Thursday, December 31, 2009
Fulfilling the Prophesies
But recently, they put up this entry, which compares the WTB predictions (based on their wholly inadequate but constantly upgraded computer programs) with the "reality" as they see it. They say they did pretty good, but I couldn't help but notice that they only compared the predictions to HadCRUT3 and GISSTEMP, which are the WTB records which the East Anglia documents show are at best biased towards warming and at worst completely unreliable. As I have pointed out a dozen times, these two are generally much higher than the harder to mess with satellite records from RSS and UAH. So how did the predictions do compared to reliable global temperature records? I'll get to that.
Open thread for various climate science-related discussions. Suggestions for potential future posts are welcome.
But first let's look at how James Hansen's predictions in 1988 did even compared to the suspect and elevated ground based temperature records on which NASA (our space agency) and then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely.
Not so good. Even the tamest of Hansen's prediction is way above reality. What are the odds of that? Here (just below) is how it looks to the WTB using only the suspect records, better, but still high.
Of course the WTB don't rely on Hansen. For the latest IPCC updated prediction (and I mean by 'updated' that the Warmie modelers take into account the ground based temperature record since their last predictions and then change the computer models to be more congruent with the so called reality so that it seems they are more reliable predictions than they in fact are) the fourth revision, which came out just two years ago, in 2007, the two years of real data (that is, including the satellite records) also is lower than predicted. Even rewriting history, they can't hit the mark, although it is difficult, it seems, for them to realize this.
So comparing the constantly revised computer predictions (which is not by any stretch of the imagination data in support of a theory) to a more reliable record of global temperature reveals how hopelessly shitty the computer models are; and the fact that WTBs compare their revised predictions to records they almost certainly bend upwards and then say, 'Ooh, lookin' good' reveals a sort of willful blindness to the very serious shortcomings of their alarmist theories.
It's like when Michael Palin pushes the cage of the dead Norwegian Blue and says, "See. He moved." Except not quite as funny.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Second Thought of the Day
That's what my 8-year old son said about the sales tax on the ride home from Borders a few minutes ago. He had a $10 gift certificate from Christmas, bought a Clone Wars book for $7.99, looked at the receipt, and wondered why he still didn't have a full $2.01 on it.
This is how conservatives are made.
John J. Miller
Labels: John J. Miller quote
Thought of the Day
Labels: Dave Barry quote
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Why Janet Napolitano is Breathing Easier Today
So her job is safe.
As President I will do everything in my power to support the men and women in intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security to make sure they've got the tools and resources they need to keep America safe. But it's also my job to ensure that our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security systems and the people in them are working effectively and held accountable. I intend to fulfill that responsibility and insist on accountability at every level.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Here is one funny thing Wikipedia had to say about it:
It is difficult to detonate, as dropping it or setting it on fire will typically not cause an explosion.No kidding.
Animals and Christmas
No one knows what the niche carrying capacity is for the Arctic vis a vis polar bears. We do know that when there is overpopulation of predators to prey, the number of predators goes down because there is not enough food to sustain them all. Of the 19 areas where there are plenty of polar bears, how many have reached what I'll call saturation? I am aware of not a single scientific inquiry into the subject.
Every interglacial for the past 600,000 years has produced average polar temperatures much higher than today's for thousands of years. The Northern ocean has indeed in the past been ice free by September, yet we still have at least 25,000 polar bears today. Loss of sea ice does not appear to be the huge threat of extinction Noah kept saying it was.
The System Worked
The State Department did not revoke the terrorist's visa. The vaunted home security system did not move the terrorist from the terrorist watch list (nearly half a billion names long) to the no fly list (with just 4,000 names) and the trained government officials at two airports did not detect the explosives. The only reason the plane did not drop burning from the sky is that the detonator failed and a few of the passengers acted quickly and well.
Heck of a system ya' got there, Nappie.
Michelle Malkin has a reminder of how truly, truly terrible at her job Ms. Napolitano has been.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The sun rises at its most southern point on the horizon (on December 21), here, over the 2400 year old Temple of Poseidon at Cape Sounion, Greece.
Labels: Sun Rise
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Political Poster of the Month
The artist is unknown by me, but if he or she identifies his or herself, I'll give the appropriate credit. I do recognize the original Nazi poster used, but I can't remember what it said in German.
Labels: Political Poster of the Month
Thought of the Day
Labels: Thomas Sowell quote
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thought of the Day
Labels: Will Rogers quote
Saturday, December 19, 2009
President Obama 0, Copenhagen 2
UPDATE: Here is the New York Post's take. It is not as hopeful as mine.
Thoughts on President Obama's Copenhagen Speech
We know no such thing. Climate change is real, but almost entirely natural--it happens all the time. It can be a danger. If, for example, we were heading back into another ice age, as we will one day, it might be cause for alarm, but to say with confidence that the recently feared change, warming, will be a grave danger is like looking at the entrails of sheep and lamenting our fate revealed therein.
We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.
Oh, but the President has pronounced it science, not fiction. But we know from years of study--Anthony Watts' survey of American sites for taking the atmosphere's temperature found that the overwhelming majority of which were producing a temperature record biased to warming and the huge drop off in the number of world sites (from 6000 to 1800 or so after the fall of Communism)-- that the ground based record, kept by the Warmie true believers, was suspiciously high. Now we know, from the whistle blower released East Anglia documents, that the Warmie true believers have indeed corrupted the data with computer programs which fudge it warmer, and then destroyed or lost the original data. We know that Russian scientists accuse the Hadley CRU located at East Anglia of cherry picking the warmest of the remaining Siberian stations to produce a warming that doesn't exist there. In short, the Warmie "science" of climate change (anthropogenic global warming from CO2) is more fiction than science. Our President ignores the unraveling of the hoax, as does the leftstream press.
The two satellite services are probably reliable, but only go back 30 years. That's one problem substituted for another's solution. They show a very minor warming in the 80s and 90s and a slight cooling thereafter. But back to the President.
The clean energy economy (windmills and photovoltaics) is pixie dust solution, the power these worthless intermittent sources provide is tiny, but expensive, and the real power providers don't even consider them in their base power calculations. No wind generator has saved even a single lump of coal from powering the industrial nations, and will not in the foreseeable future.
So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world.
But our President has very ambitious goals in mind.
And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
This last is fantasy. We will need 50% more electricity by 2050 so, if we maintain a viable economy (a mere possibility under Democratic leadership) our CO2 emissions will go up, not down to 1913 levels. Of course we all know Obama is merely making promises he has no intention (or ability here) to keep. It's like he is in permanent campaign mode where all his promises contain short 'best used by' labels.
How can I say this? Behold:
The time for talk is over.Yet, as is his wont, that is all he did, without apparent consciousness of the inherent irony.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Criticism of a Conservative Commenter
Thought of the Day
Andrew McCarthy, destroying the idea that the housing of illegal combatants in Guantanamo Bay has any deleterious effect on the war being waged against us by Muslim extremists
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Poem of the Month
One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung
The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools
UPDATE: According to the 30 years of satellite data as shown on the website at the University of Illinois (at Urbana/Champagne) called The Cryosphere Today, the lowest area the floating continent of Arctic sea ice has covered at the end of Summer is just under 3 million square kilometers and just this year it was 3.45 million, bigger than the country of India. There's going to have to be a truckload of more warming "soon" to fulfill poet Gore's dire predictions. I'm yawning as I wait for this fool's hour upon the stage to be over.
Monday, December 14, 2009
An Important Regression
In high school we took a practical art/art history class senior year. It was a hoot. My best friend Frank Kelly and I couldn't draw a straight line, but we loved the art history part and did our best to memorize the famous paintings, etc. and the years they were produced. There was, one day, a remarkable series of slides shown by the teacher.
It was a big Bierstadt painting, but the slide series started with a detail of the painting, a pool of water with a turtle in it. The next slide pulled back a little and showed more of the painting, and on and on for about 20 slides until the whole painting, of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, was revealed. Frank, who is now a big wig in the National Gallery--specializing in American 19th C . landscapes--was seriously impressed and indeed his ultimate career path started that day, I believe.
I think the remarkable thing of the slide show was the constantly changing, expanding, frame of reference of the work.
So here is a similar ever expanding series of graphs from a glacier in Greenland which covers the past 50,000 and shows the temperature record therefrom.
The first graph, above, back just to 1400, about a 150 years after the end of the Medieval Warm Period, shows a hockey stick style graph, with a steep rise beginning about 1825. Ooh, scary.
But back up a little (to 900 AD) and the "blade" of that hockey stick is revealed as a tiny blip compared to the serious warming of the Medieval Warm Period. Back up, again to 3000 BC and even the Medieval Warm Period is dwarfed by other higher and more sudden warmings.
The little 1825-on "blade" of the first graph is revealed to be a very small version of many sudden rapid rises in temperature again and again and again.
Back up again to 9,000 BC and the start of the interglacial is a huge steep climb in temperature which reduces the 1825-on "blade" of the first graph to utter insignificance. Back to 50,000 during the depths of the latest ice age, and the interglacial is revealed to be the oasis one would expect. The final graph is the Vostok Antarctic ice core which takes the temperature record back to 400,000 BC and shows a series of ice ages with brief, warm interglacials in between. This is the same graph Al Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth to show a congruence of CO2 and warmth (of course Al neglected to show that the warmth preceded the rise in CO2 by an average of 800 years). To a disinterested viewer, the final graph shows that the little bit of warming since 1825 is absolutely within the norm of ancient warmings, indeed it is dwarfed by most of them, and there is nothing, NOTHING, special or even slightly alarming about the recent climate change. Since the rapid big warmings over the past 400,000 years were clearly before any industrialization or the burning of fossil fuels, there appears to be nothing in history which would cause us to believe that recent warming is anything new, and certainly nothing alarming.
With the correct frames of reference, our modest recent warming is reduced to mere background noise in the constant flux of mean temperature. It is reduced to nothing at all.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Thought of the Day
Victor Davis Hanson
Labels: Victor Davis Hanson quote
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thought of the Day
Mark Steyn, with a spot on parody of President Obama in Oslo, or anywhere else overseas for that matter.
Labels: Mark Steyn quote
Friday, December 11, 2009
Discussion of Part of President Obama's Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
I will give the speech two cheers, First, Obama realizes (or so he says) that there are limits to diplomacy and non-violent struggle and that the Ghandi/King approach wouldn't have worked in Nazi Germany. One of Dinesh D'Souza's teachers put it much more eloquently (and starkly): If Ghandi had tried what he did in India in Germany in the 1930s, he'd be a lampshade today. Oh, and would it be gauche or pedantic of me to point out that the Ghandi/King method of non-violent struggle (Civil Disobedience) was invented by Henry Thoreau? Probably. Forget I wrote that last then.
Second, Obama seem to say he embraces the Catholic catechism regarding the concept of just war, which he described as: War as a last resort or in self defense; proportional response; and, with protection of civilians. Actually here is the Church on the subject:
In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:
So, close enough.
"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].
But here is part of what I hated about the speech. Obama said that Afghanistan was a just war and kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in Gulf War I was a just war but, impliedly, deposing Saddam Hussein in 2003 was not a just war. Hold on there, kitty cat. If Gulf War I was a just war, and it was, then Gulf War II was necessarily a just war too. Gulf War I ended, like the Korean War, not with victory and a treaty, but with a cease fire agreement which required certain things of both sides. We kept our side of the deal. Saddam kept almost none of his legally binding promises. If the end of just Gulf War I was a sham because of Saddam Hussein's actions, wouldn't the resumption of the war after decades of efforts, all in vain, to get him to live up to his side of the deal be the very definition of just war. The original justness of the cause was not dissipated by a cease fire agreement which was breached again and again by Saddam Hussein. I don't think President Obama can see this truth. I really don't.
Obama said that we have to be held to a higher standard of conduct in war, which is why he praised himself for prohibiting torture by Americans (an unnecessary act) and for closing Guantanamo (still premature for praise there--get back to us when it is actually closed and the results are a more just confinement of illegal combatants). Obama also said that he has "reaffirmed" Americas commitment to the Geneva Conventions. We have almost never strayed from the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. It is our enemy in the current war which completely ignores the international rules. Our current enemies don't even wear uniforms. They are, like pirates, saboteurs or spies, not entitled to any protection of the Geneva Conventions and can be summarily executed when captured.
That Obama has placed unnecessary and dangerous rules of engagement on our troops in Afghanistan and has afforded to a selected-by-whim few of our illegal enemies the same constitutional rights as American citizens. He is treating our illegal enemies better than we treated our savage, but at least they were in uniform, enemies in WWII. He is rewarding their
I really hate it when our commander in chief endanger our soldiers, et al., and all of us, so the Euro-elites will like him more. It just seems more like treason to me. I certainly can't call it good leadership.
There was much more to hate, but it's late.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Gentle Religious Question of the Week
Climate Denial Industry? Part 2
I discussed this below and promised to return to it. Monbiot provided four examples of the Industry which "has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming":
- The Information Counsel for the Enviornment (ICE) waged a $510,000 PR campaign, targeted primarily at U.S. Representatives, which urged skepticism and asked questions like "how much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?" Not exactly a juggernaut of disinformation in my book.
- The Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) put at least $100,000 into the hands of Cato Institute author Patrick Michaels' group, New Hope Environmental Services, Inc., and Professor Michaels doesn't trumpet that payment sufficiently for Mr. Monbiot.
- The Heartland Institute, which has received $676,000 from ExxonMobile (over an unknown period of time) for all of the Heartland Institute's activities as a pro-business political think tank, put out a list of 500 scientists whom it claimed had performed research which cast doubt on an alarmist view of AGW. Mr. Monbiot says that at least 45 of these guys and girls are true believer Warmies and several have asked for their names to be removed from the list and they haven't. I have to point out that the Heartland institute said the research contradicted AGW scare tactics, not that the authoring scientists were skeptics. At this point I was still waiting for evidence that these individuals and think tanks had "no interest in establishing the truth about global warming." All I was hearing was that these people and organizations had a different opinion from Mr. Monbiot. Not quite the same.
- The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which received $2,000,000 from Exxon (I guess before the merger with Mobile) again over an unknown period of time, had members or perhaps unrelated individuals who asked that IPCC head Bob Watson be sacked from his post and be replaced with Harlan Watson.The White House did sack Bob and appointed Harlan, who, according to Mr. Monbiot, "went on to wreak havoc at international climate meetings."
OK. That's the extent of the examples. Wow, what a well financed, secretive, no doubt illegal, conspiracy of purveyors of falsehood! (Sarcasm alert). The low estimate for the government money flowing to the Warmie true believers is in excess of $30 Billion just here in America. Al Gore's Warmie propaganda gets played in thousands of theaters and awarded Oscars despite at least a dozen falsehoods while the counterbalancing "Not Evil Just Wrong" has to resort to a viral campaign for showing the film in a few living rooms here and there.
Mr. Monbiot says his four examples strike a blow to the Denial Industry much worse than the release of the East Anglia/Hadley CRU documents. Well, perhaps in his eyes...
The last on this series will be the other sides' version of what Monbiot says is so horrible of them. (I'll remind Brit Monbiot that, here in America, our right to form groups and petition our government for redress of grievances are God-given rights recognized by our First Amendment and his rather pitiful examples are not evidence of an illegal conspiracy to misinform, not by a long shot).
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Report on American War Dead in Afghanistan and Iraq
Here are the details. According to releases from the Department of Defense, for the month of November, 10 American warriors were killed in Iraq and 18 were killed in Afghanistan for a total of 28, less than one per day. Here is further breakdown: In Iraq, four died from non combat causes, four were killed in accidents and one was killed by small arms. As I wrote, not a lot of fighting going on there. In Afghanistan, seven were killed by IEDs, five were killed in combat operations, two were killed by a suicide bomber and one each was killed by mortar fire, small arms, an accident and a non combat cause. I guess the Taliban is indeed waiting for the dreaded Spring Offensive, but, back on a serious side, only two of the 18 killed in Afghanistan last month were not killed in some form of combat.
There were no soldiers, et al. with feminine names and only two officers killed, both dead in a single helicopter crash in Iraq. They were CWO Mathew Heffelfinger, 29, of Kimberly, ID and CWO Earl Scott III, 24, of Jacksonville, FL.
Our thoughts and prayers go out for all our men and women at arms fighting the war the Islamic extremists have brought against us. We pray also for their swift and safe rotation home and complete success with their mission.
Ice Geysers on Enceladus
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Climate Denial Industry?
Don't believe me? Read this. Money quote:
The second observation is the tendency of those who don't give a fig about science to maximize their [the leaked documents'] importance. The denial industry, which has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming, insists that these emails, which concern three or four scientists and just one or two lines of evidence, destroy the entire canon of climate science.
Clear thinking Monbiot has just stated that what the climate scientists were doing, as revealed by the leaked documents, was anathema to science, but it is the deniers who don't give a fig about science. I see. I get the picture. But if we really loved science and hated, as Monbiot claims to hate, what the bad climate "scientists" did, would our opinions be any different?
Then there is the bombshell that a denial industry exists. Monbiot later gives some examples, which I will discuss in detail over the rest of the week. An industry! And it is a corrupt industry which has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming. Wow! An evil, corrupt industry which is interested in lying about the climate for money. The swifter of my readers will be thinking projection as the psychological malady from which Mr. Monbiot suffers.
Let's look at his strawmen arguments. He writes that even if you discounted all the things the leaked documents call into question, "the evidence for man-made global warming would be unequivocal." And what is his evidence of man-made global warming? "You can see it in the measured temperature record which goes back to 1850" (which is being reassessed because of the non science at the CRU revealed in the released documents) and in the real world evidence of warming (shrinking glaciers, thinning sea ice, wild animal and plant reaction (what?) and rapidly changing crop zones).
Of course these things are only evidence of global warming are not evidence of what caused it. Of course it has warmed and cooled since we entered, about 12,000 years ago, perhaps the 25th interglacial (which means it warmed and cooled a lot 24 times before, over the past few million years). But we know, from hundreds of peer reviewed articles in paleoclimatology over the past 35 years or so, that even recently, there have been warm periods, the latest of which, the Medieval Warm Period, lasted between around 850 to 1250 AD. The IPCC in 1990 published a graph which showed the overwhelming scientific consensus then that the Medieval Warm Period was WARMER than it is now.
If over the past few milennia it has been warmer than it is now, and those were at times when there was no industrialization nor any wholesale burning of fossil fuels, then why should be believe that this most recent warming is the result of industrialization and the wholesale burning of fossil fuels? Where's the evidence that this most recent warming is special, different...man-made? That's the central question for us deniers.
George Monbiot has an answer: No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Oh well, case closed then. No, I kid, there's more--Monbiot says that solar cycles can't explain it as they are out of sync with the recent warming (I don't believe that--the sunspot numbers appear to be reaching a minimum of some sort just now and minimum sunspot numbers in the past have been associated with global cooling periods and indeed, over the past decade, despite a rise of 5.4% in global CO2 atmospheric concentration, it has, in fact, cooled).
Monbiot says that the performance of greenhouse gasses has been measured in the laboratories but we deniers assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere. (I am aware of no serious denier making that claim, rather we hold them to their laboratory measurements (see graph) which say that for the doubling of atmospheric CO2, from the agreed upon pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm to 560 ppm (which we have not achieved and will not for at least another 140 years) the temperature will rise between .4 and 1.6 degrees C by 2150 or so). Yet the Warmies claim a catastrophic temperature rise of 1.1 to 6.4 degrees C by the end of this century. And their proof is? Well, they have no proof, as that term doesn't apply to projections about the future. Why should we trust their projections then? Monbiot's ability to provide support, apparently, ran dry.
Our robot photographers just get better and better.
Labels: Crescent Earth
The Limits of Self Defense
So now that the EPA, in its wisdom, has declared that the naturally occurring, necessary for life on this planet, present in every breath we exhale, CO2, "threaten[s] the public health and welfare of the American people," can I slug any person who breathes in my direction? Certainly he or she is introducing into the air I am about to breath a gas which threatens my health, and any impairment of my physical condition is bodily injury, namely, a bodily injury against which I am justified to use reasonable physical force to prevent.
CO2, at .038% of the atmosphere, is of course not a pollutant, just the opposite, so I would not object to anyone producing CO2 at any level near me, but the true Warmie believers, can they slug me for breathing?
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Thoughts on the Illogic of the French Revolution's Motto
Our motto, our self evident truth regarding some of our God given inalienable rights was: Life, liberty and
I'm aware of the equality in the Declaration of Independence, in which all men are created, but that's equality of law, of opportunity. The French ideal is of the equality of outcome, which brings me back to the opening paragraph.
One of the bigger fault lines between the left and right wing is that the left is all about equality of outcome where the right is all about equality of opportunity. Since the government rarely creates anything, the statist left is reduced to producing an equality of misery, under which no human population can live for too long. Equality of opportunity produces a lot most of it good, but including an ever growing divide between the producers and the slackers, between rich and poor; but that is an inescapable product of true freedom. Only the statist worries about the width of this divide, and apparently only the right of center cares about maintenance of the equality of opportunity, allowing the have nots to become the haves, through effort.
Which of these two concerns is more like the ideals contained in the Declaration and which is more like the French self contradiction?
Thought of the Day
Don Surber. talking about Warmie climatologist, Andrew Watson, decrying name-calling as "character assassination" by the skeptics and 40 seconds later calling Denier Mark Morano an asshole on live BBC TV.
Labels: Don Surber quote
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Whom to Believe?
We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
And here is what he wrote in an e-mail complaining about a FOI request from Steve McIntyre about a year ago:
About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all.
To quote David Knopfler: Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong.
Or as we lawyer types dream of asking: So when were you lying to us, Mr. Jones--last year or last month?
Also, for the not too feint of heart, here is a dense but rewarding take on the thing from Steven Hayward at the Weekly Standard.
Except for the fact that some science is involved, the alphabet broadcast news systems are ignoring a pretty good story here. I guess they are itching to lose even more viewers.
Why the Far Left Agenda of President Obama Should Fail
Friday, December 04, 2009
Looking Past the E-Mails
Oh, and here is a good refutation of the "Nothing here to see, folks, move along" apologists regarding the e-mails, etc. I really liked it. Wonder who, really, Sean is.
Despite the yawning and ignoring by the left stream media, this really is a big thing.
Hail to the Chief
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq....Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.
This is bull. There were indeed lower troop levels in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but no one was asking for more troops and not getting them (for months and months), until this year, until Obama asked his hand picked general (and a good choice I think) to review the troop levels and make recommendations.
Rumsfeld has called him out on this fabrication, and good for him to do it. The Gibbs' spin is less than compelling, as usual.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
A Long Recovery
Anyway, that's my excuse for the light posting. Good as any.