05 April 2008
Guess He Didn't Get The Memo *UPDATE*
Senator Biden says the troop buildup was a failure.
Isn't that a failure by the Iraqi leaders and not the troop buildup? I thought the current talking point wasn't about the surge, but that we should focus on Afghanistan. Wasn't it pretty much accepted, even by the Dems, that the surge did what it was supposed to do?
See? Don't worry Joe, the Associated Press has got your back.
*UPDATE* Tarnation!! DRJ over at Patterico's beat me to this one, but I missed it before writing this. I try to avoid stories that other people have done already (hint: if you check the timestamps on any of my posts that you see covered elsewhere, mine are almost always first. Heh.) Nice work DRJ.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
"The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically," said Biden,
D-Del., in this week's Democratic radio address. "Violence has come
down, but the Iraqis have not come together."
Isn't that a failure by the Iraqi leaders and not the troop buildup? I thought the current talking point wasn't about the surge, but that we should focus on Afghanistan. Wasn't it pretty much accepted, even by the Dems, that the surge did what it was supposed to do?
They said their focus will be on restoring the strength of the Army and
Marines and refocusing the nation's resources on fighting terrorists in
Afghanistan.
See? Don't worry Joe, the Associated Press has got your back.
*UPDATE* Tarnation!! DRJ over at Patterico's beat me to this one, but I missed it before writing this. I try to avoid stories that other people have done already (hint: if you check the timestamps on any of my posts that you see covered elsewhere, mine are almost always first. Heh.) Nice work DRJ.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at
12:02:49
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Not only are you frequently first but I often drop by here to get ideas.
Speaking of ideas, I ran across an LA Times' correction on a GTMO article. I didn't notice the original article but they had lots to correct. I wondered if you plan to blog on it. Here's a link (scroll down to 4/5/0
: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/corrections/
Speaking of ideas, I ran across an LA Times' correction on a GTMO article. I didn't notice the original article but they had lots to correct. I wondered if you plan to blog on it. Here's a link (scroll down to 4/5/0
: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/corrections/Posted by: DRJ at 06 April 2008@21:26:40 (wE7Og)
2
Heh. Instead of a parenthesized 4/5/08 it inserted a cool happy-face. I need to remember that one.
Posted by: DRJ at 06 April 2008@21:27:36 (wE7Og)
3
Lots to correct indeed. I didn't see the original article, so I don't know how much they got right. Even with the original, I probably wouldn't blog it because it mostly talks about stuff after I left. I could make some educated guesses about whether something was true or not, but if I were challenged to prove it, I'd be hard-pressed to defend the post. I usually jump on Guantanamo stuff from when I was there, or before I got there (since I saw most of the historical stuff), but not much on stuff after I left for that reason.
I know there were more than 2,000 books and magazines even when I was there. I was also involved with the hunger-strike and helped develop the policy that ended up getting it under control. No way would we have considered force-feeding someone who had only missed 9 meals and I can't imagine that was ever true, even after I left.
I know there were more than 2,000 books and magazines even when I was there. I was also involved with the hunger-strike and helped develop the policy that ended up getting it under control. No way would we have considered force-feeding someone who had only missed 9 meals and I can't imagine that was ever true, even after I left.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 06 April 2008@22:15:39 (tarqT)
4
You don't want to write about something that happened when you weren't there?
That didn't stop the Los Angeles Times.
That didn't stop the Los Angeles Times.
Posted by: DRJ at 07 April 2008@01:01:35 (wE7Og)
5
(Kudos to you for having principles.)
Posted by: DRJ at 07 April 2008@01:02:07 (wE7Og)
6
Thank you very much DRJ, that means a lot coming from you. Anyone who has gone through my posts can easily tell how much respect I have for you, Patterico, and the other co-bloggers there.
I've commented on things that happened after I left Cuba, but made sure that it was clearly a personal opinion. I always try to make distinctions between what I know is fact, what I believe to be true (not always the same as fact, as we both know), and what is opinion. I wish journalists tried to do the same.
For example, when the three detainees committed suicide, I commented that I absolutely believed it to be an act of asymmetrical warfare but couldn't say it was a fact.
I think it would be very difficult for anyone to find an example of me dishonestly arguing a point or reporting anything. I'm pretty proud of that.
I've commented on things that happened after I left Cuba, but made sure that it was clearly a personal opinion. I always try to make distinctions between what I know is fact, what I believe to be true (not always the same as fact, as we both know), and what is opinion. I wish journalists tried to do the same.
For example, when the three detainees committed suicide, I commented that I absolutely believed it to be an act of asymmetrical warfare but couldn't say it was a fact.
I think it would be very difficult for anyone to find an example of me dishonestly arguing a point or reporting anything. I'm pretty proud of that.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 07 April 2008@01:19:20 (tarqT)
Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008
23kb generated in CPU 0.0178, elapsed 0.0933 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.0811 seconds, 106 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
60 queries taking 0.0811 seconds, 106 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
