The impending Veto

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

OK Bruce. You read it. Tell us what the strategic objective is?

Meanwhile, Bruce, did you bother to read what Yon said about Halberstam? Did you notice he posted about Halberstam as I have been saying here for years now - even before this post?
4/26/2005: Agent Orange victim .

What xoxoxoBruce somehow forgot to read: Why did Charlie escape? What was that strategic objective? I repeatedly cited David Halberstam's "Making of a Quagmire" as essential reading to understand "Mission Accomplished" - especially its strategic objective. Thank you, Bruce for doing two things.

First, demonstrating that you don't read (or understood) your own citation (again - what is that strategic objective?).

tw lies again..oh wait make that still. I've read everything Yon wrote including his book. Have you?

Second, posting how Yon, Halberstam, and I all agree. Bruce, didn't I predict civil disorder if we were perceived as conquerors or stayed too long? Do you remember posts from Tobias that exampled how we were losing the peace. Notice that Michael Yon only echos what Halberstam said. Who did I often cite in my often lonely and accurate criticism of George Jr's Crusade? Halberstam.

tw cherry picks one item that he agrees with and makes it sound like they are the three musketeers. Yet in all his previous posts he is in direct disagreement with the man in Iraq is saying. The sad part is tw thinks he's fooling everyone and making himself look good when he's the laughing stock. tw, what a joke.

xoxoxoBruce - this is like your claims that Global Warming does not exist. This time you somehow know - and did not even read your own citation. Again - what is the strategic objective defined by your own Yon citation?

Oh, here we go with the look a birdie routine again. By lying about what I said on another topic tw hopes I'll be too bust defending myself from his lies on that subject to pursue this one. what tw doesn't realize is I don't have to do that because everyone knows tw lies.

Your own citation only repeats what I have been saying for years. But then, xoxoxoBruce - what is the strategic objective as demonstrated by Yon's post? Did you read enough to learn? What is that strategic objective? And yes, you are being mocked because you posted profanities. What is that strategic objective? Show us how one who posts repeated profanities has an informed grasp of the world. What is that strategic objective?

Fuck you tw. Do you really think everyone has forgotten your statement. "Today Americans routinely fire heavy weapons even on innocent Iraqis".A statement that's a blatant lie but tw thinks he can make derogatory lies about the men and women serving in Iraq, with impunity. tw thinks so little of the people here in the Cellar, tw thinks he can lie at will.

Or maybe you would like to answer those three simple questions? Maybe those would be easier since, as an avid reader of Yon, then you have all the answers? But again I mock one whose only response will be profanity.

tw wants me to answer his questions when he only responds to questions with personal attacks, condescension and lies. I think I'll let tw go first.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

tw lies again..oh wait make that still. I've read everything Yon wrote including his book. Have you?
tw cherry picks one item that he agrees with and makes it sound like they are the three musketeers. ....

As predicted, xoxoxoBruce replied with profanity. After reading so much of Michael Yon, Bruce still cannot define a strategic objective? Bruce restorts to more profanity?

xoxoxoBruce neither comprehends that Yon citation nor appreciates the significance of Yon's summary from Halberstam. Therefore Bruce still cannot define the strategic objective - cannot even answer that simple question.

Halberstam discusses the strategic objective. Having done so, then Halberstam also makes a ‘Deja vue Nam’ type statement. Did xoxoxoBruce grasp that? Or was xoxoxoBruce too busy searching for more four letter words in a dictionary? Ahh, but then I only mock. I never really expected Bruce to know what a strategic objective is.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

As predicted, xoxoxoBruce replied with profanity. After reading so much of Michael Yon, Bruce still cannot define a strategic objective? Bruce restorts to more profanity?

Again tw demonstrates his pompous condescending attitude with more lies and false accusations. tw confuses my not allowing tw to dictate questions that must be answered with not knowing answers.

xoxoxoBruce neither comprehends that Yon citation nor appreciates the significance of Yon's summary from Halberstam. Therefore Bruce still cannot define the strategic objective - cannot even answer that simple question.

tw keeps asking questions when tw can't answer the questions tw should be answering.

Halberstam discusses the strategic objective. Having done so, then Halberstam also makes a ‘Deja vue Nam’ type statement. Did xoxoxoBruce grasp that? Or was xoxoxoBruce too busy searching for more four letter words in a dictionary? Ahh, but then I only mock. I never really expected Bruce to know what a strategic objective is.

tw mocks because the economist hasn't provided tw with the answers to the simple questions he was asked. Having no original thought, or even an educated guess, handicaps tw into just repeating rhetoric. Dumb fuck tw thinks we'll forget he said...

Originally Posted by tw

"Today Americans routinely fire heavy weapons even on innocent Iraqis".

But we won't now, will we.
Hmmm, maybe it's time to start an "Outrageous Lies by tw", thread just to keep track of them all.