Here Today... Gone To Hell!

NOT!!!! (not the Borat "not" but a "to not surge")? :hihi:

Thought on Premier Bush's speech?

Thoughts on the reaction from Congressman/women and senators??

Thoughts on the surge itself?

I only caught half the speech, was getting back from the gym.? Saw Obama's reaction - wow, he really really impresses me everytime I see him/hear him.? Should be a solid 08 candidate.

The surge....20,000 is like throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire.? its not enough. we need literally hundreds of thousands more troops to squelch the violence.

I do hope, if the dems do force bush to withdraw troops, that they have a plan in place for when AFTER we are not there.? simply saying goodbye to iraq won't be enough.? much like Bush had no plan after the main part of the invasion was over, the Dems can't make the same mistake and have no plan for after a withdrawal.

I'm glad Edwards had the balls to say we need to be talking to Iran and Syria.

If this surge doesn't work (which everyone involved is saying it won't) McCain is dead for 2008.  The sound bytes will be all over the place.  How sad that someone who was once known as a "maverick" and a moderate is now just a bush puppet.  i really hate seeing mccain like this.  i used to really like him.

Obama needs to actually STAND for something...if he doesn't push any policy, he'll not survive the primaries.  He needs to pick an issue, get serious about it, about push legislation.  Iraq's a great issue to be against...but ALL the dems will be against it, so it doesn't help him.


I agree that we should engage them, but Bush has the intellect of a middle school student.  And in middle school, when you "like" someone...you treat them shitty, or ignore them.  :hihi:

Iraq IS the issue though.  If he comes out talking about global warming while kids are getting blown apart by IEDs he'll lose for sure.  Will be interesting to see how much mud slinging the dems do internally once the campaign for 08 kicks into high gear.

I disagree that it's THE issue...at least not in the Dem primaries.  Tough to make a decision between a Senator who didn't support the war, but wasn't in a position to have to do so, a Senator who voted for it, but is critical of how it's been handled, another Senator who did the same, and so on.  There are other issues that he'll need to set himself apart.  To win just on Iraq, he'd have to become the poster boy of the Democratic criticism, and Hillary, Kerry, and anyone else running won't let that happen.  I don't think he should ignore it, and talk about other things.  I think he should supplement his resume, with other issues.  Is Iraq important?  Yeah, obviously.  But other things need to get done, and he hasn't done much, because he hasn't been there for long.  Now that the Dems have Congress, he needs to make his name.  If he makes it only on Iraq opposition, he'll be sharing that name with a LOT of other candidates. 

I got you now.  yeah I agree.  there are def more problems then Iraq, but it is the one that the american people want taken care of.  but yeah i agree with you, come the primaries the candidates stance and past votes on other issues will become more important.

Anyways....lets get back on topic...


thoughts on the surge??

Too little, too late.  Compromise is good.  I'm all for it.  But compromise hurt us in this war.  We compromised between a MASSIVE occupation to shut that country down, and a MINIMAL occupation, with a largely Iraqi controlled post-war scheme.  Either would have worked better than our middle of the road option, that keeps competent forces (i.e. American/British, etc.) low enough so as to not be entirely effective, and high enough as to be a constant reminder that they don't really control their own country.  Obviously, foreign troops anywhere are going to be a cause of friction and, usually, violence.  If there are enough of them, the resistance doesn't have a chance.  If there are very few of them, a resistance lacks legitimacy.  We violated both principles, and now it's a shit storm. 

Standing down the Iraqi army was a BIG mistake, I think.  Not only does it have to be rebuilt/retrained, but those dismissed have probably supported the insurgency to some extent. 

There are two issues: the insurgency/secular violence problem, which is mostly Iraqis, and the terrorists, which are mostly non-Iraqis (or at least non-Iraqi led).  If we didn't screw up in the first place, I'm sure the insurgency/secular problem would be less.  But a surge now will not fix it.

It?s the same old batch of lies. Not once did he mention the real focal point of the war, which is the Baath Party of Iraq. That is who we are fighting in Anbar, not Al Queda. Al Queda plays a small role in Iraq, even the US Army admits this. To further his argument he turns them into ?Islamic Fundamentalists? , keeping the same old lie alive. The real purpose of the Iraq War was regime change, and had nothing to do with terrorism.

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Seventy percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to
Iraq, according to a new poll that provides a devastatingly blunt response to
President Bush's plan to bolster military forces there.

All sides in the Iraq debate are keenly aware of mounting public dissatisfaction with the situation: Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Thursday it's one thing on which all Americans ? including administration officials ? are united.

Yet the Associated Press-Ipsos poll found widespread disagreement with the Bush administration over its proposed solution, and growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place.

Just as 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, a like number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there, the poll suggested. When asked to name the most important problem facing the U.S., 38 percent of those polled volunteered war, up significantly from 24 percent three months ago.

The AP-Ipsos telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush planned to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public's concern over Iraq was a prominent topic on Capitol Hill on Thursday as legislators reacted to the president's plan to increase troop levels by 21,500.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., harked back to the Vietnam War as he warned Rice that any solution to the Iraq problem must have public support. "They've got to sign on," he told her.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., told Rice: "You are not listening to the American people. ... And you wonder why there is a dark cloud of skepticism and pessimism over this nation."

But Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona said it would be an oversimplification to think that people just want the United States out of Iraq.

"They're understandably frustrated, they're understandably saddened," he said. "But if you can show the American people that there is a way forward to success, and also describe to them the consequences of failure, I believe this policy can be supported."

Iraq is a drag on Bush's overall job approval rating, too. That rating is at 32 percent in the latest survey, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling.

Just 35 percent of Americans think it was right for the United States to go to war, another record low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move. Sixty percent, meanwhile, think it is unlikely that a stable, democratic Iraqi government will be established.

Democrats are far more inclined to oppose an increase of troops, with 87 percent against the idea, compared with 42 percent of Republicans.

Opposition to boosting troop levels is highest in the Northeast, where 79 percent of those surveyed were against the idea. That compares with 68 percent in the South and 67 percent in the Midwest and West.

The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Wonder how this will affect McCain's campaign, isn't he using increased troop numbers in Iraq as one of his main platforms?

He shot himself in the foot by aligning with Bush.  Very sad really, his pandering has cost him the election.  This surge will most likely not work and his call for more troops is just goint to be replayed over and over by his opponenets.

I am one of the few who support the surge.

Something needs to be done differently than before since our current plan is failing somewhat miserably regarding security in Iraq.

To look at the political side of things, this troop sure will not guarantee results, I understand why the democrats ( and some republicans) disagree with the surge. But what is their alternative plan for Iraq? Start withdrawing now? The Maliki government would not stand a chance and we'd have an even bigger mess on our hands that we started.

There are positive things happening in Iraq, but are outnumbered by the things going wrong and the media will only tell us what is not going right rather than what is.

We went into Iraq. We never should have. But the US needs to clean up its mess correctly. Leaving it a mess is not an option.

I do agree with most of what you're saying.  I think we need to withdraw, but we DEFINITELY need a plan for after that.  simply leaving and saying "whooops, our bad" is NOT an option.  I hope the Dems have thought this through..... 

Just as bush had no plan for post major battle, the dems need a plan for post withdrawal.

That's the problem with Bush...the penetration's so easy, but it's so hard to pull out! 
...and now we're stuck with the consequences.   :hihi:

I feel like I'm Adrian yelling down the staircase to George W., "You can't win!!!"  When your enemy can hide amongst the women and children and/or in holy shrines, you as an army are fucked. 

The surge will do nothing to change what is happening in Iraq.  A withdrawal would do just the same.  This was the most hair-brained invasion/occupation...ugh, I feel like I've been kicked in the balls just thinking about it.   :(

So what do you suggest?  And you want to be my president!?!?!?   :hihi:

I know the feeling (about being kicked in the nuts).  No matter what the US does it won't end good for us, our allies and/or our interests.  Its just a question of how little damage can we do to oursleves and the region.  I think this surge is just going to add fuel to the fire.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States could start withdrawing forces from Iraq this year if the additional troops being sent to Baghdad reduce violence significantly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday.

"If these operations actually work you could begin to see a lightening of the U.S. footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

'We've Been So Selfish'

January 10, 2007 | Issue 43?02


WASHINGTON, DC?Citing a desire to finally make a difference in Iraq, in the past two weeks, more than 800,000 young people from upper-middle- and upper-class families have put aside their education, careers, and physical well-being to enlist in the military, new data from the Department Of Defense shows.

"I don't know if it was the safety and comfort of the holidays or what, but I realized that my affluence and ease of living comes at a cost," said Private Jonathan Grace, 18, who was to commence studies at Dartmouth College next fall, but will instead attend 12 weeks of basic training before being deployed to Fallujah with the 1st Army Battalion. "I just looked at my parents in their cashmere sweaters and thought, 'Who am I to go to an elite liberal arts college and spend all my time reading while, in the real world, thousands of kids my age are sacrificing their lives for our country?' It's not right."

Added Grace: "Whether I agree with the war or not, our president needs us, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let our least advantaged citizens bear the brunt of this awesome burden."

At the on-campus temporary recruitment table at Reed College in Portland, OR, the line of students eager to sign up for active duty stretched around the block Monday. Recruiters across the country reported a similar trend, with scores of young people asking how soon they could be ready to go to battle in Iraq.

"They don't have these recruitment centers where I live," said Daniel Feldman, 26, who resides in the affluent neighborhood of Brookline, MA and recently passed his bar exam. "I didn't realize you could just sign up, but now that I do, all of my friends from law school, yoga class, and temple are going to join, too. And not the Reserves either. We're talking down and dirty, right on the front lines."

Drill sergeants at boot camps in South Carolina and San Diego, though at first skeptical of the recent crop of potential Marines, said they have been impressed by their work ethic, claiming the wealthy youngsters' desire to "do their part" is undeniable.

"They haven't complained once since getting here," Sergeant Greg Forenczek said of the new upper-crust recruits. "Usually, after the first two hours, you know who's going to get dismissed early, but not with these kids. There's a fire in their eyes?a fearless passion to become U.S. soldiers"

"They inspire me," Forenczek added.

New Marine Sierra Pettingill, a 22-year-old sociology major who left Duke University before her final semester, said she felt compelled to serve after realizing she did not have a single acquaintance who had died, or even served, in Iraq.

"I was sending out invitations to my champagne-brunch birthday get-together when I heard that U.S. military casualties in Iraq had reached 2,900," Pettingill said. "I decided then and there that I would not allow this inherently unequal system to perpetuate any longer, no matter how much I want to go have martini night at the Oak Room."

Though most of the privileged enlistee youths said they were motivated by a newfound concern that America's reputation could be permanently damaged with a loss in Iraq, others have cited the examples set by their relatives as instrumental in their decision to join.

"My great-great-great-great grandfather would not have been able to make a fortune in the fur trade and real-estate business had it not been for the brave people who fought in the Revolutionary War," said 24-year-old John Jacob Astor VIII, who has put all of his business ventures on hold indefinitely. "My children are going to know the importance of stepping up to the plate when their nation needs them."

"From this day forth, the Astor name will be synonymous with sacrifice," he added.

U.S. Gen. John Abizaid, who has in the past argued against a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, now says that with the influx of nearly a million troops expected to be on the ground Feb. 1, the region should be stabilized within six weeks.

^Let me guess...that's The Onion, right?   

If this debacle in Iraq wasn't so awful, I'd find it funny.   :(

Whatever you feel about Iraq, you never hear anything positive, so...http://snopes.com/photos/military/gebhardt.asp

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2205/childvz9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


The picture is heart warming for sure. I could not imagine not trying to comfort a child if I had the opportunity to do so, especially in such a horrible environment.

I must disagree : The "we never hear anything good about the war" is a branch on the "liberal media bias" tree the right wing likes to lie about all the time. I've seen plenty of positive reports about Iraq, including a great piece 60 minutes ran (and reran) not long ago.

but notice hes a zoomie..... that may not count for some....

If you look at the underlying assumptions of Bush's plan, they are, well, a typical Bush plan, full of rosy thinking and unrealistic assumptions, the hallmarks of Bushism.

Bush talks tough in case for troop boost By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
 


WASHINGTON - Digging in for confrontation,        President Bush and Vice President        Dick Cheney say they will not budge from sending more U.S. troops to        Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
"I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. "But I've made my decision, and we're going forward."

As the president talked tough in an interview that aired Sunday night, lawmakers pledged to explore ways to stop him.

"We need to look at what options we have available to constrain the president," said Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois, a possible White House candidate in 2008. Democrats remain wary, though, of appearing unsupportive of American troops.

A defiant Cheney, meanwhile, said Democrats offered criticism without credible alternatives. He pointedly reminded lawmakers that Bush is commander in chief.

"You cannot run a war by committee," the vice president said of congressional input.

The aggressive White House reaction came as the House and Senate prepare to vote on resolutions opposing additional U.S. troops in Iraq.

As the White House watched even some GOP support peel away for the war plan, it went all-out to regain some footing.

Bush gave his first interview from Camp David, airing Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes." It was his second prime-time opportunity in five days to explain why he thinks adding U.S. troops can help stabilize Iraq and hasten the time when American soldiers can come home. He addressed the nation from the White House last Wednesday evening.

"Some of my buddies in Texas say, 'You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours?'" Bush said of Iraqis. "And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America."

Yet when asked if he owes the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, he said "Not at all."

"We liberated that country from a tyrant," Bush said. "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude."

Bush announced last week he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to halt violence, mainly around Baghdad, as an essential step toward stabilizing the country's government.

Democrats in Congress ? along with some Republicans ? were unimpressed and frustrated. Beyond promising to go on record in opposition to the president's approach, the Democratic leadership is considering whether, and how, to cut off funding for additional troops.

"You don't like to micromanage the Defense Department, but we have to, in this case, because they're not paying attention to the public," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Democrat who helps oversee military funding.

It is unclear how any effort by Congress could affect Bush's plan. National Security Adviser        Stephen Hadley said the White House already has money appropriated by Congress to move the additional forces to Iraq.

GOP Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, a potential 2008 presidential contender who endorses Bush's call for more troops, said votes to express disapproval were pointless.

"If they're dead serious then we should have a motion to cut off funding," he said of those fighting Bush's strategy.

Many Democrats favor a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, along with new diplomatic efforts with Iraq's neighbors.

The Bush administration had hoped that the president's overhauled strategy would lead to some bipartisan unity or that the White House would at least get an extended hearing before legislative leaders made up their minds. Instead, it encountered majority opposition in Congress and a public that rejected by large polling margins the military and political ideas Bush announced.

"I'm not going to try to be popular and change principles to do so," Bush said when asked about his standing with the public.

In the interview, Bush rejected an assertion that, time and again, his administration hasn't been straight with the American people about Iraq. He said his spirits were strong.

"I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy,'" Bush said.

The president also said he saw part of the Internet-aired video of the execution of        Saddam Hussein, which showed some Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the gallows. He said it could have been handled a lot better.

Bush said he got no particular satisfaction from seeing Saddam hang. "I'm not a revengeful person," he said.

Hadley was interviewed on "This Week" on ABC and "Meet the Press" on NBC. Cheney was on "Fox News Sunday." Obama was on CBS' "Face the Nation." Murtha appeared on ABC's "This week."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, just wow. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/16/121117/552

While no one can know for sure what's going inside McCain's head (I doubt even he can keep track of all the panders of late), I've long suspected that McCain got screwed by Bush's escalation plan.

It goes like this --

Late last year, McCain needs to find a way to appeal to the neocon cabal. He knows the war in Iraq is finished and lost, but he cannot admit as much and hope to get out of the primaries.

He sees the Iraq Study Group close to advocating a gradual withdrawal, and conventional wisdom was convinced (despite all evidence to the contrary) that Bush would take that advice. Who can forget this mid-December Time cover? (I wonder if Michael Duffy ever wrote a follow-up piece explaining why he was so spectacularly wrong?)

So McCain hatches his too-clever-by-half plan -- while Bush works to draw down forces, he'll argue for a "surge". And when people wondered in the coming years why we lost the war -- a war that McCain had cheered from the beginning -- he would say, "if they had only listened to me, we would've won!"


So in October 2006, McCain said:

    "Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq," Mr. McCain said Friday during a visit to northern New Hampshire. "That means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people. ? It's just not a set number."

Then in January, he stuck to his guns:

    McCain outlined what he viewed as the minimum levels necessary to make a surge work: three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and one brigade in Anbar Province in western Iraq, a Sunni insurgent stronghold.

That would amount to between 18,000 and 27,000 soldiers, because an Army brigade consists of about 4,500 soldiers.

Unfortunately for McCain, Bush called his bluff, suddenly embracing the escalation of the war in Iraq.

McCain is smart enough to know that the "surge" ain't going anywhere. The war is lost, and adding 20,000 troops won't help us secure Sadr City, much less the rest of Iraq.

Problem is, this was McCain's effort to bamboozle people into thinking he could've saved Iraq. And now, he's destined to be associated with the failure of the GOP's last-ditch effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

So how does McCain respond? By moving the goalposts.

    Mr. McCain embarked on a high-profile television tour announcing his support for Mr. Bush?s move. In an interview, he said he would have preferred that the White House send in even more troops, and noted that he had pressed this position on the White House, unsuccessfully until now, for more than two years.

What a liar! As quoted above, Bush did exactly as McCain has been suggesting the past year.

But McCain has no choice. He is now tied to the Iraq War more than he ever thought would happen. McCain put his trust that Bush would follow the sane, reasonable path handed to him by the ISG. Instead, Bush embraced McCain's bullshit plan.

And that's how the Iraq War became the Bush/McCain War, and how the escalation became the "McCain Doctrine".

And no matter how we look at this, there's no way that this is what McCain had in mind.

Interesting, I was always under the impression that McCain had wanted 100,000+ more troops for quite some time....

he really is a pander-bear though.  I've lost a huge amount of respect for him.  I used to think 08 would be win-win based on the repubs/dems running...but i'll be really upset if McCain wins now.

OK, so if we don't surge, what do we do? Anyone have any good answers that involves a realistic solution?

Leave now & pretend everything is going to solve itself is not a solution.

It is all Bush's fault ( well, it actually is his fault),  is not a solution. ( tell us something we dont already know).

TO BUSH:

YOU MADE A MISTAKE. THE WAR IS WRONG. STOP KILLING AMERICAN BOYS AND DESTROYING AMERICAN FAMILIES. ENOUGH IS  ENOUGH.

 Is that subtle  enough?

The US is a representative republic. Bush is elected, paid, and given access to the vast military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic resources of the most powerful nation in history to solve such problems, because true democracy is really impossible. We're just a bunch of guys and girls killing time waiting for an album which may never come. I don't think "well, you come up with something better" is an acceptable response, though that's exactly what he seems to have sent Cheney out to do this week. It's not our responsibility to solve the problem.

agreed, but i haven't heard a complex withdrawal plan from the dems either.  they better have one or pulling out without a plan will be just as bad as when bush went in without a plan.  :-\

(http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/2708/brokenet6yy8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

See, here's the thing....

It's not the surge, in and of itself, that is "bad".  The logic behind it, or something like it, on some levels, is somewhat sound.

It's that:

a) the surge is not nearly enough to make a quantifiable difference
b) the "change in tactics" Bush outlined to accompany it is absurd, non-sensical, and not practical
c) it still provides no timeline/project plan for LEAVING the mess behind.
d) it provides no impetus for the current Iraqi government and forces to be productive, active, and effective.

And therein lies the problem.  If you tell me you're sending 20k more troops, into harms way, with a plan to eventually extract us from the situation, I"m a bit more reasonable.  If you tell me we're going to send 20k more troops, but the reasoning behind those troops is flawed...not so much.  And when you tell me you're going to do all that, but provide no impetus for the Iraqi government and forces to eventually take over their own security functions, and exist as a real governmetn...even less so.  And when you pile all of that onto the fact we have no real plan to extract ourselves from the "mess" we've made, no outline of what we need to accomplish to end this operation, no short term/long term quantifiable goals to achieve.....and I become down right cantankerous.

US pulls out

send peace keepers in
from other countries to clean up and make things safe for the people,
strictly humanitairian efforts

Anybody from Canada here, have you noticed the tv commercials to join the canadian armed forces, they seem to be on every commercial break.

EDIT--- every commercial break since the US president speech

Canada has an armed forces??

hehe just kidding  :peace:

Peace keepers will face the same stuff US forces are, esp if they are non arabic.  The iraqi army has to stand up for itself.  period.  the tribes have to compromise as well.