment-proof, and really only from directly in front or behind, and well above the waist -- mine barely came down far enough to cover my kidneys.

The only reason any of us ever wore it in training was because we were ordered to -- usually by über-gung-ho company commanders really wanting to impress the battalion commander at OER time.

Of course, any MI/SIGINT troop (such as I was) who has to worry about the need for body armor has already screwed up, mission-wise. Might as well join the Infantry.

Learning from history? What's that?

You expect the AP and co. to actually understand military concepts? Honestly, for shame.

I've aquired all my military knowledge from video games and I know more than these retards.

Jason Von Steeynwyck (?) writes all the time about the appalling lack of anyone with any military experience in major newsrooms; this is another example. Heat exhaustion and dehydration can kill a soldier just as easily as small arms fire can, and wearing too much gear makes shooting and moving that much harder and hotter. A few of the Rangers killed in Somalia didn't wear all the plates their gear could hold; they looked at the extra weight as a hindrance. Guess that was the Pentagon's fault too.

I bet you're struggling with that report that 80% of US fatalities in Iraq would have survived with proper body armor. Catch the Pentagon reaction on that one?

Stoning would be too good for the crooks behind this.
Posted by tubino at January 7, 2006 05:16 PM

Tubino? Hello? Is this thing on?

You people are as dumb as a fucking bag of rocks.

A report regarding a lack of body armor, that we have but don't issue...that could save up to 80% of the soldiers killed...and you dolts say it really doesn't mean anything...that it's all liberal bullshit or, hey they wouldn't wear it anyway, or it's too heavy...

Oh, really???

Well, why not send these observations along to the families of the 2,193 dead and 16,155 wounded soldiers and see what they have to say.

What a disgusting group you are.

Then feel free to fuck off and die, you moonat son of a whore. You've leaready gotten your ass handed to you on one thread, would you like to try for two?

You people are as dumb as a fucking bag of rocks.

Hey!!!!

"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."

Combat is inherently dangerous, regardless of the vehicle, armor, artillery, or other equipment used. DUH.

Furthermore, every engagement teaches the military new lessons; they absorb them and develop, but it takes time.

Massive quantities of new armor don't just appear out of thin air.

The article does not mention how many men were SAVED by the armor they were issued.

Hey Thomass, read my prior link.

Then read the words of an actual soldier in combat from the original post:

Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.

"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."

You're about as sharp as Jello - Thomas Jefferson addressing the Federalists, 1798

Speaking of learning form history, huzzaba the Mongols. They went for speed and long-distance killing power (their compound bow had at least as much range as the Welsh longbow, but was half the size and therefore suitable for use while riding).

Armor? No, that would have slowed them down, Losers wore armor, in battles with the Mongols, quite literally. The Mongols themselves were happy with a silk shirt, plus some leather padding to deflect any arrows that came at them.

Speed was their real armor.

Great example, ras. There have been countless, countless examples of the same phenomenon in every single era. Very few people, especially those people who are spoonfed their news and views from today's mainstream media outlets. We don't need new schools, we need the freakin' History Channel in every house.

Very few people understand, especially those people who are spoonfed their news and views from today's mainstream media outlets.

Ugh, I don't even have a good excuse this time.

Lefty disinformation in action:

What the article said - 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body

What dumbass Thomas said - that could save up to 80% of the soldiers killed

Who is as dumb as a bag of rocks?

Hey Thomas,

While every death is a tragedy, the 80% figure is conjecture and shouldn't be applied against the total number of deaths.

Of the 2193 deaths confirmed by the DoD, only 73% were combat-deaths. On those, nearly half are due to IED's. Others are from mortar, RPG, or other explosive ordnance. A relatively small % are from small arms fire.

So the statement that 80% could have been saved by proper body armor is false. Additionally, as others have said, it is a trade off: too much body armor and you sacrifice mobility, little or none and you have no protection from small arms fire.

I personally know two MI Army National Guard soliders who were shot in Iraq. One, SSG Rickey A. Kieffer, was struct in the head by a sniper round and was instantly killed. No amount of body armor would have saved him. The other was struck flush in the chest by a AK-47 round. The hard ceramic plate stopped the round. The body armor he was wearing was sufficient to save him.

thomas:Well, why not send these observations along to the families of the 2,193 dead and 16,155 wounded soldiers and see what they have to say.

What a disgusting group you are.

Posted by Thomas at January 7, 2 This is why you liberal nut cases are always losing. You have no military experience and think you know more than anyone in the military. I have served in combat and I can assure you that armour never mattered. Your comment reveals how proud you are of your ignorance and how little chance there is that you will ever learn anything. The only way to avoid being shot is not have it hit you. You can do this with speed, camouflage or surprise. Surprise is the best defense and it is also among the best offensive strategies. You of course would be a disaster in combat. An unwillingness to learn combined with stupidity and ideological fanaticism is a great way to maximize your chance of dying in combat. That's why the U.S. should never have a draft---too many dimwit left wing nuts like you that would cost us money, be totally ineffective and (due to your dunce factor) endanger the lives of all fellow soldiers.

Hey, I hate to bother you with the facts, but the too-heavy crowd might want to actually ...uh ...read.

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.

"As the information became more prevalent and aware to everybody that in fact these were casualty sites that they needed to be worried about, then people were much more willing to accept that weight on their body," said Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command, the corps procurement unit.

What I find amazing about Ace (as well as just about every political blog out there) is the ability to scream information from the rooftops when they agree with it and ignore it wholesale when it does not.

37-year vet (Korea, Vietnam, both volunteered) Murtha says something and he is lambasted on this site. Some 1-tour "I thought I was going to get a college education" Marine says something and it's pure gold.

Guess what? Some Marines think that more expansive armor is worth the weight. Do you mention that? OF COURSE YOU DON'T.

That's called "lying." And yes, leaving out facts is a lie.

You accuse your kids of having selective hearing but god knows you can't see it in yourself day-in and day-out.

Pathetic.

Jason

Ok, I'm calling pendelton out.

What's your name, your branch, your span and location of duty? I'm going to find out if it's true.

I'm already 100% POSITIVE you will decline to give this information. Why? It's a matter of public record.

You won't provide it because it's easier to be thought a liar than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Put up or shut up.

Jason

Good Lord, Ace, I think we've got ourselves an honest-to-goodness Moonbat-alanche.

What price fame, Ace?

What.... price?

mweh heh.

37-year vet (Korea, Vietnam, both volunteered) Murtha says something and he is lambasted on this site. Some 1-tour "I thought I was going to get a college education" Marine says something and it's pure gold.

"I support the troops! Don't question my patriotism!" - Thomas Jefferson to General Lafeyette, 1778

Me there.

Jason, frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. I just returned from Iraq a month ago. Most of the Soldiers I treated who dies from blast injuries. There's no personal armor out there that is going to protect you from blasts. Excluding an Abrams tank. I could go on. But I don't think you could comprehend. Do you even know how heavy the IBA (Interceptor Body Armor) is by it self? Now add ammo, NODs, water, etc. Not to mention any armor is going to add heat to your body, something like ten degrees. Then summer in Iraq!

"Guess what? Some Marines think that more expansive armor is worth the weight. Do you mention that? OF COURSE YOU DON'T." - Jason

"Some marines think " - anonymous sources or did you just make that up because it sounded good?

Most ground-pounders I've known (Marines and two Army Guard Guys) almost unanimously prefer mobility to wearing a bunch of hot, heavy shit into combat. The biggest gripes I've been hearing so far aren't about armor at all; they're mostly about the crappy stopping power of the rifle (M16A2) and the standard pistol (9mm Beretta). Most troops want heavier caliber infantry weapons -- lots of troops have bought their own .45 cal pistols, along with military-grade Remington 1100 shotguns for close-in work.

And you know what else saves a lot of lives in the infantry? Good boots. Seriously. The boots troops have now are lots better than the Gulf War I model, and it shows -- again, it's about mobility, durability, and staying cool.

Like everything else, there is a tipping point where armor becomes self-defeating; if it inhibits movement too much, or is too hot, then soldiers won't use it. One of the major efforts over the years has been to develop adaptive armor -- something like a lightweight piezoelectric ceramic armor that is very light, but reacts electrically when struck by (say) a bullet and increases manyfold in tensile strength without becoming brittle. But this stuff still hasn't made it out of the lab, as far as I know.

Hell yes, Monty. Our new boots are much better. The old style boot soles we used in Afghanistan were literally falling apart walking up and down those hills and mountains.

There's an interesting WW II episode that illustrates some of the trade-offs involved with armor. The standard American battle tanks of the early war years were the General Lees; they were completely overmatched by almost every other tank model, and were slaughtered wholesale during the early months of Operation TORCH in Africa. There was a push to make the replacement model, the Sherman, far more robust by adding armor all around, as well as a heavier gun and a much thicker glacis.

The problem was, of course, that all this stuff added weight. And more weight translated to more fuel requirements and thus lower mobility. Also, more armor and a heavier gun meant fewer tanks. The Americans opted for lighter armor and a somewhat smaller gun, but to crank out tanks by the thousands. They were modular, highly mobile, and stacked up very well against other tanks on the battlefield when used in combined-arms operations.

As it turned out, this was the right choice -- although Shermans were no match for Panzer Mark IV or Tiger tanks one-on-one, they proved decisive because they arrived on the battlefield in great numbers and were very effective in a troop-support role. (Troops disliked the thin armor on the sides, though, and the tanks burned too easily; the called the tanks "Ronsons", and they weren't trying to be funny.)

On a modern, fast-moving battlefield, armor is less important than being fast and being very battlefield aware. If you're too heavy or too slow, you die. It's far easier to defeat armor than it is to defeat speed.

The NYR?
must be a new pape.
Probably the same one Thomas keeps quoting in the "blueprints" thread, cause he sure aint quoting Risen's book.

Thomas, you are a disgusting person.

What kind of pathetic, sick motherfucking asshole shitweasel uses dead soldiers to bolster their political arguments?

Oh, that's right...a liberal.

Fuck you and the vibrator you rode in on, asshole.

matterson writes:

Jason, frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

Ah, another meathead who begins by typing "you're wrong" before he's even read my post.

I didn't say it. Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command did.

But you disagree. A keyboard cowboy. Boy, if I had a nickel for everybody who claimed they were ex-military, I'd be rich.

Max writes:

anonymous sources or did you just make that up because it sounded good?

It's in italics and surrounded by quotes. I thought you could figure it out.

But wait, Monty wants to chip in. He writes:

Most ground-pounders I've known (Marines and two Army Guard Guys) almost unanimously prefer mobility to wearing a bunch of hot, heavy shit into combat.

I JUST CAN'T WAIT FOR ALL THE ACERS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT MONTY USING THE PHRASE "MOST GROUND-POUNDERS."

WAIT FOR IT. ANY SECOND NOW. ... Crap.

Why am I not surprised?

(ps: no offense Marty, I'm denigrating the integrity of this board, not your post.)

Monty, who actually sounds like the only rational soul on this board, continues:

Like everything else, there is a tipping point where armor becomes self-defeating; if it inhibits movement too much, or is too hot, then soldiers won't use it.

No offense, your reply is rational and lucid, which is about as common as integrity around here, but I'm just quoting Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command. And I don't suppose he's a pinko commie with an axe to grind.

Lee Atwater writes:

What kind of pathetic, sick motherfucking asshole shitweasel uses dead soldiers to bolster their political arguments?

Probably the same pathetic, sick motherfucking asshole shitweasel who uses live soldiers as cannon fodder over WMD that didn't exist in the first place.

Oops. Did I say that? I did, didn't I?

And to think that you made it through a whole post without mistaking calling someone "cupcake" with neurons firing...

Pendleton? Where are you Pendleton?

You can tell us, man, admit it. There is no shame in being a desk jockey, ordering pots and pans and jockstraps for the United States Army.

Fess up.

Jason

Jason? You're back. Mr. "I want a good debate" using the language of the moonbats?

Fuck you, asshole. I see your true colors, as the great philosopher Lauper once said.

People like you have made me go from disagreeing with liberals to damn near hating each and every one of you jackasses.

Keep preaching to your tens of readers on your suckass blog, shithead.

I stand by my statement that you don't know what you're talking about. You never even refuted my post. As far as my service, what do you want, my DD-214? And I never said I was ex-military. Still serving.
Have you ever served shitbag? Have you ever worn the IBA? In 130 degree Iraq heat? I doubt it.

Why don't you find someplace else for your troll droppings.

By the way, moron. There was only one cupcake. And you aren't him. I'll have to think of a new term of endearment for you.

I'm thinking "ass-licker."

Jason,

First, thanks for the kind words.

Second, the point of the original post is that more armor isn't necessarily a net benefit to the troops in the field. Armor is not magic; it is a defensive system with strengths and weaknesses that are as well-known to the enemy as they are to us. The article, as written, is both speculative and highly misleading: they assume that more armor would have saved the lives of X number of troops, without factoring in that the extra armor might have contributed to the deaths of still other troops. (Extra armor could contribute to heat-stroke, a false sense of security in the soldiers themselves, or a hindrance of their mobility on the battlefield.) Also, remember that body-armor can itself turn into shrapnel when hit by a large explosive device -- most recent US deaths are by IED and not by small arms fire, remember. Body armor will do very little to enhance survivability in that case.

To assume that it was callousness or bloody-mindedness that kept this armor out of the field is just leftist bile. There are no doubt supply problems (as there are in any war); our supply chain is ten thousand miles long! But the armed forces learn, adapt, and use the knowledge to improve.

This is not a "story". It is an editorial written by someone with an anti-military or anti-war axe to grind. Nothing more.

I'm not familiar with pendleton, he's not a regular around here, so I can't speak for him. But I'm curious to know if he does come back with verification whether or not Jason will apologize for, well, nah. I have no reason to think Jason has the sense of honor to do so.

But I just loooo-ove his naked appeals to authority!

Pendleton? Where are you Pendleton?

You can tell us, man, admit it. There is no shame in being a desk jockey, ordering pots and pans and jockstraps for the United States Army.

Now why would someone in the U.S. Army be at Camp Pendleton, a Marine base, ordering items for the Army?

Dale,

No, he meant Ice Station Pendleton in the Antarctic where he proudly keeps America safe from penguins and sea lions. He serves alongside Proud Liberal Vet as part of the US Ice Shelf Commandos.

Does anyone remember the days when Jason came in here pretending to want a dialogue between conservatives and liberals?

Ahh, those were the days.

Of course, the dude's a barking moonbat of the worst order. Check this out, from his blog

Bush's spin machine is out in full force, throwing out every ridiculous claim to derail any questions about King George's unquestionable powers. He can wage illegitimite wars, he can lie about the threats our enemies pose, he can classify "enemy combatants" outside of international law, he can torture people at will and now his handlers claim he can eavesdrop on you if he so desires, Constitution be damned.

Yup, this guy's all about finding common ground.

Lee Atwater babbles:
Jason? You're back. Mr. "I want a good debate" using the language of the moonbats?

No, my goal in coming here was to get the right-wing take on things. I failed miserably. I take that back, YOU failed miserably.

Doesn't mean I can't enjoy making you look like fools. Think of it as my consolation prize. Besides, I only shoot back. Intelligent discussion gets some in return.

You, unfortunately, are the biggest idiot here.

Fuck you, asshole. I see your true colors...

Dude, who cares what you see? The only thing you see day-to-day is your own colon. "Cupcake?"

People like you have made me go from disagreeing with liberals to damn near hating each and every one of you jackasses.

Not as much as you will by the end of the year.

Keep preaching to your tens of readers on your suckass blog, shithead.

Thanks, dad.

matterson writes:
I stand by my statement that you don't know what you're talking about. You never even refuted my post.

That's because you didn't even bother to read mine.

Respect is earned.

Lee whines:
By the way, moron. There was only one cupcake. And you aren't him. I'll have to think of a new term of endearment for you. I'm thinking "ass-licker."

Your rapier-like wit is kicking my ass over here. Sure, ass-licker works.

And before I get to Monty, I beg you all -- except for Lee, he's mentally bereft -- please read Monty's post. Notice that we're having a discussion here. Exchanging ideas. And we haven't called each other a foul name yet. Y'all might want to consider it as a viable option.

This isn't directed at everyone. Just most of you. You know who you are.

But back to Monty:
Second, the point of the original post is that more armor isn't necessarily a net benefit to the troops in the field.

I realize. And I even empathize with the idea that some of those people being weighted down with more armor might have taken a bullet they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm an armchair student of economics. I understand externalities.

Armor is not magic; it is a defensive system with strengths and weaknesses that are as well-known to the enemy as they are to us. The article, as written, is both speculative and highly misleading: they assume that more armor would have saved the lives of X number of troops, without factoring in that the extra armor might have contributed to the deaths of still other troops.

I understand that. But I object to Ace-et-al's immediate dismissal of the study. The truth lies somewhere in between. It's worth talking about.

To assume that it was callousness or bloody-mindedness that kept this armor out of the field is just leftist bile.

I don't agree it's bile, I believe it's laziness and an inability for left and right to talk.

This is not a "story". It is an editorial written by someone with an anti-military or anti-war axe to grind. Nothing more.

Eh, I don't think I agree here because I believe Maj. Wendell Leimbach's statements stand on their own.

But I can agree with your larger points.

Sortelli writes:
I'm not familiar with pendleton, he's not a regular around here, so I can't speak for him. But I'm curious to know if he does come back with verification whether or not Jason will apologize for, well, nah.

That doesn't seem fair. What do I get if I'm right?

But ok, ok. If pendelton proves that he is a combat soldier who has seen action -- which is what he claims (" I have served in combat") -- then I will not only apologize here but I'll add it to my podcast and post it to the front page of my site.

Sortelli continues:
I have no reason to think Jason has the sense of honor to do so.

It's a good thing I don't dismiss you just as quickly without knowing anything about you ...huh?

Jason

Jason,

Indeed, the "truth lies in between" about the heaviness of armor versus its protectiveness. And it IS worth discussing.

Only not by most of us, not by me, and not by you. It can be discussed by soldiers and generals and even engineers. Not by us. It is above our pay grade.

I don't know. And neither do you. And you may be willing to bluff expertise in the matter, but I am not. I don't know.

You are ONLY interested in this discussion, and only qualified to discuss it, in political terms. To wit: your thesis that this, like everyfuckingthig, proves either Bush's 1) incompetent stupidity or 2) brilliant scheming machinations or even 3) both at the same time, though you won't explain how that's possible.

However, given that that discussion can only procede once we know the "correct" level of armor for our troops to wear -- which we cannot -- it is a fool's argument. For you, perhaps. Not for me.

You guys cannot come in here hysterically shriekig about every half-baked nit or snit and expect to be taken seriously.

We don't debate you -- we chose to playfully taunt you (often so subtly you're not even aware of it) -- not because we fear "the truth," but because we're pretty sure you don't care what the truth is, and are only interested in trolling and shrieking.

We don't have the time for it.

Again, you might, and you're welcome to post your girlish caterwaulings here if you like. I dig the traffic. But don't imagine all of us are as eager as you are to enter into futile on-line pissing-and-moaning matches.

So I've re-read your post for the second time. And as a Soldier who has served on the ground and with a CSH(Combat Support Hospital), I still say you don't know what you're talking about. I've worn the armor! Any more and we would lose almost all combat effectiveness. I'm not saying some more advance, lightweight armor would not be welcomed. It certainly would be. But we don't have it yet. So you do the best you can with the best you have.

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

On other sites, commenters have noted that it's not just a matter of MORE armor, it's BETTER armor.

I don't know the comparative weights. Maybe the newer better armor covers more without weighing more?

But JEEZ you all act like none of the considerations could possibly matter.

The story I read puts the reliance on the original older armor source in the pattern of crony contracts, and it's pretty persuasive. And if that's the case, then all your carrying on about military knowledge is just so much smoke.

When you realize what Paul Bremer said about the insurgency, you ought to know that the folks who opposed the invasion were better predictors about the military outcome than the ones planning it.

Nice try, Jason. But really...do you think a condesending tone and some rather banal insults are going to do the trick?

As I've said before, repeatedly. What you're reading? A character. Hell, I'm actually a pretty moderate Republican in real life who's just tired of moonbats such as yourself fucking up what I see as good social policy - anti-death penalty, civil unions, not teaching ID in school - through your refusal to act in good faith with people from the other party.

Your bullshit makes it harder for you to get your candidates elected and your policy passed. That you're incapable of realizing that proves just how far into the quagmire of liberal Republican-hating fervor you've managed to fall.

Matterson knows something about the subject.

Jason says he wants to "discuss" this, but watch how long it takes him to dismiss the expert testimony of someone who fucking actually knows what the fuck he's talking about, simply because he finds it inconvenient to his predetermined political argument.

He says he wants to discuss "the issue," but he doesn't. Because he's not qualified to. (Again, neither am I.)

But he will keep insisting he's really interested in the underlying issue of armor level when he will avoid any real discussion of it in favor of "Bush lied, people died!"

And I do seem to bring out the worst in poor Jason.

Which is, of course, the point of creating "Lee Atwater." Through extreme statements and admittedly puerile insults, I'm attempting to flush out the moonbats.

This whole debate reminds me of a quote from Thomas Jefferson...

Kidding.

That doesn't seem fair. What do I get if I'm right?

Nothing. Because whether or not pendleton was telling the truth doesn't make your assertion right or wrong, and your desire to make this part of the discussion is just a dodge for you.

In fact, repeatedly pointing to a certain authority as your only point in an argument doesn't make you right or wrong either. It makes you a tired, disingenious, fallacious fuckweasel whom does not deserve to be taken seriously.

And to think you have the gall to complain about the left and right's inability to talk. Look in a mirror, pal. You're the problem.

It's a good thing I don't dismiss you just as quickly without knowing anything about you ...huh?

Yeah, I had the unpleasant advantage of being able to judge you by all the crap you've written here. Thanks for that. No, really. Thank you.

Thanks ace! I'll be here all night!

I'll say again, if there was better armor out there, I would welcome it. Not that I don't welcome the IBA. It's far better then any "flack" jacket we have. But it's still heavy and a pain in the ass! (and back) It could use many improvements and improvements take time.

Another thing, if you look at the majority of casulties and their mechanism of injuries, IEDs, the level of armor you would need to protect youself would be on the order of explosive ordinance disposal uniform. Follow the link:

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Images/Bomb%20Suit%20EOD.jpg

There is no way you are going to be combat effective in this.

Okay, note that they are talking specifically about MARINES. It was the Marines who were sold the defective armor by that company with the CEO who spent $10 MILLION on his daughter's bat mitzvah party.

So was it DEFECTIVE armor that we're talking about here?!?

Kind of an important question, doncha think?

Wait...$10 million on a single party?

Seriously? I'm an ardent capitalist and all, but that just seems obscene.

Not that I care about the lives of Marines. Just want to exploit any rumor, lie or whatever that will embarrass the government.

It could use many improvements and improvements take time.

Agreed. But given the lead time in planning for this war of choice, and the elapsed time since, are we where we should be? It's almost as if NO ONE PLANNED FOR THIS.

WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday....

When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said "we really didn't see the insurgency coming," the network said in a news release.

The network, which did not publish a transcript of the interview, added that Bremer's comments suggested "the focus of the war effort was in the wrong place."

No need to add anything.

ace writes:
Indeed, the "truth lies in between" about the heaviness of armor versus its protectiveness. And it IS worth discussing. Only not by most of us, not by me, and not by you. It can be discussed by soldiers and generals and even engineers. Not by us. It is above our pay grade.

Agreed but something within that realm is to point to these very experts and say "hey, there are non-partisan hacks who think more could have been done."

I don't know. And neither do you. And you may be willing to bluff expertise in the matter, but I am not. I don't know.

Actually, I know f*ck-all about the trade-offs between armor weight and protection. The reason I entered this thread in the first place is because of my observation that when two equally qualified people say something, the lefties shout the left-favorable message from the hilltops and the righties shout the right-favorable message from the hilltops.

That busts my aggats.

You are ONLY interested in this discussion, and only qualified to discuss it, in political terms. To wit: your thesis that this, like everyfuckingthig, proves either Bush's 1) incompetent stupidity or 2) brilliant scheming machinations or even 3) both at the same time, though you won't explain how that's possible.

Well, let me say that (a) I don't think this is true (in regards to this story) and (b) if I implied it, I didn't mean to.

Truth be known, what I really think is that the people running this show (read; Rumsfeld) are indifferent and incompetent. My invocation of Bush's name is only to the extent that ultimately it's his responsibility. Buck stopping here, etc, etc.

You guys cannot come in here hysterically shriekig about every half-baked nit or snit and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm the least of the shriekers. And I think that in time I will earn the respect of some. Time will tell.

We don't debate you -- we chose to playfully taunt you (often so subtly you're not even aware of it) -- not because we fear "the truth," but because we're pretty sure you don't care what the truth is, and are only interested in trolling and shrieking.

Don't confuse ignore-ance with ignorance. Just because I don't bite doesn't mean I didn't see the bait.

While I don't expect you to believe me, I'm too old to troll. It's boring.

As I stated right from the beginning, one of the biggest annoyances of my life is that people don't talk on either side. Out of all my "lefty" friends, I know ONE who I think I could say something pro-Bush and have a good, solid debate about it. ONE. That's sad. Sure, I talk to all my lefty friends and I hear "yes yes yes" but I don't feel like I'm doing much except wasting my breath. Preaching to the choir and all that.

Again, you might, and you're welcome to post your girlish caterwaulings here if you like. I dig the traffic. But don't imagine all of us are as eager as you are to enter into futile on-line pissing-and-moaning matches.

Eh, that's cool. Believe it or not, you're definitely in the "top 3" of the people I actually take seriously here. Obviously you don't agree with me but at least you read my posts and think about them (don't deny it, you do, your writing gives you away) before you disagree with them.

How many of your readers can you say that about? I've already admitted that I have precisely 1.

I've taken the advice to hear that this board is primarily for flaming. When I'm so inclined, I'll bat your court jester around a bit and ignore him when I have better things to do. But I have a serious side and it's a side I'm FAR more interested in than insulting each other. I insult only when I can't get a good discussion.

So maybe I'm guilty of trying to turn your board into something it isn't intended for. And no, that isn't a veiled swipe.

Let me put it another way; why don't you try responding to some future post of mine as if it were sincere. No names, no insults, just discussion. See what happens. What do you have to lose? If I turn into trollbait, then chalk me up as a bona fide. What do you stand to lose?

But not on this subject. It's not something I'm truly interested in, I've presented no facts of my own and as we both agree, I don't know jack about it.

matterson writes:
So I've re-read your post for the second time. And as a Soldier who has served on the ground and with a CSH(Combat Support Hospital), I still say you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think you read it since it isn't me who made the claim. Go argue with him.

But thanks for giving me a calm, insult-free response.

Lee Atwater writes:
As I've said before, repeatedly. What you're reading? A character. Hell, I'm actually a pretty moderate Republican in real life who's just tired of moonbats such as yourself fucking up what I see as good social policy - anti-death penalty, civil unions, not teaching ID in school - through your refusal to act in good faith with people from the other party.

Lee! Now we're getting somewere! You disagree with my policies on their merits! Holy !#$%ing sh*t.

We should talk about them without predjudicing each other and certainly without insulting one another. I don't think this is a good thread to do it in (because what I don't know about armor could just about sqeeze into the grand canyon). My basic point in this thread was a generic one -- trumpeting one qualified source because it agrees with you and discarding another qualified source because it doesn't is a Bad Idea because nobody learns anything.

I hope, I SINCERELY hope that you and I can talk about things here without insulting each other. Seriously.

But if you keep flaming, I'll occasionally swat back. But that's really tedious.

That you're incapable of realizing that proves just how far into the quagmire of liberal Republican-hating fervor you've managed to fall.

It's true that I have a very deep dislike (hatred? maybe I'd agree with that too) of Bush (and DeLay and Ney and Cunningham and...) but I came/am coming here so that I can see your point of things.

I DO believe that Bush is a serious threat to this country, I DO believe that Republican policy is bad for this country but we can either call each other "asshole" all day long or we can try and understand each other's perspective.

Your call.

Did I mention I was pro-gun? I wasn't always. How do you suppose I got that way?

And yes, I shoot. I'm qualified up to .45.

ace writes:
Jason says he wants to "discuss" this, but watch how long it takes him to dismiss the expert testimony of someone who fucking actually knows what the fuck he's talking about, simply because he finds it inconvenient to his predetermined political argument.

Again, my lead into this thread was merely obseving that valid authorities on a subject are held up or discarded based on the convenience of their conclusion.

By both sides.

Read that again. "By both sides." Do you know a lot of lefties who will admit that ignorance exists in their camp just as readily as it applies to the other side?

I definitely do not know a bloody thing about armor. THAT's what I'm not digging my heels into this subject. If I did, I'd be a fraud.

But I'll be far more specific when it comes to something I do know.

Fair?

Jason

Tubino,

your credibility just isn't that high.

You say "defective armor." I say, if it was defective, it's an outrage. But I just don't trust a damn thing you say.

See the impasse here?

Did I mention I was pro-gun? I wasn't always. How do you suppose I got that way?

Heh. Now that's funny.

I'm not a big fan of guns, myself. Don't own a single one, and have only fired the damn things a few times.

What's funny, by the way, is the irony of you, a noted liberal, liking guns and more conservative me not really being all that fond of them.

Interesting.

Slublog,

The guy had SEVERAL big rockstars at the party. IIRC, they were NOT the names you would associate with a 12-year-old's tastes -- more in line with the parents'. Don Henley among others.

But I would humbly suggest that there's more outrage due to his cheating the Marines on their armor than his spending habits.

I'd sure like to know what prick writes that trash about marines with my name. What a despicable piece of shit.

Actually, tubino has a point. There was news of defective armor for the Marines in the Stars and Stripes and I believe the Army and Marine times as well.

Still, there is no evidence that every Marine that was killed or wounded was wearing the defective armor. Nor is there evidence that the wounds afflicted would have been prevented by proper armor.

Sortelli writes:
In fact, repeatedly pointing to a certain authority as your only point in an argument doesn't make you right or wrong either.

I don't know if you realize this, but we just agreed on something. Touting a source (I could find more) simply because it agrees with your perspective is not thinking.

So you're absolutely right. But if you're right, then you're right whenever anyone does it. Not just me.

And to think you have the gall to complain about the left and right's inability to talk. Look in a mirror, pal. You're the problem.

That'd be correct if I didn't do it to illustrate the problem. =)

I quoted him because he agreed with my "leftist" position. It's intellectual sloppiness. Bingo.

You know, I think I've accomplished more with this post than I have in any other thread.

Jason

$10 million on one party. I still can't quite wrap my head around that one - if that kid doesn't turn out spoiled and insufferable, it would be a miracle.

WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday....
Posted by tubino at January 8, 2006 12:49 AM

And your point? You cannot predict everything.
President Roosevelt didn't predict the hedgerows beyond the beaches of Normandy would cost thousands of American lives either.

Lee Atwater writes:
What's funny, by the way, is the irony of you, a noted liberal, liking guns and more conservative me not really being all that fond of them.

Well, it's the only point I'm decidedly *not* leftist on. It illustrates the point that I can be persueded by an argument.

I'd be anti-gun if I thought that it was possible to actually make the populace safe by doing so. I don't.

Jason

PS: I helped my former boss with a lawsuit in which he sued the local police chief to obtain a permit. The town was a "shall issue" and the state is a "may issue" but the chief had colluded with other chiefs in the state to defer applications to the state AG. The lawsuit was won and a writ of mandamus was issued.

My boss got his permit.

PPS: Ace, does the "remember my personal info" thing work for other people here? It doesn't for me but cookies work fine from every other site that offers the option.

Ace,

The credibility issue is due to some twits who use my handle when posting BS.

I have backed up my claims with links, and been right on all matters of substance. When I got something wrong, I admitted it.

The company is Second Chance. Google it with defective armor.

Like everything else, there is a tipping point where armor becomes self-defeating

I think somebody earlier mentioned the Mongols. Another great example is Crusader knights getting slaughtered by the light cavalry of Saladin.

Try the Marine Corps Times on the defective armor.

On a business trip to Israel, I was shown a hillside leading to a bluff. On that hillside, I was told, Saladin's cavalry hemmed in the Crusader forces. Heavy and immobile because of their armor, they all died.

Saladin took back Jerusalem, and Richard's attempts to win it back in the Third Crusade failed.

Jason's first post in this thread:

What I find amazing about Ace (as well as just about every political blog out there) is the ability to scream information from the rooftops when they agree with it and ignore it wholesale when it does not.

The kinder, gentler Jason:

Again, my lead into this thread was merely obseving that valid authorities on a subject are held up or discarded based on the convenience of their conclusion.

By both sides.

... I didn't catch that in his first post there, unless Jason actually intended to make his point by ... uh ... holding up an authority based on the the convenience of their conclusion.

37-year vet (Korea, Vietnam, both volunteered) Murtha says something and he is lambasted on this site. Some 1-tour "I thought I was going to get a college education" Marine says something and it's pure gold.

Murtha good! Dumb Marine Kid bad!

I didn't say it. Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command did.

I'm just quoting Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command.

Eh, I don't think I agree here because I believe Maj. Wendell Leimbach's statements stand on their own.

Yeah... maybe by boldly holding up Maj. Wendell Leimbach up three whole times and praising the great "hawk" Murtha, Jason has demonstrated that the left does indeed have a whole lot of ignorance on their side.

no, it doesn't work for anybody. it's a mu.nu glitch.

and if you do sincerely want to have good-faith debate, you'll find it here.

Ace,

Still need more about the defective armor? Here's a nice easy Google Search.

The Marine Corps Times piece was from May, and said this:

It is unclear whether any Marine casualties in Iraq have resulted from shrapnel or bullets that have penetrated vests distributed from the lots in question. A data sample from the Navy/Marine Corps Combat Trauma Registry provided by the Marine Corps shows that of 692 Marines wounded in Iraq between March 2004 and January 2005, eight were struck on the vest, and only two were penetrated: a fragment from a rocket-propelled grenade and shrapnel from a roadside bomb.

But there's a lot of incriminating chronology in there about who knew what when etc.

Now if I can just locate the receipts for that $10M party, my credibility ought to be good for another 10 minutes.

That'd be correct if I didn't do it to illustrate the problem. =)

Not that I mind you admitting to be disingenious, Jason, but don't insult my intellegence by expecting that I will believe you did it on purpose.

As for tubino, your credibility problems have a lot more to do with people who spoof your name. But I do think that anyone who spoofs you needs to make it obvious, if only to deny you something to hide behind.

Bah. I meant that tubino's credibility problems have a lot more to do with tubino, than with the people who spoof his name.

His subject changing, goal-post moving, poorly cited bullshit is the stuff of legend. At least until GenoJersey showed up and bottomed out the troll market.

Imagine if the Crusaders had held on, and Jerusalem was a European protectorate today. It would be a city-state open to people of all faiths.

Kinda changes the whole political equation in the Middle East.

I'm just sayin', too much armor can be a bad thing.

Okay, I got the post that has sourced info for the $10M party AND the defective body armor.

Check it out, Slublog. If you're a taxpayer, I guess you helped pay for it. I read a bit on how this guy made a real KILLING in the defense contractor biz. No really. Maybe he's friends with Duke Cunningham.

How long until someone squeals that the source is Daily Kos? Oh shut up and read it, and then come back and complain about the sources (Newsday, Long Island Business News).

One last bit about the defective armor: it degrades over time, with heat etc. It is not initially defective.

Now that I've read through the stories, it seems unlikely that the defective vests could have contributed to many of the deaths through the defects. But it does seem possible.

The defects were known by the company in 2001. Read the stories.

Sortelli, if you are going to smear someone's credibility, you might make an effort to come up with at least ONE example.

The most noise I made on this blog was about the billions of dollars in Iraqi funds that were squandered. I stand by what I wrote.

geoff's "defense" of the allocation process, based on a very very selective reading of Bowen's "audit" reports, and by carefully ignoring what the "audits" skirt around (namely that they don't actually AUDIT anything!), is one of the most embarrassing arguments I've ever read. The audits essentially admit that the money was given away without even a pretense of actually being exchanged for anything, but hey, that's good enough for some. The key there is that the rules for allocating the DFI were written to a criminally low standard, yet the CPA failed to meet even that.

Sortelli writes:
Not that I mind you admitting to be disingenious, Jason, but don't insult my intellegence by expecting that I will believe you did it on purpose.

Well, you're half correct.

When I posted it, it was meant in a "see, I can play this game too" type of way. I was trying to be glib, not make a "grand point."

It was only when I realized that my point was inadvertently being made better than if I planned it that I ran with it.

Jason

Jason:But ok, ok. If pendelton proves that he is a combat soldier who has seen action -- which is what he claims (" I have served in combat") -- then I will not only apologize here but I'll add it to my podcast and post it to the front page of my site.the thing that always amazes me about liberals is that because they lie, they expect everyone else to lie. I of course will not give out my name nor my army I.D. I served in Veitnam form november13, 1970 thorught October 10,1971. I served in the Army from February 27,1969 through my discharge date of october 15, 1971. My combat experience came in the northern 1/3 of South Vietnam. As to Jason's apology, who cares what a know nothing nitwit says or thinks? I certainly don't. The point about armor for grunts is that it is almost pointless. Even the newest lightest armor is of little help. You need good luck, experience, quick reactions and an effective combat strategy a lot more than you need armor when you're under fire. To be effective in combat as you're shitting in your pants and barfing because the blood and flesh from the guy next to you splatters on you is much more difficult than Jason or any of the rest of his buddies realize. Until you've been there, you can't imagine what it is like. Only those who have never experienced combat would think that it can be made safe. Leave it to Jason and the Military hating left to claim they care about the well being of soldiers. What a bunch of frauds. If you care about the soldiers, support the war that they have decided to risk their lives to win so that the war will end sooner with fewer lives lost. The truth about you lefties is that you hate those of us who have served and you have nothing but contempt for us. Just as the left succeeded in politically defeating us in Viet Nam, so the left is trying to defeat the Armed Forces now. If you check Jason out, I bet you'll find nothing he has done or suggested that would encourage our troops, inspire us to victory in Iraq, or further the cause of winning the Iraq war.. Same old Same old. P.S. The reason I won't go further in responding to Jason about my military back ground is the likely retaliation effort by lefties (Paul of Infotheory had his doctorate advisor contacted because he got into an exchange in which a lefty debater took offense). I have a very reponsible business position that could be impaired by lefties contacting and harassing my business associates.

How long until someone squeals that the source is Daily Kos? Oh shut up and read it, and then come back and complain about the sources

OK, I read it. I have no complaints about the sources. They indicate that there were some production problems which caused a small fraction of the vests to be recalled, but no indication of any real failures in the field. Like you would expect for any product, especially in the early phase of the product life cycle.

And, the owner of the company making the vests is filthy rich and threw an obscenely extravagant party for his daughter's bat mitzvah. This is old news. I have previously opined that this guy falls short of my standard for responsible parenting.

So, what's your point?

Tubby says:

Sortelli, if you are going to smear someone's credibility, you might make an effort to come up with at least ONE example.

The most noise I made on this blog was about the billions of dollars in Iraqi funds that were squandered. I stand by what I wrote.

Y'know, I'm going to stand up for Tubby. He may be wrong most of the time, but normally he is actually trying to be reasonable.

Keep the faith, Tubby! Who knows, some of us wingnuts might actually learn something.

That's not likely, of course, but it's possible.

Once again, tubino fails the reading comprehension test. From one of the Newsday articles quoted at Kos:

In a statement, Larry Ellis, DHB's president, said that, "To our knowledge, none of the hundreds of thousands of outer tactical vests that Point Blank has manufactured have failed in the field - an extraordinary achievement. All testing procedures for these vests were approved by, and conducted under the close supervision of the U.S. government."

So, there was a problem with some vests, they were recalled, nobody in the field died because of the problem, and the company's owner spends his money like a jackass. Your point was...what, exactly?

Michael, are you out of your vulcan mind?
No wonder why Bill banned you.

The asshole who shall not be named is an arrogant prick. Reasonable? He is a troll whose sole purpose in life is to drop propaganda bobms and de-moralize.

Spurwing plover has more credibility than he does. Asshole who shall not be named is a left-wing shill. He does not cme here for a debate. He's a propaganda pimp.

Michael, whattsamattawityou? Smarten' up.

pendelton writes:
I of course will not give out my name nor my army I.D.

Damn, I'm good.

I served in Veitnam form november13, 1970 thorught October 10,1971. I served in the Army from February 27,1969 through my discharge date of october 15, 1971. My combat experience came in the northern 1/3 of South Vietnam.

You'll tell us all this but not your name? Your name? What reason could there possibly being willing to admit all this but not your name?

Leave it to Jason and the Military hating left...

I never served but it wasn't for lack of trying. Heart surgery at birth and eye surgery in high school (detached retina). Despite my 98 on the ASVAB they wouldn't accept me.

Now I have DVT. I don't even bother asking anymore.

If you care about the soldiers, support the war...

No, if I support the soldiers, I'll support the soldiers. You (nor anyone else) heard one peep of complaint out of me when we were in Afghanistan. That's because it was a legitimate war vs. the people that harbored the people who attacked us.

Ah, but it's easier to paint anyone who is anti-Iraq war as being a pinko. Intellectual laziness.

The truth about you lefties is that you hate those of us who have served and you have nothing but contempt for us.

...huh?? I count a double purple heart Vietnam vet as being one of my greatest high school-era influences. A person who has shaped my life more than any other human would be my grandfather, who recently passed away, who served in WWII.

Heck, I even designed a few VFW websites gratis.

One of the most charismatic and intelligent people I have ever met was killed on Flight 11 and he died before the plane hit the tower while trying to stop what was happening

Danny was ex Israeli Mossad. I didn't know this until his wake, he never spoke of it, but apparently Danny was dropped 100 miles into the desert in order to run back within 4 days as part of his training. He finished in time but he thought he could do better so he did it again, just because.

He was also a coworker. I'd be lying if I said I knew him well at all but respect? Yeah, I definitely respected him.

So don't embarrass yourself by lecturing me about what you think you know about my view on the military.

Ah, wait...

See, I was falling into the trap of actually believing you are who you say you are. I thought to myself, "how can he make such sweeping statements about how I think without knowing anything whatsoever about me?"

Then I remembered you're an imposter.

Who apparently reads to much SoF.

Just as the left succeeded in politically defeating us in Viet Nam...

Ah, the tried/tired "the hippies and the press lost the Vietnam war." I do love it when that old mare is trotted out.

If you check Jason out, I bet you'll find nothing he has done or suggested that would encourage our troops, inspire us to victory in Iraq, or further the cause of winning the Iraq war.

Guilty as charged. I want the troops home, safe, and with their families. I cannot, in good conscience, support having more people die for a lie.

P.S. The reason I won't go further in responding to Jason about my military back ground is the likely retaliation effort by lefties (Paul of Infotheory had his doctorate advisor contacted because he got into an exchange in which a lefty debater took offense). I have a very reponsible business position that could be impaired by lefties contacting and harassing my business associates.

You know, I don't think I've ever met a vet who would have even contemplated being worried about retribution from a leftist as a pretense for not providing their name. What on earth could they do? How would they get your client list? What would they do when they got it? Call them up and say "Pendleton is a vietnam vet who supports our war in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111"

Oh, perish the thought! Your life would be ruined! Your high-rolling clients would leave you in droves! Oh noes!

You know, most rational people would respond to such harassment by calling the cops and having their *ss thrown in jail.

Pendleton, I'm going to stick my finger into that hollow, lying chest of yours nice and hard one last time just so you know that *I* know what you're about. You're obviously, completely, painfully and embarrassingly full of sh*t.

ANY vet who has seen combat gets instantanous respect from me just for having put their *ss on the line.

I've known plenty of Vets and they've all been better men than you. Plus they had their balls. Yours have either fallen out or have yet to sprout hair.

And I have a hunch which of the two it is.

Jason

PS: You can't learn krav maga from a DVD. Save yourself the $59.

Michael, are you out of your vulcan mind?
Timmy:

Dude, you're drunk. Read your post and count the spelling and grammatical errors.

For starters, "vulcan" should be capitalized.

What are propoganda "bobms"?

Why do you think there is a hyphen in "de-moralize"?

There are more mistakes, but you get my point.

Heck, I even designed a few VFW websites gratis.

See, here's another troll I'm starting to like. Maybe it's just that I'm pining for Cedarford.

jason,
i'm sorry to prejudge you and all, but based on what you've written i really find it hard to believe that you're just trying to undertand our point of view. if you just want to understand how conservatives think than what is your motivation for calling pendelton a liar? you're just trying to start shit so that you can feel so fuckin smart cause you think that you called him out. really, you still have no fuckin clue if he was in the military or not. pendelton chooses not to give out his real name, just the same as ace, and most of the bloggers on this (and other) blogs. and why should you expect him to give you information like that? i thought you guys were into that "right to privacy" thing?

the thing is, calling pendelton a liar doesn't achieve the goal you say you have in coming here. it doesn't achieve any logical goal. it only hurts your credibility and makes you look like a douche

geoff's "defense" of the allocation process, based on a very very selective reading of Bowen's "audit" reports, and by carefully ignoring what the "audits" skirt around (namely that they don't actually AUDIT anything!), is one of the most embarrassing arguments I've ever read. The audits essentially admit that the money was given away without even a pretense of actually being exchanged for anything, but hey, that's good enough for some.

'Fucking' Tubino:

Do you really want to stand by this completely revisionist interpretation of our discussion? Because the embarrassment is all yours. Every single half-assed claim you made was shown to be false, largely because you never read the source documents before you made your wild claims. I even provided links to KPMG audits stating that the money was delivered to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance, vice your hysterical claims that it hadn't been.

If you want to go through the entire history again, I'm game. I saved most of the reference material on my hard drive, so it's trivial to rebut your feeble-minded suspicions. If you'd read any of the background material other than the Waxman report, you wouldn't even have fielded the questions.

So, "Jason," (if that's even your real name), you claim to have known Danny Lewin, but until you post your full name and the details of your work experience (including the name of your supervisor and, preferably, a phone number where we could reach him or her to verify the fact that you indeed worked with Mr. Lewin) we'll have to assume you're a liar.

I took a look at your website, and it doesn't even list your last name, much less your C.V. Hell, you didn't even bother to list your social security number or your mother's maiden name. You must be some sort of liar--otherwise, you'd feel no compunction about disclosing the intimate details of your life to a bunch of people you've never met.

Good God, man, where are your balls?

Ideally, our soldiers should fight naked., using balsa-wood weapons. If you think I'm full of shit, some soldiers disagree with you, so there.

Seriously, though, it's a bit of a stretch to construe this article as proof that the NYT wants our troops to die. If folks want more body armor, they're nothing if not well-meaning.

" I of course will not give out my name nor my army I.D. I served in Veitnam form november13, 1970 thorught October 10,1971. I served in the Army from February 27,1969 through my discharge date of october 15, 1971."

Pendleton - that's all I needed to read to know you were a poser. "Army I.D." - no such thing, I was in the Army for 31 years and never heard of an "Army I.D." (Are you referring to service number?) You said you left Vietnam on 10 Oct 71 and were discharged on 15 Oct 71. That's impossible. You would have been assigned to a replacement detachment for outprocessing after return to CONUS (which in itself would take close to 5 days - mine was 4th AG Replacement Company at Fort Carson) for 2 weeks minimum prior to separation. I usually suffer through the military fakes in silence (PLV) but sometimes enough is enough.

what I see as good social policy - anti-death penalty

Good social policy is that those who have earned the death penalty through the brutality of their crimes should be put down like dogs. No, wait, I like dogs. They shd be stomped on like ants.

This article is funny. It points out that some of the Marines were killed without adequate side armor protection and that after the study for reasons that had no connection to the actual study-side panels were issued-which solves most of the problem. It doesn't however, connect the two.

At least in includes this-

"Marine officials said they have supplied troops with soft shoulder protection that can repel some shrapnel, but remain concerned that ceramic shoulder plates would be too restrictive. Similarly, they said they believe the chest and back plates are as large as they can be without unduly limiting the movement of troops. "

So there it is-the study said "more armor better" other studies say "more armor - not better".

Pendleton,

I owe you an apology for the "Ice Station Pendleton" crack. I thought you were being the asshole, not Dale. You didn't have that coming, and I apologize. I should have read the thread more closely. (That's what I get for posting that late at night - my synapses aren't firing very quickly!)

Anyway, on to the main issue:

Bean-O, Thomas, Jason, and Dale try to use the standard Leftist judo trick of being against the military while at the same time claiming to be for them. This particular case is a good example -- they complain that better armor was available and could have saved lives (piously saying they only are about the troops), while at the same time totally ignoring the fact that our casualty numbers in Iraq so far have been extraordinarily low by any historical measure.

Our troops in the field as as well-trained, well-armed, and well-provisioned as they have ever been. You are seeing a mililtary force right now -- especially the Marines -- that is by far the most lethal and capable military force in the history of the world. More soldiers are surviving what in past wars would have been lethal wounds. And yet none of this is enough for the Left. They know very well (or they should know) that war is a capricious reaper, and yet they ascribe every casualty to mistake, to cravenness, to greed, to stupidity. It turns the individual soldier into something little better than a wind-up toy with no emotions or desires of his own -- he is only a tool in the hands of a greedy master. They simply cannot abide a soldier who goes into battle with eyes open and of stout heart; it ruins their picture of him as a pawn.

The spokesmen for the left on this thread shouldn't bother denying this, because every word you've written here and elsewhere proves the truth of what I say.

Folks,

Initially I asked if there was a chance this study had to do with the reports of defective armor purchased and (mostly, but not entirely) recalled by the Marines.

Apparently no one had heard of it, and ACE claims I have no credibility ( though I source my claims way better than most here). So I realized I was going to have to dig it up myself.

So I did, and posted the sources, and summarized it just to sort of finish up. Turns out that the defective armor is an interesting story, but probably didn't have much to do with unnecessary deaths, directly. Since I hadn't made any claims, there wasn't anything to prove or contradict - a point missed by some who expect only fights here.

But it raises some interesting questions about the purchasing problems of the Marines when they are stuck with inferior stuff YEARS after the company knows it has problems. I'm not convinced that the subsequent purchases were based on real quality control tests.
------------------------------
geoff, you still don't have a fucking clue. You don't understand that rules were drawn regarding the DFI allocations, and that these rules are anomalous for the lack of controls they stipulate.

You still don't understand that the issue is not whether the CPA has receipts showing that they allocated the money, but that no basis or motivation is even offered for the extremely rapid, sloppy, unrequested allocation to Iraqi ministries.

And even for the strangely incomplete and nearly useless set of rules for the "audit" (if you ever worked with Federal funding and audits, you would know this), you steadily misprespresent what Stuart Bowen actually said in his most recent reports. You don't seem to have the reading skills to notice a tortured whitewash that dances all around the question of WHY the CPA did what it claims it did.

In other words, you're either an idiot or dishonest.

But in either case, it's not surprising that you don't see the pattern of enabling corruption and profiteering by design in the wording of the funding, just as there has been in the US-funded reconstruction effort.

What's really strange is how you maintain this apparent ignorance DESPITE a number of cases of kickbacks etc. in the US-funded reconstruction work in Iraq, just as I pointed out was entirely possible, consistent with the so-called audits. And despite the fact that the admin itself has admitted that corruption has taken a serious toll on the reconstruction effort.

In other words, you have a parallel case (DFI and US-funded) with a little more accounting, and lo and behold what surfaces but plenty of corruption.

This, despite the fact that the Bush administration quietly reduced the number of investigators in Iraq about 1.5 years ago, which not surprisingly means that a tiny percentage of transactions are ever reviewed.

This, despite the fact that the admin has cracked down on whistleblowers like Bunnatine Greenhouse.

Despite this pattern in the US fund side, and despite the evidence that the CPA went to extreme efforts to distribute billions in cash that was NOT requested by the Iraqi ministries, you continue to defend the actions and motivations of the CPA.

You forgot to say why it happened as it happened. None of your offered explanations -- wartime, cash-based economy, etc. -- even pretend to address what happened.

And you continue to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any of this pattern in either the DFI or US funding.

Keep it up, geoff. Dig yourself in deeper defending the indefensible. This will hang around your neck until you admit you’re on the wrong side on this one.

I'm not hysterical. I'm simply pointing out that a terrible injustice occurred, unnecessarily, and the defenses offered are utterly inadequate to explain it.

Just to see what the military has in mind for the future, check out the Future Combat Systems (FCS) website here. Note the Mounted Combat System (MCS): at 23 tons, it is the replacement vehicle for the M1A2 Abrams tank (71 tons). It has less armor than the M1A2 -- but the tradeoff is that it's faster, lighter, and more battlefield-aware (via advanced sensor platforms).

Individual soldiers will, on a smaller scale, undergo the same modifications. The emphasis is on speed, firepower, and maneuver, not armor.

but that no basis or motivation is even offered for the extremely rapid, sloppy, unrequested allocation to Iraqi ministries.

"Fucking" Tubino: as you know, I limited our discussion to the specific issue of the $8.9 billion, just so we could get to the bottom of one of your claims. It took forever for you to understand that the money hadn't been "lost." Then you said that it had probably been embezzled before it got to the Iraqis, but I provided audits showing that every penny had been delivered. The $8.9 billion was delivered on time, per the approved budget, in cash per the Iraqi Ministry of Finances requirements.

As usual, you're trying to cloud the issue by throwing in other complaints having to do with other monies.

if you ever worked with Federal funding and audits

Actually, the majority of my livelihood depends on obtaining Federal funding and surviving audits, so I have a fair amount of insight into the procurement process and the operation of the government.

This, despite the fact that the Bush administration quietly reduced the number of investigators in Iraq about 1.5 years ago

Gee, that's about when the Iraqis took over the DFI funds, obviating the need for US audits on those monies.

it's not surprising that you don't see the pattern of enabling corruption and profiteering by design in the wording of the funding

And this is the problem - you have your pre-fabbed framework that you're going to force the evidence into. But when I dig down into most of the evidence you've force fit, there's nothing there.

Somebody at the NYT and everywhere else should read "A Soldiers Load and A Nations Mobility" by SLA Marshall. It's a study of the effect of the weight soldiers carry and a loss of combat effectiveness, which translates into increased casualties. And to forestall the stupidity, I spent 26 years as a Marine infantryman, so I know whereof I speak.

geoff continues his misrepresentations:

"Fucking" Tubino: as you know, I limited our discussion to the specific issue of the $8.9 billion, just so we could get to the bottom of one of your claims. It took forever for you to understand that the money hadn't been "lost."

False. It took you a while to understand my claim, which you still don't actually fully understand, simple though i is. You're just throwing up sand.

Then you said that it had probably been embezzled before it got to the Iraqis, but I provided audits showing that every penny had been delivered. The $8.9 billion was delivered on time, per the approved budget, in cash per the Iraqi Ministry of Finances requirements.

Two or three falsehoods from lying geoff. Even Bowen's reports don't make anything like those claims, because the REQUIREMENTS simply weren't stated before the transfers took place. What was the process for approval of the budgets? C'mon, tell us.

I can cite Bowen's reports. You are still dodging the same issues Bowen dodges. Gosh, I wonder why.

I'm having trouble believing you don't understand the difference between standard Federal procurement requirements and what the CPA was expected to meet. Are you admitting you can't see the difference? That would be most telling. Are you familiar with OMB Circulars?

Jason say:

Guess what? Some Marines think that more expansive armor is worth the weight. Do you mention that?

But doesn't point out that the consensus in the Marine Corps that the armor was worth the extra weight came *after* reviewing the Pentagon study. Finding out whether the armor would save lives was the point of conducting the studies. Using the study's results to suppose that the military was too cheap, callous, or incompetent to properly equip their personnel before the study's results were known is underhanded.

Only tubino could blow up what is fundamentally a technical and logistical debate into some massive corruption/conspiracy concern.

Tubino, I just read your linked Marine Corps Times article and I have to say your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. The flags raised about the "defective vests" were related to a preliminary finding of inadequacy. It was not clear whether this was due to the vests or the testing methodology. Given the need to deploy better vests to the troops, the officers in charge of the procurement decided to go ahead and distribute them. It wasn't an ideal scenario, but an understandable one. Indeed, it is difficult to say that the decision taken was the wrong one, as there is no hard evidence showing that the "defective" vests have caused any deaths.

Every little mistake is not indicative of general failure. Indeed, successes in Iraq suggest that, by-and-large, the US armed forces are performing superbly, especially relative to their performances in previous wars. If there is a problem with the company that makes the vest or with the procurement procedures, then it is important to follow up on this. But to treat this as an Achilles' heal in the making is to blow this up into something it is not. At this point, the problem is mostly a theoretical one, and not a tangible one.

It took you a while to understand my claim, which you still don't actually fully understand, simple though i is.

Then state your simple claim.

What was the process for approval of the budgets?

Budgets were established using the existing Iraqi national budget system, with the CPA collaborating with the IIG ministries to formulate and approve the budget.

I can cite Bowen's reports.

That'd be great.

ramms writes:

i'm sorry to prejudge you and all, but based on what you've written i really find it hard to believe that you're just trying to undertand our point of view. if you just want to understand how conservatives think than what is your motivation for calling pendelton a liar?

Pendleton just hit a nerve. My reaction to him is an anomaly. It's also done. He's a fraud, no need to keep pushing the point.

the thing is, calling pendelton a liar doesn't achieve the goal you say you have in coming here. it doesn't achieve any logical goal. it only hurts your credibility and makes you look like a douche

You know, I'll even agree with this. Again, it just hit a nerve.

Sean M. writes:

So, "Jason," (if that's even your real name), you claim to have known Danny Lewin, but until you post your full name and the details of your work experience (including the name of your supervisor and, preferably, a phone number where we could reach him or her to verify the fact that you indeed worked with Mr. Lewin) we'll have to assume you're a liar.

My name is Jason Desjardins. I worked at Akamai Technologies (Boston office) From April, 2000 until January, 2002 Danny was our CTO. He was generally regarded as the nicest guy you'd really rather not piss off. And probably the most intelligent person you'd ever get to have a conversation with.

I took a look at your website, and it doesn't even list your last name, much less your C.V. Hell, you didn't even bother to list your social security number or your mother's maiden name. You must be some sort of liar--otherwise, you'd feel no compunction about disclosing the intimate details of your life to a bunch of people you've never met.

Consider learning to use a tool like "whois."

And let's not lose our minds over what I asked. I asked Pendleton what his name was. Not information about his mother. Not his SSN. His name.

Your turn.

Monty writes:

Bean-O, Thomas, Jason, and Dale try to use the standard Leftist judo trick of being against the military while at the same time claiming to be for them.

No matter how many times you claim I'm making an argument, it doesn't make it so.

Consider the port where I admitted I know precisely nothing about armor. Well, beyond what you read in SciAm or something.

Geoff writes:

But doesn't point out that the consensus in the Marine Corps that the armor was worth the extra weight came *after* reviewing the Pentagon study. Finding out whether the armor would save lives was the point of conducting the studies. Using the study's results to suppose that the military was too cheap, callous, or incompetent to properly equip their personnel before the study's results were known is underhanded.

Hey, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Regards,

Jason

Monty,

I owe you an apology for the "Ice Station Pendleton" crack. I thought you were being the asshole, not Dale. You didn't have that coming, and I apologize. I should have read the thread more closely. (That's what I get for posting that late at night - my synapses aren't firing very quickly!)

Not sure how I was trying to be an asshole. I didn't realize there was a commenter by the name of Pendleton. I saw Jason post saying this, "Pendleton? Where are you Pendleton?

You can tell us, man, admit it. There is no shame in being a desk jockey, ordering pots and pans and jockstraps for the United States Army." My eye added a comma to the second question and I thought he was asking the guy if he was at Pendleton (Camp Pendleton) and I wanted to bust on Jason for confusing a Marine base with an Army base.

Bean-O, Thomas, Jason, and Dale try to use the standard Leftist judo trick of being against the military while at the same time claiming to be for them.

How did I get lumped in with these guys? I haven't said anything critical about the military. Where did you get the idea I am like Tubbo, Jason, et. al.?

Tell you what, everybody: I lost track of who was being an asshole to whom, to be honest. So just forget the non-topical points altogether, okay? I'll bust everyone's asses equally in the next flame thread.

That's okay Monty. Part of the confusion is my quoting of Jason got mangled in my post so the second paragraph appears to be mine, not Jason's.

I always thought I was on your side. Catch you in the next flame thread.

Jason says:

"What I find amazing about Ace (as well as just about every political blog out there) is the ability to scream information from the rooftops when they agree with it and ignore it wholesale when it does not."

"Again, my lead into this thread was merely obseving that valid authorities on a subject are held up or discarded based on the convenience of their conclusion.

By both sides."

"As I stated right from the beginning, one of the biggest annoyances of my life is that people don't talk on either side. Out of all my "lefty" friends, I know ONE who I think I could say something pro-Bush and have a good, solid debate about it. ONE. That's sad. Sure, I talk to all my lefty friends and I hear "yes yes yes" but I don't feel like I'm doing much except wasting my breath. Preaching to the choir and all that."

From your blog:

"Bush's spin machine is out in full force, throwing out every ridiculous claim to derail any questions about King George's unquestionable powers. He can wage illegitimite wars, he can lie about the threats our enemies pose, he can classify "enemy combatants" outside of international law, he can torture people at will and now his handlers claim he can eavesdrop on you if he so desires, Constitution be damned."

I'm just a little confused. See I did take the time to read your posts. Even went to your site and read your post. I would have read more of them but there appears to be just the one. The one I copied above, although I left off the bottom part where you make a clear comparison of yourself critizing Bush to a critic of Hitler, a completely over the top and disgusting comparison the far left likes to make.

My confusion is why you come here and bitch about a lack of common ground on politically oriented blogs and like to pretend your some sort of kumbaya singing peacemaker. Your own blog proves you to be anything but. Why do you think by coming here with a condescending, holier than thou attitude your going to win converts? Why aren't you going to DU or Kos and trying to get the members of the reality based community to be a little more real? Better yet, why not use your own blog as a place where open minded people of higher intelligence, you know people such as yourself, can debate lofty topics without slumming with the likes of us?

I'm not going to bother getting in an insult battle with you. Its not worth my time and I'd hate to see you lower yourself. But you really should stop kidding yourself that you are some honest broker fighting off the ugly hordes. It ain't selling.

JackStraw writes:
I'm just a little confused. See I did take the time to read your posts. Even went to your site and read your post. I would have read more of them but there appears to be just the one.

I just moved. It's the first show since the move.

The one I copied above, although I left off the bottom part where you make a clear comparison of yourself critizing Bush to a critic of Hitler, a completely over the top and disgusting comparison the far left likes to make.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my quote. Some familiarity with Martin Niemöller is probably helpful. Niemöller was talking about the importance of speaking up even when you, yourself, are not a victim.

Hence the reference to the NSA wiretapping. I'm not a victim of it. Or maybe I am. So it's important for everyone to rally and get this out in the open.

To be clear, I do not feel that Bush is on the same level of Hell as Hitler. In that podcast, no mention is made of Hitler. To the best of my recollection, I've never compared Bush to Hitler.

Please don't assert that there is some "clear comparison" until you truly understand what is being said.

My confusion is why you come here and bitch about a lack of common ground on politically oriented blogs and like to pretend your some sort of kumbaya singing peacemaker. Your own blog proves you to be anything but.

There is a difference between having an opinion -- which I do -- and being unwilling to alter that opinion. I come to Ace so I can hear a different perspective.

Why do you think by coming here with a condescending, holier than thou attitude...

You claim it but do not substantiate. Moving on...

...your going to win converts?

I spent many years online in debate forums, mostly theistic threads, skepticism, etc. Around 1996 I was on this particular forum and for a number of reasons I had to take a break. Taking up too much of my time. I came back about a year and a half later only to find that the same two people were arguing about the same goddamn thread. I was appalled. It was bascially:

I assert A.
I assert B.
Well if you say A, then Ax follows.
No, you're misrepresenting me.
No, that's what you said.
No that isn't what I said.
Now you're being disingenuous.
Now you're being an asshole.

It was then that I realized that I could either blather at a handfull of people for hours and accomplish precisely nothing or I could open a website, write something once and let people read it dozens or hundreds of times a day and be far more effective. My effort was leveraged, so to speak. BTW, that site was NOFAITH.ORG. It's now defunct.

But my point is that I'm not here for converts. I've long since learned that trying to gain converts in this matter is a HUGE waste of time and effort.

My reason for being here is to expose myself to ideas that I don't normally hear because I mostly pay attention to progressive outlets. It makes me myopic.

As far as my left-wing podcast, again, yes I have an opinion. Yes I think that Bush is a liar. Yes I think Cheney is downright dangerous.

But by your standard, I should post no pro-progressive opinion lest I be branded insincere. Which is certainly your right to do, but it's also my right to reject.

And so I reject it.

I'm not going to bother getting in an insult battle with you.

GOOD!

Its not worth my time and I'd hate to see you lower yourself. But you really should stop kidding yourself that you are some honest broker fighting off the ugly hordes. It ain't selling.

Look, I really don't care if you "buy" my story. Reply if you wan't, don't if you don't. Either one works for me.

Regards,
Jason

My reason for being here is to expose myself to ideas that I don't normally hear because I mostly pay attention to progressive outlets. It makes me myopic.

Having said that, have you found anything worthy of further thought, anything valuable that you hadn't considered here?

Anything, in other words, that could ever possibly penetrate a calcified viewpoint?

Because a lot of people say they are open to other views, but when they actually encounter them, reject them reflexively.

lauraw writes:
Having said that, have you found anything worthy of further thought, anything valuable that you hadn't considered here?

That's a fair question but I'm still in the "trying to get the locals to take me seriously" phase. =)

The only one I can think of is when Geoff pointed out in this thread that you can't really blame the leadership for something that has just now come to light with this analysis. I DO fault the administration for not giving the troops the equipment they need but I have seen this new armor issue spun on left-leaning sites as a sort of new indictment on the administration. So geoff's point is well-taken.

One problem I see coming is that my posts have already been taken to task for their length. I don't intend to shorten them because (a) I generally answer everyone in the thread up until that point and (b) I think that short posts tend to lead toward flamewars. The devil is in the details. Details by their very definition are verbose. And I'm not articulate enough to truncate them.

Because a lot of people say they are open to other views, but when they actually encounter them, reject them reflexively.

I'll admit that I'm often guilty of this. When I come to Ace I often try (but only sometimes succeed) in not immediately discarding opposint viewpoints. It's not an easy thing to do, especially in this political atmosphere. "This" meaning the general political climate, that isn't an Ace swipe.

Because ...let's face it. Political dialogue is at an all-time low.

But I have noticed that a small handful of people are starting to take me at face value and that's progress. I can't say I exactly blame them for doubting my sincerity but if I haven't accomplished something in a month or two I'll probably just move on. If my goals are really what I say they are I'd be kind of stupid to stick around.

Regards,
Jason

*

Jason-

I'm having an issue with my IE and can't do italics or bold so I will just put your words in quotes.

"I'm sorry you misunderstood my quote. Some familiarity with Martin Niemöller is probably helpful. Niemöller was talking about the importance of speaking up even when you, yourself, are not a victim.

Hence the reference to the NSA wiretapping. I'm not a victim of it. Or maybe I am. So it's important for everyone to rally and get this out in the open."

As it happens I am well aware of Herr Niemoller. Were my girlfriend not Jewish and I not of German heritage I venture to say I would be familiar with one of the most oft quoted sentiments of being vigilante and standing up against the tyranny of your own government. Its not exactly an obscure quote and I'm sorry you misunderestimated me. And perhaps this is as good and example of what I consider your condescending tone as any.

It may just be me but I would bet that many if not a majority of people who read your post accusing Bush of being a criminal who is breaking the constitution, who lied the country into an illegal (I love that one) war, torturing people at will, etc., and following it up with a famous quote warning people to be vigilante against tryanny, would make the small leap that you are equating Bush with Hitler. Please don't think for a second you can bully me into thinking I don't know exactly the point you were trying to make.

"It was then that I realized that I could either blather at a handfull of people for hours and accomplish precisely nothing or I could open a website, write something once and let people read it dozens or hundreds of times a day and be far more effective. My effort was leveraged, so to speak. BTW, that site was NOFAITH.ORG. It's now defunct.

But my point is that I'm not here for converts. I've long since learned that trying to gain converts in this matter is a HUGE waste of time and effort."

Effective at what? You've opened another website and based on your first post and your statements that Bush is a liar and Cheney dangerous it would appear that it is going to be a typical "progressive" (silly term btw) site. There are plenty of sites just like that already as you undoubtedly know. So whats going to make you unique? Are you going to have a site where ideas from the left and right are going to be openly and rationally debated? Your going to be an honest broker in that? Given your admitted bias I find that hard to believe. If your follow on posts are anything like your first you will just be as you said preaching to the choir, I can't imagine a conservative hanging there save for the random troll.

After reading your posts here I find I also find it hard to believe you are here to listen to opinions from the other side of the aisle. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

As to whether I find your tone condescending there is nothing to prove or disprove. Just as you say, I am free to have my opinions just as you are. But I think you would find more people receptive to your statements if you but less baggage into them.

"But by your standard, I should post no pro-progressive opinion lest I be branded insincere. Which is certainly your right to do, but it's also my right to reject."

I never said any such thing. I believe, as I think most people do, that the country needs differing opinions. One party rule breeds nothing but problems as it did when the democrats controlled the white house and congress, as it is now that the republicans are now dominate.

That being said I find the current incarnation of the democratic party to be shrill obstructionists who care more about cheap, petty politics than the good of the nation. I find nothing progessive about the ideas or the leadership. I hope it changes because the country is poorer for it.

If you can convince me that Bush is a liar and Cheney dangerous and they are running the country into the ground as you say then I'm all ears. But evidence and proof are what I require. Not overheated hyperbole and liberal talking points.

When I posted it, it was meant in a "see, I can play this game too" type of way. I was trying to be glib, not make a "grand point."

It was only when I realized that my point was inadvertently being made better than if I planned it that I ran with it.

You came in this thread with nothing but insults and fallacious arguments. None of what you wrote in the beginning suggests that you were even doing it to be "glib".

You only started "running with it" when I called you out.

That's a fair question but I'm still in the "trying to get the locals to take me seriously" phase. =)

Prepare yourself for a lifetime of disappointment.

That's a fair question but I'm still in the "trying to get the locals to take me seriously" phase. =)

That's because you brushed off my five-point plan for successfully entering into a dialogue. Including such pithy planks as shorter posts and a less condescending attitude (from jackstraw's comments, you can see that it's not just me). Can't say I didn't try . . .

We're only in the 2nd week of 2006, but I think it's already time for a troll poll.

We've had a bumper crop, starting with geno, then jersey, egalabster (sp) and now Tomas, Jason and Bob Munck. (And maybe more - perhaps I've already forgotten them.)

Although geno and jersey made me laugh the hardest, I would say Jason should barely edge out Thomas in the finals.

Geno, Jersey and Thomas are the same person. Same writing style, same content.

Jason's wordy, and I don't take him seriously, but I think he's sincere underneath it all. There's a world of difference between his hamfisted attempts at crossing the rift and Thomas' impenetrable nonsense.

"Because ...let's face it. Political dialogue is at an all-time low"

Fortunately, no. You might find this interesting, Jason.

http://www.historywise.com/lp_goodolddays.htm

Heh, nice link, Jack. I had no idea that Thomas Jefferson was a "CHICKENHAWK!!!!1"

JackStraw writes:
I'm having an issue with my IE and can't do italics or bold so I will just put your words in quotes.

You can always just use <i>italicized</i>. But quotes are fine by me.

Its not exactly an obscure quote and I'm sorry you misunderestimated me. And perhaps this is as good and example of what I consider your condescending tone as any.

It's not condescending at all. You said that I clearly meant to compare Bush to Hitler. I said that you misunderstood me. You did.

What should I have done? Agreed that I was comparing Bush to Hitler? Am I to understand that telling you that your conclusions are wrong is tantamount to being condescending?

It may just be me but I would bet that many if not a majority of people who read your post accusing Bush of being a criminal who is breaking the constitution, who lied the country into an illegal (I love that one) war, torturing people at will, etc., and following it up with a famous quote warning people to be vigilante against tryanny, would make the small leap that you are equating Bush with Hitler.

I'll go so far as to agree that "some" might take it to mean that I'm equating Bush with Hitler, but comparing a person who has tortured accused terrorists without a trial with a man who killed six million Jews is a leap that, if taken, I really don't think I could be responsible for. We're not even talking the same ballpark.

If Bush was on par with Hitler I'd be doing a lot more than a podcast.

Please don't think for a second you can bully me into thinking I don't know exactly the point you were trying to make.

Uhh. Ok.

Effective at what? You've opened another website and based on your first post and your statements that Bush is a liar and Cheney dangerous it would appear that it is going to be a typical "progressive" (silly term btw) site. There are plenty of sites just like that already as you undoubtedly know. So whats going to make you unique?

Good point. I'm still trying to answer that very question myself. I regard this phase of the podcast as a sort of "finding my voice" time. I might go the way of Open Source and do shows about obscure subjects like ...well, like subjects Open Source does.

Right now the show is aimed at pulling together the MSM line and pointing out flaws in the logic of the talking heads.

HOLY CRAP. I just had a great idea!

The other day Hannity of Hannity and Colmes said on his show that liberals were saying "we need to spend 76 hours to get a court order before we can record that phone conversation." CLEARLY Hannity was seriously misunderstanding the FISA exemption on wiretaps that allows for immeidate wiretapping provded that a warrant is sought out within 72 hours.

I'm guessing that everyone here will agree that Hannity was clearly and obviously wrong.

Since my sincerity is so strenuously in doubt, and since my stated aims are (in part) to point out inconsistency and lies, how about if someone here finds something 100% demonstrably incorrect being spouted by the left -- something that is clearly and inescapably incorrect -- and I'll do a show about it?

Are you going to have a site where ideas from the left and right are going to be openly and rationally debated?

I'm working on getting a phone line (via Skype or some other VoIP) introduced into the show and move to a more "live" format. I'd LOVE to have such a format.

Your going to be an honest broker in that?

I remember listening to a talk show recently where there was debate among the different political groups represented and ...I'm not kidding here ...each person spoke, the mic (control) was passed on and I don't think there was any crosstalk. If by "honest" you mean one where I allow a right-wing person to say what they have to say without having their mic cut off, absolutely. If by "honest" you mean one in which I decline to present an opinion if it's progressive, then no.

After reading your posts here I find I also find it hard to believe you are here to listen to opinions from the other side of the aisle. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

That's fair.

As to whether I find your tone condescending there is nothing to prove or disprove. Just as you say, I am free to have my opinions just as you are. But I think you would find more people receptive to your statements if you but less baggage into them.

I listen to the "condescending" criticisms but they strike me as a way to avoid having a discussion. If it's true, so what? I can think of a lot worse things than being condescending. The proof in the pudding here is whether or not you ever see me change my mind on something. Well, that's my yardstick anyway.

If you can convince me that Bush is a liar and Cheney dangerous and they are running the country into the ground as you say then I'm all ears. But evidence and proof are what I require. Not overheated hyperbole and liberal talking points.

We can't do that if we're stuck on "you're condescending." Again, I'm not expecting too much too fast. I'll stick around, give my .02, read the replies and see what comes of it.

geoff writes:
That's because you brushed off my five-point plan for successfully entering into a dialogue. Including such pithy planks as shorter posts and a less condescending attitude (from jackstraw's comments, you can see that it's not just me). Can't say I didn't try . . .

I didn't brush it off, I thought about it and disagreed with it.

Shorter posts, as I mentioned, aren't really condusive to dialogue. This idea about "condescending tone" is awful vague. I see it as a way to dismiss what I have to say. It's a catch-all of last resort and so I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on it.

Me, I think being beaten over the head with "you're not sincere" every time I post is condescending but ...hey, I shrug it off.

Sortelli writes:
You only started "running with it" when I called you out.

Man, you're rabid! =)

You claimed that I wasn't posting that way to prove a point from the beginning and I ...I ...I agreed with you.

As I said before, the post developed in such a way that I recognized that I was falling into the same trap that I was accusing everyone else on. I got called on it. My bad.

But it goes both ways. So I was quite happy to eat my shoe since what I was getting out of it was the grand point that dialogue isn't regurgitating talking points. We can both always find some "authority" to support our claim. Isn't very useful.

max writes:
Although geno and jersey made me laugh the hardest, I would say Jason should barely edge out Thomas in the finals.

So I've gone from "troll award" to "cerebral troll award."

w00t. Progress! =)

Regards,
Jason

I didn't brush it off, I thought about it and disagreed with it.

Not a lot of difference from where I sit, but it makes no real difference to me - I was just trying to reduce the grade on the uphill battle you're fighting. Good luck.

how about if someone here finds something 100% demonstrably incorrect being spouted by the left -- something that is clearly and inescapably incorrect -- and I'll do a show about it?

You could start with the "stolen election," touch on "Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand," continue with "Bush lied," pass on to "Mission Accomplished," segue neatly into the "plastic turkey," and dabble in "Halliburton-Cheney" along the way. That would bring you up to the end of 2003.

A few comments about manufacturing, inspections, and buyers signing waivers.

First of all, defective products are sometimes made. In this case, the did not pass the tests, but the government signed waivers to let them be used. Probably there was an urgent need for armor and better something than nothing.

In any case, the company in question can't really be held responsible if the inspector signs a waiver...

Now, another issue might be the tests were very strict or the vest almost passed...I don't know about these particular products, but as an QC inspector I know I could probably fail 99% of all our shipments if I put my mind to it.

and what does it matter if this guy spent 10 million dollars on a party? The money gets into normal working people's pockets that way just as if he'd spent it on a home or a yacht. I guess he could have used it to build a factory in China to lower his unit costs instead.

Does anyone read those really long screeds? Whenever I see something that fills the screen, I tend to check to see who wrote it first. Most of the time, I end up skipping it.