News – The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.
At this stage, Shrub can't "plus up" enough to salvage this tragic mess. It is time for impeachment.
Oh my! So many feel it is time for impeachment, while Bush-Cheney seem to feel it is time for escalation - i.e. IRAN. This is the type of denoument many have feared from the onset. IF it pans out, (I repeat "IF") we (the people) come to the nexus of a carefully orchestrated ploy to bypass the normal electoral process via emergency war powers. To comment further is, I think, merely to restate the obvious concerns many have felt about the possibilty of brooking a three term president and so much more of even graver consequence not only to Americans but the world at large.
Where is the Pentagon going to get MORE troops? There ARE no more! They are all over there already.
Maybe they are doing some cloning.
Or, maybe all the Pentagon and white house staff will join up, and then THEY can all go ACTIVELY participate in the surge that they say is so needed.
conscription, but it'd be nearly a year before they were ready.
I think your suggestion of sending the Pentagon and WH staff. Some of the neocon pundits could join in, too...
Can't you imagine Neil Bortz, Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh in fatigues toting M-16s? They would be frantically searching their Berlitz Arabic phrase books looking for "Please don't kill me!"
I think you seriously underestimate the ability of Uncle Sam to get a draft up and running. Remember - everyone has been putting their name into the system on their 18th birthday for a LONG time now. I'd venture to say the first draft notices would be in some unlucky group of kids mailboxes within a week of the law authorizing the draft. Maybe less. 6 weeks in boot camp - grab some live ammo - away you go. Better sign up for specialist training, at least that way you'll be in a classroom for a while longer instead of in the desert dodging bullets and IEDs.
bubba2, Good idea, the Pentagon people need the exercise and help fill the surge numbers. Congress needs to go too!
According to Sen. Liebermann, it is getting better over there so they should all be safe in taking a tour of duty in Iraq! And Sen. McCain has previous experience in the military that should help the rest of the congressional representatives transition to military life and pay.
Sen. Lindsay Graham is currently in the National Guard, so he should be ready to leave, with the rest of Congress!
According to Gen. Lynch, a build up would exceed limits on troop availability.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding 15,000 American and about 7,000 Iraqi troops on Baghdad's southern approaches, spoke more forcefully than any American commander to date in urging that the so-called troop surge ordered by President Bush continue into the spring of 2008. That would match the deadline of March 31 set by the Pentagon, which has said that limits on American troops available for deployment will force an end to the increase by then.
Apparently this "news" report is just talk of a planning exercise. I DID hear a report on the radio this AM from a retired general who HAS been to Iraq several times, and again just lately, who did allow as how the situation in Iraq actually IS getting better compared to 2006. Not necessarily GOOD, but better. Businesses open, people going about their business, etc. The Iraqi government really needs to make some serious progress, and very soon though. Or at the very least make a serious effort. That business of wanting to take a 3 month summer vacation just blew me away.
Of course, of course - we are CERTAINLY going to take the evaluation of a United Nations "Official" and an AP Newshound instead of a general. A general who is RETIRED and has no further need to spin anything for the politicos. No one has implied that there is no more violence. The statement was that the OVERALL situation in Iraq has improved since last year.
According to the reports coming out of Irag that I've read, things have certainly not improved since 2006.
"The people going about their busines" has become a struggle to stay alive. Every loaf of bread bought and every movement taken in any province, carries with it the threat of death.
I find it hard to imagine anyone seeing any improvement at all, since we occupied Irag. If someone says anything has improved in Iraq they didn't see it as it was, before this war.
For those of you who want to bring the troops home, what do you envision as the result, at home and abroad. I agree that Bush et.al. have not done a good job in running the war, from first to last. He seems to have forgotten the "Powell" Doctrine. A true shock and awe could have worked. Still, if we bring the troops home--than what??
If we bring the troops home from Iraq we can still concentrate on fighting the terrorists abroad including Iraq. I know many terrorists have gone to Iraq, but we can still leave enough military to support the Iraqis and fight the terrorists. No one I know of has said that this should be an immediate and an all or nothing pull out of all our troops. An organized effort to allow the Iraqi's to determine their own direction is all that is needed with an organized withdrawal. Then, the new President and Congress can start concentrating on repairing the damage done to our image around the world. We could involve others to help us combat worldwide terrorism including and particularly the United Nations. No one has said terrorism is not real or a world problem. Iraq has been a mistake from the beginning. You did not hear this anti-war rhetoric when we entered Afghanistan. We are still in Afghanistan fighting terrorists, and were doing quiet well until we entered Iraq.
What we need to do is make the decision and plans for the end of our involvement in Iraq right now instead of next year. The reason we should start setting a timetable now is so the war will not be a political pawn next year's elections. We need a new direction and new leadership, from top to bottom. We do not need any further division in this country. Saddam Hussein has been removed, the Iraqi's have themselves a new government, and now, they have said they do not need us any more. Let's start preparing to come home from Iraq and re-evaluating our strategies on the War on Terrorism. Bush has a golden opportunity to make a bold move and lead us toward that direction. Congress should not have to insist that he do, but in the event he does not, they should. If they don't, then it is the people's turn. We the People!
What would be the result if we voluntarily order and organized withdrawal plan? Honor for our troops, and frankly, a relief for the rest of the world. I doubt it will have any adverse affects on us. Certainly less than Vietnam has. Heck, at this point with the Iraqi's telling us they don't need us anymore, we can honestly claim victory. That does not mean the end to the War on terrorism. That war will be with us a long time.
If you are wondering whether or not there will be adverse effects such as terrorists delivering WMDs to our homeland, well, if they have them, they can do that already whether the war is on or not. We could turn some of this experience we have coming back from war into a strong National Guard and gear up for homeland security and strong borders. I could go on, but I got to go,,,,
I have no clue but why do humans think Military elitist are infallible and idols of worship?
They are cronies who obey all without thinking. They live in quite peace within war while sending other to their deaths even though their faulty logic and tactics are the cause. If Bush says jump, they jump. If Bush says have a surge, they surge. I just remember their tactics in Vietnam and it was quite atrocious and insane. What do we have today, Vietnam all over. Where are our leaders both politically and militarily, I will tell you, visiting their shrink. We have no Hannibal's, we have no Fdr's instead, what we have is idiots in powers of positions, and that is a fact of life we live with each and every day.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
leeharris1969
sterlingburt19681962
nopatacious
daviannewton651975
Timon
stwor
Jac101
markreg
Elianor
saltyveruca
questionseverything
adimoga
tchef
4Jason4
Hullios
Belenus
avpd85
jeannie35
alakazam
palama
vaderbar
ClickHere
rider87
yanghua
duxxducis
nachogiral
gpsreview
carsreview
helenie
imigran
Innocent bystander
lakeside55
lovelytxwoman
kinggolden
BarryM
el4sail
android00
rising07
raeliegh
digitalwebsolutions
History Ferret
starshinediva
doreen274
PsychoHosebeast
jovial
jordan11
Thinkingisgood
Markdistinction
ncara
Redtail
85)
"We're (doing) the kind of thinking that we need to do and be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," he said in an interview with two reporters traveling overnight with him from Washington aboard an Air Force C-17 cargo jet.
"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, then the details will have been studied and the military services will be in position to carry out whatever policy Bush chooses, Pace said.
LATE BREAKING
www.guardi...
Quote:
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
Quote:
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
The url -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,...
"The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I know that is what the White house has been claiming for some time now.
But this was in the LA Times just the other day.
Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.
Continued:
BAGHDAD รข;; Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/l...
All I can say is, don't let this Administration spoon feed talking points to the press and have it go go unchallenged this time. Demand that they ask the hard questions, and don't accept any thing less! Ask your self this, if they the press had done there job as the 4th estate as outlined in the first amendment. Instead of promoting this administration positions and talking points in the lead up to this invasion and occupation Iraq.
Could the case for this war, have even been made?
It was only made possible because of distortions, fabrications, misinformation and out and out lies and a completely passive media by in large that did not do there job and ask the hard questions.
It's a proxy war between the Sunnis and Shia. It's just like the Spanish civil war preceding WWII. Only the sides are defined by religious instead of political zealotry.