The Manliest of Crushes

I'd have to say, folks, that, in terms of PURE partisanship, Cliffy is as "out there" as anybody. In fact, this fellow just might be THE most partisan EVER! I mean, seriously, what in the hell else could you frigging call it - the Republicans/conservatives having never done anything right, the Democrats/liberals consistently right? That sure as hell sounds hard-core to me............................................................................................This, folks, and, yet, there is in fact one thing that Cliffy places above partisanship. Yep, you got it - his total love for President Barack Obama. I mean, just look at his reaction to this Afghanistan fracas. Virtually every principled liberal that I know (and, yes, even a few principled conservatives) has at least expressed some concern about the President's decision (i.e., his sending of 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater), most of them going as far as to oppose it. Not Cliffy, though. Not at all. But not only is he supporting the decision - he's spinning like a frigging top for it - forgetting as well all of the lessons that I though he had learned about Vietnam, etc.. It's absolutely unbelievable, I'm telling you - totally unbelievable...................................................................................................As to the substance of the debate here, I refer you to a recent Senate hearing. At this particular hearing, former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified that Al Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan. When asked by Senator Kerry, "So, in terms of Afghanistan, they have been disrupted, dismantled, and defeated? They're not in Afghanistan, correct?", Grenier responded, "That's true."................................................................................................Kerry also asked Marc Sageman (yet another CIA veteran), "Is there a legitimate concern about a new union between Al Qaeda and the Taliban?" Sageman, apparently not perceiving such a threat, responded, "A Taliban return to power does NOT (my emphasis) automatically mean an invitation to Al Qaeda to return to Afghanistan. The relationship between these two groups has always been strained." When asked what we could do if in fact such an invitation did occur, Sageman countered by saying that "there are many ways to prevent the return of Al Qaeda, besides a national insurgency strategy. Vigilance through electronic monitoring, spatial surveillance, a network of informants in contested territory, combined with the nearby stationing of a small force dedicated to physically eradicate any visible Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan will prevent the return of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."........................................................................................................When asked about a surge strategy for Afghanistan, Sageman said, "Let me answer that with an old Middle Eastern proverb. ' It's me and my brother against my cousin. But it's me and my cousin against a foreigner.' So if we send another 40,000 U.S. troops, that will coalesce every local rivalry. They will put their local rivalry aside to actually shoot the foreigners and then they'll resume their own internecine fight. Sending troops with weapons will just unify everybody against those troops, unfortunately.".................................................................................................Grenier added that a surge could conceivably turn Pakistan against us, too. "A large increase in the U.S. presence in Afghanistan would not be welcome by the majority of Pakistanis. It would make the struggle seem all the more starkly as one of the U.S. versus Muslims, as opposed to the U.S. supporting Afghans in their own struggle."...............................................................................................So, what do you think, Cliffy - food for thought?