pcs

That, and you're a total assplunger. So would I also be a total moron if to liken a friggin' transvestite to an African American in the Jim Crow South? No, I'm pretty sure Moleke sides with the trannies. Yes. Just as if he'd come to prom covered in feces. Uh, it's kind of a big deal. Can you say "taboo?" No, I'm well with in my rights not to understand and reject accordingly. And somehow I think I'll sleep at night despite knowing that transgender activists disapprove.

We can be pretty sure that they haven't. In General John M. Riggs case there is definitely a personal axe to grind, although the circumstances are still unclear (and currently presented solely from his point of view). Neither General Zinni or Clark were involved in any substantial way in the 2001-3 planning update for OIF. That leaves us with the two division commanders, neither of which actively collaborated with the guidance and planning process between OSD and the unified commander. So where does this leave us? This is essentially an argument pitting OSD and the senior uniformed leadership at the Pentagon and USCENTCOM against two former subordinate commanders who were not principals in the planning process and their supporters already in retirement. I think the latter group comes by their views honestly--Generals Batiste and Swannack were the shooters for OIF's major combat operations phase--but in the end the only ones who can genuinely say whether Secretary Rumsfeld was a micromanager are the unified commanders and their staff and the Joint Chiefs. Generals Batiste and Swannack, therefore, can only offer their outside interpretation of the JOPES process above their paygrade, and a distant one at that.

And what do you suspect they said, because according to the Secretary and several other retired and active brass, these broad criticisms were never raised by their present issuers during the planning and execution phase. That's called moral courage. My guess is that the officers criticizing Rumsfeld are honorable men, unlike Richard Clarke, and have in retrospect arrived at a different assessment of OIF's operational tier. I'd also point out that Swannack and Batiste were divisional commanders, and while they are undoubtedly as qualified to comment on the state of affairs as any civilian analyst or even their commanders, I find it funny how people like yourself will generously presume their experience has no effect on their analysis and yet never extend the same courtesy to OSD or the senior USCENTCOM leadership. Speaks volumes of how seriously you take this subject that you have to impose a narrative one could only find in an episode of the West Wing or some other corny Hollywood political-military thriller.

Then I'd say your model of civil-military relations is unreasonably complex as well as being unjustified by anything in the literature.

From the The Weekly Standard

Enrichment, period. Once that cat's out of the bag it's not a hard leap to go from 25 to better than 50 percent U235, and even uranium enriched to a plurality of U235 content is dangerous enough as a terrorist threat. That debate is over; Israel and the US have pinpointed enrichment as the tipping point. For all intents and purposes, their strategic estimate holds that Iran is a nuclear threat now.

I think we haven't seen nearly as much criticism as we saw from a larger group of retired brass in 2004 for the entire Administration; criticism that explicitly manifested itself in an endorsement of John Kerry. President Bush survived a heavier onslaught. Secretary Rumsfeld and the American people should take solace in the fact that the vast majority of the officer corps stands with the Republican Party and that Mr. Rumsfeld himself is worthy of praise from Generals Peter Pace, Richard Myers and Tommy Franks.

Your argument fails because: 1) You equivocate on the definition of time. Your first use expresses time as a coordinate axis which we can traverse. The next use lays out time as a process mapped onto some coordinate system. 2) "Time can't happen twice" is a premise; it doesn't follow from "it already happened."

I think I could've sold to you by the ounce.

Holy mother of God, the geek needle is off the dial. Hip hop is mother.

What is global warming theory?

The OPLAN 10 series for Major Theater War in the Near East has been around for two decades, with Soviets, Iraqis and Iranians envisioned as the opposition. These plans are updated at least every two years and feature attached CONPLANS with greater operational and logistical granularity.

A conventional attack would be effective, it simply couldn't be a mere airstrike and would take a lot longer.

Disagree. There is a sizable number of Conservatives who prefer selective engagement (Derbicons, Buchananites). There are also a sizeable number of non-Christian neoconservatives who are opposed or ambivalent to proselytization (this would describe the National Review and Weekly Standard crowd). On the other hand, I personally can't disagree with Ann Coulter. What better way to transform dar al-Islam than to employ the "transforming power" of Christianity? Also disagree. Liberals aren't generally limp-wristed hippies. And they're perfectly happy with only killing a few million babies a year. I'll add another one. Vocal atheists are by and large annoying Aspies (wouldn't be surprised if verified).

Key word, unending.

Trick question. When was the last time the US had unending deficits?

Present-day American liberalism is unpatriotic because it denies American exceptionalism. (believe)

So you plan to either live with your folks or rent and you have no credit. We've gone through this before. Huh? Maybe, but what does that have to do with practicing law? Where did that come from? Castle assets (mortgages) usually are positively amortized at some point, capital (second homes, equipment, etc.) generally isn't for a time and is usually financed interest-only. Even so, most people defer interest and therefore accrue debt for five to ten years. Of course, most human beings have finite lifespans. Then perhaps you better clarify what you mean by "secure." Where's your Harvard MBA? I will. This President is better than Reagan. Perot.

I think we should thank your still very occasional capacity to explain yourself. Debt for home ownership, debt for home office electronics, debt for home security, debt for food--these are generally good tabletop investments. Most people don't. Most businesses don't. This is a question of whether your revenue through the future is sufficient to justify lowering periodic costs at the expense of greater expenditure over the long haul. And countries, being what they are, generally can hold out far longer in far deeper red than individuals or firms. 1. I'm not displeased with Washington's annual expenditures. I would question the wisdom of over $1 trillion in redistributive, nondiscretionary outlays that will only continue to increase and have close to zero stimulative effect, but even then we have to take that part and parcel with the fact that the US has maintained a responsible debt-to-GDP ratio compared to our foreign creditors. That is an engine of economic dynamism we can't ignore. 2. Why the abrupt segue into immigration control? Or, maybe the next person can only hope to be as great as our current President. You know, seeing as he's so great and all compared to his predecessors.

I don't see the dichotomy.

A commitment to non-ideology is an ideology itself.

SBVT's end of the season spots against Kerry.

None of which amounts to an analysis of the uncharacteristic productivity gains starting in 2001, gains that anticipated tax relief authorized that year. You build liquidity. So do lot of people. What you've now clarified is that you are leveraged but you are incurring no additional debt. Whether or not that's wise in terms of opportunity cost is another matter: I anticipate doubling my debt in the next four years, but the bulk of that expected leverage will exchange for continuing education and law school. Actually, government currency accounts do go towards the debt in terms of interest payments. What we haven't done is pay down the principle, and this mirrors the financial situation of most Americans between 20 and 45. Unlike a single citizen or family, the government isn't expected to expire anytime soon and sits on top of a $15 trillion a year economy.

No, it didn't, and hand-waving aside the only time Bernanke addresses the post-2001 productivity gains is in his opening remarks and even then just to report that the rate has doubled again. Because the scope of the lit review is restricted to research concerning 1987 - 2001 data. Funny, coming from a guy who's managed to incur debt without running a deficit. I'll ask you again. Is it your plan to live a credit-free life paying rent or living with your folks?

Bill Gates can give as much as he wants to the state if he feels government can manage his money better than he can. Rupert Murdoch may feel differently.