« I Don't Even Play a Terrorist Mastermind on TV, but... | Main | Draining the Swamp...Again and Again and Again »

December 28, 2009

Comments

Dude, what did I do? ;-)

I was merely suggesting that this would be an appropriate post for you to snark on.

So get to snarkin!

Yemen will be tomorrow's war if we don't make it today's other war.

One question: Did someone from the WH leak it to the preess this time to create political advantage for the midterms?

Did someone from the WH leak it to the preess this time to create political advantage for the midterms?

No, it was a Pentagon link. Further, the leaks were careful to put the Yemeni government out in front, downplaying US involvement and initiative.

I like that phrase, "Magic Missile solution". It's too good to be used only in the context of Half-Elf sorceresses and such.

(Was this snarky enough?)

italics begone!

Looks like I failed my dispel italics roll. How about now?

Points for snark, and the saving throw vs. italics!

Wow thanks for clarification, I feel so much better about this adminstrations hawkish leaks now.

Wow thanks for clarification, I feel so much better about this adminstrations hawkish leaks now.

Um, what?

It was a Pentagon leak, not White House. And it wasn't really a leak insomuch as it was a report on a major military operation. Unlike the first drone attack which was much smaller and not in need of immediate disclosure, or the type of chest thumping disclosure it got.

So, as long as it is a major military operation, the Pentagon announces it and we say it was Yemens idea, thats better than a WH leak that wee used a drone to blow up some bad guys in Yemen? I am really struggking with understanding the logic here. Do we believe anyone thinks it was a Yemeni attack? Do we think it was a big enough operation it "had" to be announced?

All that is ridiculous. The only difference is it may be a little further from the elections.

Just so I am clear, I don't think either attack was probably worthwhile and I couldn't care less if they announced or leaked it. It is just stunning how we will go back to 2002 and bash Bush over something as stupid as this. To accomplish what? Say our announcement is better than your announcement?

And, BTW, YOUR post says the Pentagon announced the Bush attack.

The only difference is it may be a little further from the elections.

"May be a little further"? Eleven months versus two days? Definitely a lot further. So far as to be useless for the 2010 midterms.

And of course there's the main point: Bush's leak made the Yemeni government less willing to cooperate with us on counterterrorism. Obama's leak will probably make them more willing, or at least no less willing. Which means that even if there is partisan benefit, there's also policy benefit instead of policy damage.

What Hogan said.

Marty, the point is not to bash Bush. The point is a pragmatic one: how will the Yemenis react. They will tell us whether or not we sold them out. Me and you bickering is beside the point.

Although, point conceded re: the Pentagon thing.

"Which means that even if there is partisan benefit, there's also policy benefit instead of policy damage"

I don't think the Yemeni reaction has been any better this time. More willing? I doubt it, less willing probably.

Same set of questions as 2002. However, over the next year, accordiung to this source, Yemen cleaned AQ out of their country, not too bad cooperation from our standpoint. That policy damage was??

I don't think the Yemeni reaction has been any better this time. More willing? I doubt it, less willing probably.

Do you have evidence? I saw today that they just arrested 28 AQ suspects.

However, over the next year, accordiung to this source, Yemen cleaned AQ out of their country, not too bad cooperation from our standpoint. That policy damage was??

Just because the damage was reasonably contained doesn't mean there wasn't damage.

"Do you have evidence? I saw today that they just arrested 28 AQ suspects."

Just because the damage was reasonably contained doesn't mean there wasn't damage.

Just because the damage was reasonably contained doesn't mean there wasn't damage.

Again, I ask, do you have evidence of such damage?

Marty - you rock.

Keep up keeping these folks honest.

</tagclose>

Thanks OCSteve, but Eric is getting slicker, I think I missed the good old days when I would have been agreeing with your comments.

Speaking of the Bush administration:

Dear Tom Ridge,

Fnck you you fncking fascist fncking fnck.

Love,

Ugh

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad