| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2007 10:04:22 AM |
| Object: |
NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
Iraq now less safe, not more.
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=281216&
Today's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq confirms what most
Americans already know: Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and
the President's escalation strategy has failed to produce the
political results he promised to our troops and the American people.
Our troops have done everything asked of them and more. Unfortunately
Iraq's leaders have not. And as today's NIE makes clear, a political
solution is extremely unlikely in the near term. Further pursuit of
the Administration's flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation's
best interests.
Every day that we continue to stick to the President's flawed strategy
is a day that America is not as secure as it could be. As the
intelligence community reported in another NIE just weeks ago,
America's attention is distracted from Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda,
which has regenerated its capacity to its pre-9/11 levels. That is why
it is so essential that this September, Republicans join with
Democrats to change course in Iraq and work to restore our nation's
security.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
| User: "Backyard Astronomer" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
27 Aug 2007 10:11:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:39:25 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:01:56 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:fj74d3lu7oapq8qjia5s5ah868qruuvafn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:51:25 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:udp1d35h3i0chu18g2dv6f1aibliup414h@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:39:21 -0700, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com>
wrote:
And from what I've heard, Shrub is going to try to tie Iraq to 9/11
yet again by having General Petraeus give his report on September11.
Let's clarify that - "by having General Petraeus give the report the
White House will write for him, on September11."
And, which won't be read by him for fear of his
changing it back to what he wants it to say.
But it WILL be presented as HIS report - the one Congress has been
waiting to hear before doing anything.
Did we REALLY elect such morons?
No, for the ten thousandth time. The Republicans
stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections, More and
more evidence is showing up for this, especially in
Ohio and Florida. And, a bunch of evidence was
found to have been deliberately destroyed recently
in Ohio.
But it's the Congress WE elected in 2006 that's waiting for this
report before they do anything. So they hear another White House
press release, and then what? They don't have the cojones to call
Bush on it.
He's playing poker with an empty chair, and it has to match his bets.
The problem is neither party wants to get painted as the side that
lost the war. If Congress forced an end to the war then the Repubs
would paint the Dems as the party that lost the war even though a
veto-proof bill would require a lot of Republican votes. The Democrats
are the majority party, so they would be painted as defeatist.
On the other hand if Bush ordered a pullout it would be a disaster for
the Republicans in the next election. The problem with politicians is
that first and foremost they are politicians and will usually do what
they think is in their best interest rather than doing what they think
is right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
27 Aug 2007 05:22:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:11:31 -0500, Backyard Astronomer
<backyardastronomer@gmail.com> wrote:
On the other hand if Bush ordered a pullout it would be a disaster for
the Republicans in the next election. The problem with politicians is
that first and foremost they are politicians and will usually do what
they think is in their best interest rather than doing what they think
is right.
What we really need is a Republican president and a decisively
Democratic Congress in '09 - and a thorough, decisive defeat in the
middle east. There won't be any question of a pull-out, we'll have
another Nam. And a president who has no choice and, just maybe, a
Congress that finds a backbone and punishes the party for the defeat.
The Party of Lincoln is so close to self destruct that it won't take
much to pull the trigger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Backyard Astronomer" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
27 Aug 2007 08:09:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:22:37 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:11:31 -0500, Backyard Astronomer
<backyardastronomer@gmail.com> wrote:
On the other hand if Bush ordered a pullout it would be a disaster for
the Republicans in the next election. The problem with politicians is
that first and foremost they are politicians and will usually do what
they think is in their best interest rather than doing what they think
is right.
What we really need is a Republican president and a decisively
Democratic Congress in '09 - and a thorough, decisive defeat in the
middle east. There won't be any question of a pull-out, we'll have
another Nam. And a president who has no choice and, just maybe, a
Congress that finds a backbone and punishes the party for the defeat.
The Party of Lincoln is so close to self destruct that it won't take
much to pull the trigger.
I think Bush's only real priority now is worrying about his own damn
legacy, as if it's worth worrying about at this point. He doesn't want
to go down in history as the president who lost the war in Iraq, even
though he'll probably be remembered in that light regardless.
The sad fact is Operation Iraqi Freedom was being bungled in high
places before the first set of boots ever hit the ground.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
"Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's
generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to
succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq
has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security
to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its
1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion
of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for
predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for
470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff
General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand
soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to
the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything
necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both
active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the
insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express
their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II."
However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the
strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections
public."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
27 Aug 2007 09:49:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:09:35 -0500, Backyard Astronomer
<backyardastronomer@gmail.com> wrote:
The sad fact is Operation Iraqi Freedom was being bungled in high
places before the first set of boots ever hit the ground.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
"Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's
generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to
succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq
has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security
to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its
1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion
of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for
predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for
470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff
General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand
soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to
the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything
necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both
active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the
insufficiency of forces for Iraq.
We had sufficient forces. Not sufficient to win, just sufficient for
the right people to make a financial killing. And if a few thousand
soldiers and a few hundred thousand Iraqis had to die? They're not
"the right people".
But, hey, let's watch those costs. No body armor, no armor on the
vehicles and, when we finally have enough armored vehicles rolling off
the assembly line, let's not waste money actually getting them to Iraq
too fast.
These leaders would later express
their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II."
However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the
strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections
public."
You want your pension cut off, or you want your freedom of speech cut
off? Your choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Backyard Astronomer" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
28 Aug 2007 04:06:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:49:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:09:35 -0500, Backyard Astronomer
<backyardastronomer@gmail.com> wrote:
The sad fact is Operation Iraqi Freedom was being bungled in high
places before the first set of boots ever hit the ground.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
"Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's
generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to
succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq
has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security
to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its
1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion
of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for
predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for
470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff
General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand
soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to
the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything
necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both
active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the
insufficiency of forces for Iraq.
We had sufficient forces. Not sufficient to win, just sufficient for
the right people to make a financial killing. And if a few thousand
soldiers and a few hundred thousand Iraqis had to die? They're not
"the right people".
You have a point. Had we used more troops the war might have been over
sooner. Short wars are not as profitable as long wars. Plus the added
cost of deploying hundreds of thousands of additional troops would
have left less money for no-bit, cost-plus contracts.
But I think the main reason we went in with so few troops is that
deploying more troops would have taken more time. More time for people
back home to ask too many questions. Some will argue that if we had
waited longer the Iraqi military would have had more time to prepare.
Hell, they already had plenty of time to prepare, but given the state
of the Iraqi military it didn't make much difference. We had to go to
war before too many people started asking "why Iraq if they weren't
responsible for 911?"
But, hey, let's watch those costs. No body armor, no armor on the
vehicles and, when we finally have enough armored vehicles rolling off
the assembly line, let's not waste money actually getting them to Iraq
too fast.
Maybe they haven't yet realized the potential for another huge no-bid
transportation contract. Of course they'd just give it to someone that
has no transportation experience.
These leaders would later express
their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II."
However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the
strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections
public."
You want your pension cut off, or you want your freedom of speech cut
off? Your choice.
That about sums it up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
24 Aug 2007 06:22:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:04:22 GMT, Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
Iraq now less safe, not more.
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=281216&
Today's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq confirms what most
Americans already know: Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that a 2% "surge" would make any
difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
24 Aug 2007 09:14:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:22:09 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that a 2% "surge" would make any
difference.
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that people would love us for
invading their country. Or is "thought" too strong a word?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
25 Aug 2007 12:41:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:14:44 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:22:09 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that a 2% "surge" would make any
difference.
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that people would love us for
invading their country. Or is "thought" too strong a word?
Welcome us in open arms!
But first, let's make everybody who was in Saddam's old political party (every
who used to be in govt. including the army) and make them unemployable. Nothing
like a huge body of economic outcasts with military training to have running
around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: NIE: Bush's Surge Has Failed |
25 Aug 2007 08:25:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:41:38 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:14:44 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:22:09 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that a 2% "surge" would make any
difference.
It's amazing that anybody ever thought that people would love us for
invading their country. Or is "thought" too strong a word?
Welcome us in open arms!
But first, let's make everybody who was in Saddam's old political party (every
who used to be in govt. including the army) and make them unemployable. Nothing
like a huge body of economic outcasts with military training to have running
around.
Then let's arm them so they can help us fight the opposition, who
"loves" us for freeing them from Saddam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
