I know you all (both) have missed this gathering of "information" from all corners of the internet but what can I say my laptop is not conducive to this type of blogging. Anyway - To the batmobile Robin, and we will see what the moronosphere offers up today.
Important Yahoo - Trump says Miss California USA can retain crown - he also said that her answer to Perez Hilton's gay marriage question was the same one President Obama gave. A fact that has been underreported in the ongoing Prejean coverage.
OK - it wasn't that important. It wasn't like I had nude photos of Carrie Prejean or a Sarah Palin sex video, but people have been following this like the very fate of the universe depended on it.
Betsy's Page - History made funny - The jokes practically write themselves.
Just One Minute - Obama to release CIA Inspector General report -
"And having released the memos that crushed the CIA, what will Obama then say to the CIA operatives who will be focused on hunkering down and re-writing the past rather than dealing with current terrorist threats? Will he assure them that he is the only guy between them and the pitchforks? And is our country really stronger if the DoJ spends the next few years being lied to by the CIA?
This is the road down which Obama chose to walk. Good luck."
The Belmont Club - Who Stays Wins - "One of Gavrilis’ most interesting points is about persistence. It can be summarized in the phrase: “who stays wins”. The function of military power is to ensure that your people can stay. But it cannot provide the people who will persist themselves. Thus, the ability to create a cadre of stay behinds, or more accurately the ‘live behinds’ is critical to success. Gavrilis describes the power of persistence."
This is one of the lessons from Vietnam that should have carried over to Iraq. Back on the old cramsession forums (in 2003) when the inusrgency was just getting started I pointed out that in Vietnam one of the more effective ways of decreasing violence in an area was to have troops living in the Hamlets. I had read about it in an old copy of Leatherneck that had belonged to my uncle. Unfortunately that idea wasn't revived early enough. It should be carried over to Afghanistan now.
D=S - The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan - "In Iraq, Gates and Petraeus sought to create a coalition government that, regardless of its nature, would facilitate a U.S. withdrawal. Obama and Gates have stated that the goal in Afghanistan is the defeat of al Qaeda and the denial of bases for the group in Afghanistan. This is a very different strategic goal than in Iraq, because this goal does not require a coalition government or a reconciliation of political elements. Rather, it requires an agreement with one entity: the Taliban. If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."
Is that really the American goal? And is a return of the Taliban to power an acceptable way to achieve it?
Ace has a little more on this
The Other McCain - Fortune Favors the Bold - "Everybody on the Right nowadays is talking about how to fix the problems of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. The problem with a lot of this talk is that most people on the Right have been Republican all their lives. They don't have the experience of becoming an ex-Democrat, so they don't understand what kind of messages cause such conversions, and they get it all wrong."