Thread: Those on the left were right!

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 26 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008.

That's a military calculation at odds with an emerging political consensus in Washington on bringing the troops home soon.

The disconnect between the military and political views on the best way forward is a symptom of four-plus years of setbacks in Iraq — not only missteps by the U.S. government but also by Iraqi political leaders, who have fallen far short of their stated aim of creating a government of national unity.

In the view of some members of Congress — and not just Democrats — the time has long passed for the Iraqis to show that they can parlay U.S.-led military efforts into progress on the political front.

"That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said after the White House delivered its war report to Congress on Thursday. Warner was the author of legislation requiring the report.Hours after the report's release, the House, on a 223-201 vote, approved a Democratic measure requiring U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by spring. House Democrats pursued the vote despite a veto threat from Bush. The president apparently has made the calculation that he can ward off political pressure to change course before the next required progress report, set for mid-September. That's when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to lay out his assessment of whether the counterinsurgency strategy he launched in February is working and recommends to Bush whether to stick with it into the coming year.

Iraq war report implies longer US surge - Yahoo! News

What this means is that opponents of the surge were RIGHT, and supporters of this idea were wrong. There is no end to this madness. This administration has only, ever, had one plan for Iraq: Hold out until the next administration takes over.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 26 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008.

That's a military calculation at odds with an emerging political consensus in Washington on bringing the troops home soon.

The disconnect between the military and political views on the best way forward is a symptom of four-plus years of setbacks in Iraq — not only missteps by the U.S. government but also by Iraqi political leaders, who have fallen far short of their stated aim of creating a government of national unity.

In the view of some members of Congress — and not just Democrats — the time has long passed for the Iraqis to show that they can parlay U.S.-led military efforts into progress on the political front.

"That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said after the White House delivered its war report to Congress on Thursday. Warner was the author of legislation requiring the report.Hours after the report's release, the House, on a 223-201 vote, approved a Democratic measure requiring U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by spring. House Democrats pursued the vote despite a veto threat from Bush. The president apparently has made the calculation that he can ward off political pressure to change course before the next required progress report, set for mid-September. That's when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to lay out his assessment of whether the counterinsurgency strategy he launched in February is working and recommends to Bush whether to stick with it into the coming year.

Iraq war report implies longer US surge - Yahoo! News

What this means is that opponents of the surge were RIGHT, and supporters of this idea were wrong. There is no end to this madness. This administration has only, ever, had one plan for Iraq: Hold out until the next administration takes over.

Yep! And that way the Bush supporters can blame the consequences of what will surely happen on the liberals and the Democrats- who will most likely regain control of the Oval Office- while totally disregarding the fact that if they had never initiated or supported the attack on Iraq in the first place none of this would have ever happened.

Gem

There could be an end to this madness, all the dems have to do is simply cut funding.

And as we all know, the right would sell the "they don't support the troops" mantra. I agree that the Dems are spineless as are the GOP's. Just once I'd like to hear the right say, it is wrong to keep losing brave men and women for a failed policy, instead of inter-party trashing. To make statements about funding is just playing politics. Let's just bring em' home without the blame game. Can't we just agree on that? This polarization is killing our country. Let's be Americans first and party loyalists second. Lives depend on it.
MBTY

Originally Posted by namvet69

And as we all know, the right would sell the "they don't support the troops" mantra. I agree that the Dems are spineless as are the GOP's. Just once I'd like to hear the right say, it is wrong to keep losing brave men and women for a failed policy, instead of inter-party trashing. To make statements about funding is just playing politics. Let's just bring em' home without the blame game. Can't we just agree on that? This polarization is killing our country. Let's be Americans first and party loyalists second. Lives depend on it.
MBTY

Since you were gone for awhile you missed some posts. I have changed my mind & do want them home, I've said that in several posts.
How is making a statement about funding just playing politics? Do you know of another way to assure that the troops will come home sooner rather than later? If you do know of a way, I'd sure like to hear about it cause Bush ain't gonna do it as long as the funds keep coming.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Since you were gone for awhile you missed some posts. I have changed my mind & do want them home, I've said that in several posts.
How is making a statement about funding just playing politics? Do you know of another way to assure that the troops will come home sooner rather than later? If you do know of a way, I'd sure like to hear about it cause Bush ain't gonna do it as long as the funds keep coming.

Glad you've come around. My point is that all aware americans knew that the DEMS would not cut funding because they know how the game is played. And I know you know how the game is played. Constant partisan bickering and positioning for the next election. If we want to take that out of it we all need to support a resolution for a troop drawback and drawdown instead of giving these cockamamy surge ideas another day. I see it starting to happen in a bipartisan way. So, at the risk of retribution for being hypocritical, more GOP'S need to find their balls so that we can get the 60 needed to abort fillibuster or the 67 needed to really accomplish an end to the war.

Originally Posted by namvet69

Glad you've come around. My point is that all aware americans knew that the DEMS would not cut funding because they know how the game is played. And I know you know how the game is played. Constant partisan bickering and positioning for the next election. If we want to take that out of it we all need to support a resolution for a troop drawback and drawdown instead of giving these cockamamy surge ideas another day. I see it starting to happen in a bipartisan way. So, at the risk of retribution for being hypocritical, more GOP'S need to find their balls so that we can get the 60 needed to abort fillibuster or the 67 needed to really accomplish an end to the war.

I agree that more GOP need to come to the table & leave politics behind, however, the only ones that have come to the table on the GOP side are the ones that are in danger of losing their seat in the senate, the ones that are on the ballot in '08, they're playing with the lives of our troops. Having said that, the dems are playing politics in as selfish a way as are the repubs in that they, (the dems) don't want to end this war either because they can use it to beat repubs over the head with. That was proven the day the dems even allowed the vote to come to the floor, they could've stopped that in committee & stopped the funding at the same time. Yes, i do know how it works, as do you & you know it from personal experience. The military has always been the whipping boy, it's just getting worse, that little clean sleeve or two striper is expendible in the eyes of politicians.

Originally Posted by namvet69

Glad you've come around. My point is that all aware americans knew that the DEMS would not cut funding because they know how the game is played. And I know you know how the game is played. Constant partisan bickering and positioning for the next election. If we want to take that out of it we all need to support a resolution for a troop drawback and drawdown instead of giving these cockamamy surge ideas another day. I see it starting to happen in a bipartisan way. So, at the risk of retribution for being hypocritical, more GOP'S need to find their balls so that we can get the 60 needed to abort fillibuster or the 67 needed to really accomplish an end to the war.

It would be irresponsible to end the war without having some kind of plan and, really, no one has offered a decent plan. I'm all for pulling out now, but not without a plan. Running away is just cowardly.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

I agree that more GOP need to come to the table & leave politics behind, however, the only ones that have come to the table on the GOP side are the ones that are in danger of losing their seat in the senate, the ones that are on the ballot in '08, they're playing with the lives of our troops. Having said that, the dems are playing politics in as selfish a way as are the repubs in that they, (the dems) don't want to end this war either because they can use it to beat repubs over the head with. That was proven the day the dems even allowed the vote to come to the floor, they could've stopped that in committee & stopped the funding at the same time. Yes, i do know how it works, as do you & you know it from personal experience. The military has always been the whipping boy, it's just getting worse, that little clean sleeve or two striper is expendible in the eyes of politicians.

I won't disaree with anything you just said. My position is and has always been that I'm on whatever side is against war as a first option. If the party was called the Bozo party, I'd be a registered Bozocrat. I'm sick of partisan gutlessless and personal positioning over conscience but, this is the sytem as it exists today. I had high hopes for McCain as a true maverick and as an agent of change, including the single most important way to change politics forever for the better, namely campaign finance reform. But, I've sadly witnessed his ideals collapse under the weight of his ambition. He's caved to special interest right before our eyes and become just another well meaning public servant swallowed up by the big game.
Sad as hell.
Maybe I'll really start the Bozocratic party. Looking for a running mate. Interested?
MBTY

Bring em home yesterday!

Originally Posted by namvet69

Glad you've come around. My point is that all aware americans knew that the DEMS would not cut funding because they know how the game is played. And I know you know how the game is played. Constant partisan bickering and positioning for the next election. If we want to take that out of it we all need to support a resolution for a troop drawback and drawdown instead of giving these cockamamy surge ideas another day. I see it starting to happen in a bipartisan way. So, at the risk of retribution for being hypocritical, more GOP'S need to find their balls so that we can get the 60 needed to abort fillibuster or the 67 needed to really accomplish an end to the war.

Migi says that she has changed her mind and that is great. But, notice how she will continue to ignore the veto override issue. She has been here desperately trying to argue that the Dems can cut the funds at anytime for weeks. When anyone brings up the fact that they can't do it with the votes that they have and need Republican support to have a veto proof bill, she just ignores that fact and reasserts that the dems can do it right now.

She is really hung up on attacking the dems (who can't end the war right now) as the reason we are still at war. God forbid she would ever admit the fact that the Dems are currently powerless to cut off the funds or that those keeping us in Iraq are the Republicans in Congress. They voted FOR the war and AGAINST any measure to bring it to an end over and over again. Yet, in Migi's world, they bear no responsibility because they do not control congress.

Many others have been around and around with her on the issue and no matter how many times the simple facts are laid out, she always returns to her proposition, stated in her first post, that the war would be over right now if the Dems would just (magically I suppose) cut off the funding unilaterally.

If she really wanted the war to end as she claims, she would deal with the reality that the Republicans not the Dems are the ones that prevent Congress imposing an end to this war and would be out pressuring them to support any legislation to bring the troops home.

She talks about how everyone in the process (especially the dems) are playing politics with American lives. Yet, what I see from her is claims of one side of her mouth that the war should end and excuses for those keeping it going coupeled with attacks hurled at those that have been trying to end it out of the other side.

What does that say about playing politics with American lives to you?