Good news about advancements in Iraq are always ignored. As many have said, Democrats are heavily invested in defeat and will not report the good news when it occurs.

Also, don't forget that Kiran Chetry came from Fox news. Maybe she hasn't gotten the memo on only reporting the bad news.

"we are within an ace of complete victory at this moment."

Please tell me what this statement means. What is complete victory? Having defined that, what is the ace?

Mark, we idiots are extrememly fortunate to have such a wise man as you to inform us about our misgivings. Please, in your infinite wisdom, do enlighten us simpletons about the other huge non-tactical issue: The Iraqi government.

Now, as dumb as I am, I can't seem to grasp the progress in this department, so maybe you can shed some light on it. The way I see it, our soldiers are fighting and dying for a governent run by a man, al-Maliki who doesn't seem to care about US benchmarks, and also seems to think Iraq would be fine without us. My limited intelligence is having trouble putting togther a short term scenerio where limited tactical advantages will help stabilize a non-effective government that is increasingly hostile to US interests... Oh and one that is also taking the whole month of August off... Why shouldn't they? I mean, according to Tony Snow, it's 130 degrees there!

Thankfully, according to General Pace, we now have six battalions that can function independently of U.S. forces... I thought I remembered reading there used to be ten, but I'm an idiot so I must be wrong. I'm just glad that after four years and $19 Billion, we at least have 3000 independently functioning Iraqi soldiers...out of over 300,000.

Well, I'm off to start a letter writing campaign to chastise the media for it's biased reporting that less than 1% of all insurgents held by the US in Iraq are foreign fighters. Keep up the good work Mark, and thank you for helping the intellectually handicapped understand the truth.

Better not watch the MSM becuase soon the entire coutnry(iraq) will be just like ramadi, as American troops spread out and take out al qaida and the iraq troops do the same!!!

We have been getting "good news" from Iraq for 5 years.
This whole MSM issue that you have, why is it that the ratings of Fox are dropping ? Why do Americans CHOOSE to watch MSM if it is so out of touch with reality ?

Rick-

Changed your pants yet? The odor of unrine must be horrendous. How SOON will it be before the SIX battalions of IRAQI troops pacify the entire nation of Iraq? One year, five, ten , twenty, thirty... when is SOON?

P.S. change your pants.

Good job BEL.

Stain this good story with your harrassing Daily KOS talking point. Like my mother always said. "Say something nice or STFU!"..........My mom never really said that. But you get the point.

I find that to be the most annoying thing about some bloggers here; even when there's a good story to talk about, they just deflect the thread and go straight for the "Bush sucks", "Iraq Sucks" mantra. It gets really old.

I know when things suck, and I know there are still alot of places in Iraq that are overun with AQ, and the Taliban, but that doesnt mean the war is lost, and it doesn't mean that they're aren't places where coalition forces are making progress.

Some people here are so pessimisstic. How do you sleep at night!?

b-e-l,

Get your facts right before you come trolling here.

As of the 20 Jun 07 State Deparment report, the Iraqi Security Forces had nine divisions, 31 brigades, and 95 battalions are in the lead or operating independently in their areas. Where did you come up with your SIX battalions figure? DU? Kos? The latest DNC talking points memo?

Are you trying to tell us that 89 Iraqi battalions have disappeared in the past month, or are you barking from your anal oriface, as usual?

It's rather hysterical to watch the libs squirm whenever there is success in Iraq...or anywhere for that matter, and after last nites Senate cluster scr*w that left Boxer (what a freakin liar), Hitlery and the rest of the loony left that ditched Reidtard for their warm and cozy office trundle beds with pizza on their face, in a quandry of "whatdawedonowwally", I'd bargain to say, this was one of the worst defeats for the defeatocRATS since the war began.

Personally, I believe we're not far from a cataclysmic response from the Move-on's and Sheehan types that voted their illustrious leaders into office in Nov.

Head al-qaeda figure in Iraq was captured July 4th. Kinda highlights that al-qaeda is over there huh? So why do we need to pull our troops out to fight al-qaeda if al-qaeda is already their dems?

A-10,
It's that New Math;
95 Iraqi battalions = 6 battalions of Iraqi troops.
See the difference now?

Btw, what's a battalion going for these days?

A-10, I'll see your battalion and raise you two divisions.

Kiran went to CNN? Bummer for us FOXophiles, but it sure improves the quality of CNN. I'll have to check her out over there someday. Hopefully, my television won't explode--it did last time--when I tune in CNN...

Warthog-

It is six iraqi battalions that can operate on thier own. The other 100 need US troops to hold their hands, when they choose to show up. This is from Peter Pace on July 13, 2007.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4008

I should have been more clear.

Hopefully, my television won't explode--it did last time--when I tune in CNN...

The last time I watched CNN was about 3 or 4 years ago. Judy Woodruff was forced to report something positive about Bush, and she was close to tears. I thought she was going to have a breakdown right there on the set. I turned to my wife and said, "do we really need to watch this?"

Kiran is a sweetheart, and I was sorry to see her leave Fox, but you're right; she'll dramatically increase the quality at CNN. May even add a little "fair and balanced", heh, heh. God knows CNN could use a little.

Ah yes, those battalions. Does anybody remember what Bush said on Oct 1, 2005 in his Radio Address? This:

I'm encouraged by the increasing size and capability of the Iraqi security forces. Today they have more than 100 battalions operating throughout the country.

Those 100 Battalions are now in the lead or operating independently. In 2005 only about 30 - 35 were in the lead or operating independently. that’s a 300% improvement. Still trying to make lemons out of lemonade?

Btw, did anyone else notice that today is the 38th anniversary of Ted Kennedy committing murder? When do you suppose he'll be tried for his crime?

I have something here that is VERY important for everyone to read. It regards Vietnam:

"Media depictions of the fighting typically showed tired and frustrated American and South Vietnamese soldiers, while often using stock propaganda footage of communist troops marching cheerfully down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The elders who made their names in younger days on such allegations as U.S. troops lying about their "body counts" gave almost no mention of the horrendous communist military casualties, despite the most newsworthy item of those few weeks: the Hanoi government officially admitting it lost 1. 1 million soldiers dead and another 300,000 still missing from the fighting, compared to American losses of 58,000 and South Vietnamese of 254,000. And few discussions recalled the Hanoi pledge in the 1973 Paris Peace Accords that Vietnam would be reunited only by peaceful means, with guarantees of individual freedoms in the South, as well as internationally supervised free elections.

To the contrary, on the heels of Mr. McNamara's comments regarding the "unwinnable" strategy he concocted and failed to adjust during the first four years of war, media air waves were filled with a litany of speeches proclaiming "vindication" by those who otherwise might have been forced to answer hard questions regarding their conduct and beliefs during the late 1960s and early 1970s. For some, such conduct was betrayal. For others, it was only a stupefying naiveté. But for most, there has been a persistent conspiracy of silence that has lasted for decades, accompanied of late by an attempt to leap over the carcasses and the devastation that followed the communist takeover, to simply pretend it did not happen.

When forced to comment, those who opposed our attempt to assist the building of a democracy in the South picked up the debate in its present makeup, pointing to the Hanoi government's efforts in the past few years to liberalize the economy and reach out to the Americans in the wake of the collapse of their Soviet ally and the continuing menacing growth of the Chinese.

As a consequence, the best opportunity of a lifetime was lost for the many who still wish to put a generation's most bitterly divisive period into proper historical perspective."

Now, I want everyone to guess who wrote this. I don't think you'll believe it. This essay was written in 1995 by none other than Sen. Jim Webb. Shameful. Simply shameful.

biccum-

big Mark Levin fan huh?

BEL,

And there you go again - trying to find the cloud in the silver lining. We all are quite aware that the Iraqi army is not ready to stand on its own - heck, even after major US combat units are withdrawn we will still have to back up the Iraqi military with logistical and aerial support...as well, probably, a substantial US committment to continued training of the Iraqi forces.

But no matter how you slice it, Iraqis are volunteering to fight alongside our troops - and far more Iraqi's have made this committment than have made a decision to go terrorist against our forces.

That should tell you something - if it can break through the anti-Bush voices in your head.

When North Vietnam rolled over the SVA in 1957 and took Saigon they couldn't find many VC to march in the victory parade with them. Between 1969 and 1973 US and ARVN special forces had virtually wiped them out - most of the VC cells in South Vietnam were actually manned by NVA infiltrators after Tet and they had a horendous casualty rate.

It's finally beginning to dawn on the Iraqi insurgents that absent 22 divisions of regular troops poised just across the border they aren't going to win this one and like the VC they're just going to be a footnote in the history books. That's why the tribes have turned on Al Qaeda and Sadr has been forced out of Iraq: That's the losing side in this conflict. Furether, the Iraqi army is well-trained and except for logistics shortfalls would almost all be operating independently of US forces now. The surge would not be working so well w/o these elements in place. Al Qaeda can still blow a few marketplaces up but the Iraqi people know they're going to lose and have turned firmly against them. Unfortunately Reid and crew haven't gotten the message yet.

I think the issue is simple Mark. If you look at the overall situation in Iraq things are pretty horrible.
1) There is horrible sectarian violence and terrorism which - despite Bush's claims to the contrary by excluding car bombs from official tallies - is actually on the rise. You can spent your time arguing if it is down by 15% in certain areas - up in other areas or whatever you like. However, on the whole violence is a daily phenomenon - with thousands being killed each month. If this is 2750 or 3000 a month is somewhat of a minor issue - it should be close to 0. Of course , it is correct to say that it will never be absolutely 0 - but its orders of magnitude to high
2) The Iraqi government is propt up by the US governement and its military - and still it is weak, slow moving, and cannot secure peace or amongst the different fractions
3) On the whole - education, basic services, health care, etc are horrible. So bad that a new poll reveals that only about 50% of Iraqi's think the situation is better than under Saddam. 20% think its actually worse. Thats pretty remarkable. Only about 50% of the population thinks the US occupation is better than Sadam's brutal dictatorship.

Its true that there aren't many good stories coming out in the MSM abeout Iraq these days. But the fact of the matter is - there really aren't that many good stories coming out of Iraq period. If ou think there is evidence of some sort of MSM conspiracy to lie about this - please present a statistical study and not just allegorical remarks
and other stupid arguments like "I just don't believe" (first of all its not an argument based on any facts or ideas it just your personal believe - secondly given the other nonsense you believe it is not a particularly swaying statement)

Finally - your argument that "it doesn't matter how we got into Iraq" is of course nonsense. It is equivalent of arguing that a rapist should marry his victim if she gets pregnant because the baby deserves a father figure and the mother help in support raising the baby ("it doesn't matter how she got pregnant - is analogous to it doesn't matter how we got into Iraq") Further it certainly matters because if you don't believef in the justification for the war in the first place it is a definite reason not to believe in its continuation either

Never in history, I think, has there been such a situation before - that a nation engaged in war and winning, yet has been nearly convinced that all is lost. - Mark

It was exactly the opposite in WWII. In first year and half of the war we we're losing BIG. But everyone was optimistic and focused on victory. My how times have changed.

Good to see that Dr. Dumbass is still around--irrelevant as usual.

The Iraqi government is propt up by the US governement

What the hell is "propt," you insignificant piece of crap? And where do you get your b/s data? Kos? DU? Your mama?

and there it is again. This war is nothing - I repeat NOTHING - like WWII.

a) in WWII the justification for war was the aggression of the Nazi Jugernaught steam rolling Europe taking over country after country. Trying to exterminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and intellectuals. The justification was Imperial Japan destroying Pearl harbor.

In the case of Iraq were given the following debunked reasons:
1) WMDs and the threat of Iraq. Later we discovered there were no WMDs - that the evidence for WMDs was flims.
2) connection to 9/11. We now know that there was no connection and no credible evidence
3) bringing "democracy" to the middle east. Except of course when they have elections in the Palestinian territory and we don't like who they vote for. Except of course that the majority of Iraqi's would like the US to leave on a timetable and we ignore them and people here argue for "benign dictatorships"
4) fight in the war in terror - except our own intelligence agencies now tell us that the war has increased terrorism and that Al Queda is now at pre 9'11 strengths again

b) In WWII we had the support of the free world. In this case we were able to force a few small countries to go along with us by pressure - the UN never authorized force and the US went around them and ignored them

c) The occupied countries of europe wanted our help - the Iraqi government says we can go and the Iraqi people want a timetable for departure.

So in summary - they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. WWII was a war of NECESSITY against an aggressive nations that attacked the US and murdered millions of jews and others in camps. the war in Iraq is one of CHOICE against a broken regime that had now threat against the US.

Get over it. You guys are just WRONG

1) There is horrible sectarian violence and terrorism which - despite Bush's claims to the contrary by excluding car bombs from official tallies - is actually on the rise. You can spent your time arguing if it is down by 15% in certain areas - up in other areas or whatever you like. However, on the whole violence is a daily phenomenon - with thousands being killed each month. If this is 2750 or 3000 a month is somewhat of a minor issue - it should be close to 0. Of course , it is correct to say that it will never be absolutely 0 - but its orders of magnitude to high
2) The Iraqi government is propt up by the US governement and its military - and still it is weak, slow moving, and cannot secure peace or amongst the different fractions
3) On the whole - education, basic services, health care, etc are horrible. So bad that a new poll reveals that only about 50% of Iraqi's think the situation is better than under Saddam. 20% think its actually worse. Thats pretty remarkable. Only about 50% of the population thinks the US occupation is better than Sadam's brutal dictatorship. - kblack

This is so bad I don't know where to start. However, kblack IF you are a PhD, it speaks very poorly of our universities.

Propt? Try, propped.

Anyway let's analyze, shall we?

1. Let's say 3000 people die in Iraq every month. The population is 27,000,000. So the annualized death rate would be just over 1%. In 2002, in New York City, with a much smaller population, nearly 60,000 people died. That is a death rate of over 5%, and there's not even a war going on in NY (well kind of). I'd say, not bad huh?

2.Again Propt? wow. Anyway, the Iraqi gov't certainly is challenged and rife with corrucption (but so is the Democratic party), but back to my point. It's a freely elected representative gov't in Iraq, that in itself is a HUGE step.

3. According to your own figures, 70% of the population in Iraq feel that they are better off now. That should be game, set and match for you, seeing that everyday you claim that 70% of Americans are against the war, which is proof of a mandate. So wouldn't 70% of Iraqis equate the same?

Secondly, now you want to change the health care system in Iraq? What is it with liberals in health care? Whatever happened to global warming?

Kblockhead, you are beyond stupid.

Leave it to a liberal to fight the strawman.

kblock, did I ever equate WWII with this conflict? No. I merely equated the mood of the country, which is a stark contrast. I can only imagine if someone with the cranium thickness of yours were around in WWII. Back then, people had courage, conviction, and integrity. You possess none of those traits.

This war is nothing - I repeat NOTHING - like WWII.

What would you know about WWII? You're--not yore or your--12 years old and still play with your Barbie dolls.

Folks, fill in the blank:

kblech is a/an_______.

I gotta hand it to kblack. She's taken masochism to a whole new level.

B4B conservatives, read this for a good laugh-

IMAO: Nuke the Moon
/Bwahaha!
:)

DUDE..

==========
1. Let's say 3000 people die in Iraq every month. The population is 27,000,000. So the annualized death rate would be just over 1%. In 2002, in New York City, with a much smaller population, nearly 60,000 people died. That is a death rate of over 5%, and there's not even a war going on in NY (well kind of). I'd say, not bad huh?
=========
- the 3000 people dying of sectarian violence! Not the total death rate of course. Its like a 9/11 every month in Iraq now - thats the appropriate analogy

2)
=============
According to your own figures, 70% of the population in Iraq feel that they are better off now. That should be game, set and match for you, seeing that everyday you claim that 70% of Americans are against the war, which is proof of a mandate. So wouldn't 70% of Iraqis equate the same?
=================

No you didn't understand my statement. 50% of the population believes things were better off under Saddam then they are now. That is my figure - not your make believe figures..

=========
Again Propt? wow. Anyway, the Iraqi gov't certainly is challenged and rife with corrucption (but so is the Democratic party), but back to my point. It's a freely elected representative gov't in Iraq, that in itself is a HUGE step.
===
ok i spelled it wrong. The point is - if the government cannot even support security in Bagdad and needs 150,000 US troops to maintain control of the country it doesn't matter what sort of government it is. Its broken...

WRONG ON ALL COUNTS AS ALWAYS

Kblockhead, here's your actual quote:

3) On the whole - education, basic services, health care, etc are horrible. So bad that a new poll reveals that only about 50% of Iraqi's think the situation is better than under Saddam. 20% think its actually worse. Thats pretty remarkable. Only about 50% of the population thinks the US occupation is better than Sadam's brutal dictatorship.

If only 20% of Iraqis think that life is worse now, than conversely 80% would feel that life is a little better now than under Saddam. MANDATE!

WRONG ON ALL COUNTS AS ALWAYS

Don't be so hard on yourself blockhead. Liberals are usually always arong. BTW, "propped" is a really easy word to spell.

neocon, have you ever noticed how whenever kblockhead refutes your refutations, she declares victory? It's like a grade-school debate with her. You say, "This is how it is, blah, blah, blah, and she comes back with, "No, your wrong! I win!

And yes, I used the wrong word for "you're" intentionally, so's Dr. Dumbass could relate.

Go back to your--not you're--Barbie dolls, Dr. Dumbass...

keef,

This clown (blockhead) is not a PhD and I will bet my 401K on it. Her reasoning, debating skills, sentence structure, and spelling suggests that the closest she ever came to a PhD is when she went to bed with one of her professors.

ugg neocon.

Do you really not get that. The fact that 20% answered that the situation is WORSE does not imply that 80% think its better. You know why? Because its not a yes/no question. You can also think things haven't change - or you can not have an opinion or don't know. And thats exactly the case.
In fact - I explicitly told you only 50% think its better. 20 % think its worse, 30% either don't know or don't have an opinion.

neocon - you just lost your 401k. Give me you F*CKING address and I will send it to you. Exactly what I told you before

navydad, that's just hysterical. I had trouble reading toward the end. I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes.

Loved this line:

It will be that easy to motivate our fellow man, because there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.

It reminds me of this article from a while back, which, interstingly enough, does dovetail with Algore's assertion that we're destroying the planet.

Do you really not get that. The fact that 20% answered that the situation is WORSE does not imply that 80% think its better.

No, it implies that 80% think it's NOT worse.

Sorry, navydad, I screwed up the link.

Let's try again.

ugg spook. Fine - but only 50% said it was better. Thats the point. Only 50% think its better than under a brutal dictator. Thats not very good in my book.

I am so glad the likes of Mark in the the 29% minority and sinking. You just don't get it and never will. Seventy percent of the American people have seen the truth. First Al Qaeda in Iraq is but a small problem and when we leave will be dealt with harshly by the Iraqis. They are not interested in a Taliban type government. Second the Iraqi government is dragging its political feet on purpose-taking a month off. As soon as the Shia are confident they can safely settle old scores with the Sunni the government will ask us to leave. This is a civil war, not a war on terror. The front on the war on terror is right where Democrats have been saying it is for the past 3 years, Afganastan and Pakastan.

Mark your post are of no help in protecting the U.S if your only purpose in writing them is to protect the failed Presidency of George Bush. But I guess that is what you do here at B4B.

kblack,

Consequences of this war, are only in the mind of those who do not see a need for JUSTICE!

Saddam and the Saddamites clearly had to be dealt with in a timely fashion in order to discontinue the genocide that was taking its toll on the oppressed nation that Iraq was, and continues to be, with regards to the Al Qaeda insurgency that continues to infiltrate the area.

Now, Tell me this, DEMOCRATS want us to leave, ok, If we exited Iraq tomorrow, and we were attacked tomorrow night, just how in the world could you justify that decision with what you call "bad judgement" by this administration. How?

Jeremiah

Ramadi has been taken and retaken several times. So has Samarra. And Baghdad and God knows where else in Iraq. It's the same story again and again. Just like "The Number 2 Man in Al Qaeda" keeps getting captured every few months. Point being, you guys have been claiming imminent victory for years and it never seems to come about. You're really damn naive.

Jay,

Uh, no - I think this is the first time we've cleared Ramadi...and it looks to be the last.

When was the last time you heard of Fallujah, Tikrit or Mosul in the news?

Things have changed in Iraq, and all of the change is in our favor.

Not to defend kblack or anything, but I have to ask... why do you refer to him as "her"? It's obviously intended as a derogatory. At the expense of needlessly constricting the tent further than otherwise intended, you might want to think about that.

"I can only imagine if someone with the cranium thickness of yours were around in WWII. Back then, people had courage, conviction, and integrity. You possess none of those traits."
-Neocon

Amen!

Not to defend kblack or anything, but I have to ask... why do you refer to him as "her"? It's obviously intended as a derogatory.

What a sexist thing to say, Rico. Actually it's not intended to be derogatory at all. It's based on a logical and reasoned post by Bane several weeks ago, analyzing her writing style and use of certain words. Now, that said, most posts responding to kblack's comments ARE derogatory, simply because her thoughts, her logic and her writing skills are just totally FUBAR.

Willem van Oranje,

Considering that the end state of the New Iraqi Army is supposed to be 112 operational battalions, the apparently slow growth in the last two year is really nothing to get all excited about. The State Department also indicates that another 9 battalions are in training, but are not yet operational. So they are close to having 104 out of 112 battalions. Another typical liberal attempt to find a negative in everything positive about our efforts in Iraq. Can you say "BDS".

b-e-l,

You obviously don't know anything about the military. The US doesn't have any battalions that can operate completely "independently." They always have to have a variety of other units providing support to them, from engineer support, to aviation support, to other forms of Combat Support and Combat Service Support units. So, if we can't operate "independently", why should be expect the Iraqi's to be able to do so?

I don't know if it was b-e-l or kennscht mi noch who stated that BDS was not a clinical diagnosis. Do you realize that the term BDS was first used by a Harvard Medical School trained psychiatrist? Interesting.

neocon,
Dead on, this blockhead can barely spell PhD much less hold one. Defense of the dissertation requires skills this high school dropout doesn’t possess. Just look at how pathetically she repeats her percentages, becoming increasingly shrill and offering no advance to her argument. A panel of PhD’s wouldn’t tolerate this sophomoric diatribe; her use, misuse, and abuse of the language would be an insult to any academic assemblage. She doesn’t even have the basic understanding of the use of apostrophe in possessives, or compound sentence structure.

Your 401(k) is safe; I doubt she’d even have a clue on the conversion protocol. I attend daily to PhD’s; she’s no PhD.

Ricorun,
I have no doubt these sophistries presented by the blockhead are replicate of another sobriquet. The effeminate prose and self centric argumentation are indicative of an undeveloped critical thinking process or a female that talks to hear the sound of her own voice. So the choice is simple; a poseur, or a harpy.

Dasein: I have no doubt these sophistries presented by the blockhead are replicate of another sobriquet. The effeminate prose and self centric argumentation are indicative of an undeveloped critical thinking process or a female that talks to hear the sound of her own voice.

The sophistries blockhead presents aside, it's clear from your explanation that the sobriquet you choose to apply is rife with misogyny. I'm not fond of ad-hominem attacks in the first place. But in this particular brand of it you go further -- you disparage women to get to him. No offense to kblack or anything, but women deserve better. Keep them out of it.

Ricorun,
First, don’t presume to attach malevolence to my post; I’ve clearly stated that the writing style is definitively female, if you have a problem with my assessment state it, your ad hominem isn’t worthy of response. At which juncture in my text did you observe a misogynistic objective? If you’ve confused my writing with someone else’s I’ll await an apology. I think you forget yourself; or forget who I am. To whom am I married? For whom do I work? Some of my best friends are women. And some of the finest posters here on both sides of the argument are also womem.

Next, under which other sobriquet, or nom-de-'Net is the blockhead posting? Of what are you aware that you care not to proffer?

Spook has accurately assessed your subtle prejudice; you believe that my identification of the blockhead as female is an insult to women, you believe I've attached her sophistry to the gender assessment; I did not; her flawed argumentation is evidence of her lack of a post-secondary education; you drew an invalid conclusion based on your prejdice ~ shame on you. You should have more respect for the fairer sex.

"I have no doubt these sophistries presented by the blockhead are replicate of another sobriquet.

It's clear you need a translation; I think she’s posting under another name.

neocon - you just lost your 401k. Give me you F*CKING address and I will send it to you. Exactly what I told you before

Here it is again, neocon--this moronette reads your--not you're, moronette--post, and asserts, without proof, that you're--not your, moronette--wrong. She's a pitiful creature; she craves attention.

Dr. Dumbass, are you sure you're--not your--not Cindy Sheehan?

Rico, what's this b/s about a constricted tent? I address Dr. Dumbass as "she" because I'm not--now or ever--politically correct. Dr. Dumbass is NEVER correct...

Rathaven

Those 100 Battalions are now in the lead or operating independently. In 2005 only about 30 - 35 were in the lead or operating independently. that’s a 300% improvement. Still trying to make lemons out of lemonade?

Dasein: let me get this straight... you're saying that you've come to the conclusion that kblack is a female, but you don't mean anything derogatory by that conclusion. Is that right?

Hey I know... let's ask kblack! Hey kblack... are you a man or a woman?

Rick,
I am convinced by the writing style and use of personal pronouns that the blockhead is a woman. I believe I made that clear to Spook when he asked 2-3 weeks ago, and again in this thread. Should I refer to Almiranta as "he" just to show I make no assumptions about her intellect, cognitive ability, or predilection to having the toilet seat put down?

I am equally convinced that she does not hold a PhD, yet she clings to that fantasy. My wife the accomplished lawyer will tell you that once the witness has lied her entire testimony is suspect.