Forthcoming news

[Technosoul]

Bush will be giving a speech Wensday to outline his war plan. He wants to send in 2 thousand more troops to end the violence in Irag in order to settle things down there. And he plans to also send in some private people to do some needed reconstruction work (more work for Hallibuton).

The new Democrats will not like his plan and so a show down is expected between the White House and the newly elected.

President Bush has determined that what Irag needs right now more then anythng else is "more occupation" by USA forces. What do you think?

You can wait for him to acturally make his announcments before making a comment.

The would-have-been Vice President under Al Gore is supporting President Bush all the way on this issue. So I am calling it the "odd couple" plan.

Meanwhile Bush is bringing in a new lawyer who worked for President Nixon to help him ward off any legal "investigatons" or impeachment procedings that will be forthcoming in the news later (perhaps in a month or so?).

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Technosoul Bush will be giving a speech Wensday to outline his war plan. He wants to send in 2 thousand more troops to end the violence in Irag in order to settle things down there. And he plans to also send in some private people to do some needed reconstruction work (more work for Hallibuton).

I have an unpleasant surprise for you my friend. It's TWENTY THOUSAND more troops, not TWO.
Of course it would be nicer if it WERE 2 thousand...or none actually.

President Bush has determined that what Irag needs right now more then anythng else is "more occupation" by USA forces. What do you think?

Just like The Decider determined what Iraq needed when we first went IN. I suspect this new move will be just as much a "catastrophic success" as everything else he has done.

[Cephus]

Nobody in their right mind thinks we need more troops in Iraq, which kind of explains Bush, now that I think of it. All he's doing is turning it into an even bigger mess, with more soldiers coming home in body bags, more pissed off Muslims and more violence.

Good job Bush.

[Compugasm]

Impeachment? This should have been done 4 yrs ago. It's too little, too late; isn't it?

[bishop]

expecting impeachment to have occurred at the hands of his own party is expecting a bit much.

[pikatore]

Bush is a twat. Enough said.

[rez]

Does anybody even know if the military has offensive plans with the troop increase? I do not see any problem with a defensive strategy before the troops leave Iraq (if that will even happen).

[bishop]

i would think that the military would be most interested in focusing on going after al-sadr's hezbollah-esque army... from the minute shreads of information i've read, it doesn't seem like our people will be going after the mahdi army.

my guess is that the mission will be to make some good tv - have the media focus on shots of us blowing stuff up, rather than focusing on the daily war of attrition and civil war.

as we've seen from previous "surges", they do not succeed in beating back the so-called enemy. we kill some and cause wanton destruction, and they always come back - usually much stronger than before. it hasn't worked once, you'd have to be a bonifide retard to believe that it would work now.

unfortunately for us, bush is a bonifide retard.

[Scribbler1]

I'm not sure Bush or his handlers really think this WILL work. I figure Bush will keep doing this kind of thing until the Democrats and/or the American people can't take it any more. They will demand we either leave of will reduce the size of the occupation force, or the Democrats will take away funding. Either way it seems likely the situation there will either stay the same or get much worse, but Bush will have his out. He will be able to claim he could have won the war if only the Democrats had allowed him to see his "plan" through.

If Bush wants to save face, or simply shift the blame, this is the only way he can do it.

[bishop]

there was some interesting commentary on scarborough (sp?) country last night along the lines of what you're saying. this is a game of vile politics and nothing more.

we all know what will happen in iraq if we withdraw.. and, we all know what will happen if we stay - and that we can't fix iraq through military means. bush, the republicans and democrats all know these truths as well. there are no choices that will result in the favorable scenario bush has wet dreams about. there are only choices between what would be the least worst outcome (kind of like our elections where either a democrat or republican wins)..

if the democrats were to oppose his troop surge and withhold funding, pushing us on a withdrawal course, then bush would likely blame the dems for iraq's collapse (just as you said). and, democrats care first and foremost about winning elections - not solving the problem in iraq.

there seem to be some democrats with the courage to do what is right and deny bush the funds for this escalation. sadly, there don't seem to be enough - so we will end up with an escalation and an even worse situation in iraq.

for the sake of our country, i pray that bush is struck by lightening...

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Bush will be giving a speech Wensday to outline his war plan. He wants to send in 2 thousand more troops to end the violence in Irag in order to settle things down there. And he plans to also send in some private people to do some needed reconstruction work (more work for Hallibuton). The new Democrats will not like his plan and so a show down is expected between the White House and the newly elected. President Bush has determined that what Irag needs right now more then anythng else is "more occupation" by USA forces. What do you think? You can wait for him to acturally make his announcments before making a comment. The would-have-been Vice President under Al Gore is supporting President Bush all the way on this issue. So I am calling it the "odd couple" plan. Meanwhile Bush is bringing in a new lawyer who worked for President Nixon to help him ward off any legal "investigatons" or impeachment procedings that will be forthcoming in the news later (perhaps in a month or so?).

Was the ordinary strategy to uncover the WMDs. No WMDs, then there should be no reason to remain in the country (no WMDs, then we should never have invaded the country).

[Zeebadee]

Ted Kennedy has come out for congress to legislate control of the president's power to make this escalation. If that fat sack of dogshit is for something, I'm against it. I think it would set a dangerous precident to allow congress to take control of individual military actions. As much as I hate and am against this war, I don't think that having a group of career politicians, all primarily interested in their own agendas, deciding military strategy is a good thing. Congress voted to give bush the authority to go to war, now they need to lay off and let the military (which unfortunately in this case includes the CIC) decide what needs to be done.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Zeebadee Ted Kennedy has come out for congress to legislate control of the president's power to make this escalation. If that fat sack of dogshit is for something, I'm against it. I think it would set a dangerous precident to allow congress to take control of individual military actions. As much as I hate and am against this war, I don't think that having a group of career politicians, all primarily interested in their own agendas, deciding military strategy is a good thing. Congress voted to give bush the authority to go to war, now they need to lay off and let the military (which unfortunately in this case includes the CIC) decide what needs to be done.

Three top generals--Casey, Abizaid, and Powell--all oppose a troop surge. The military community is not enthusiastic about this approach. It's not just the "fat sack of dogshit."

And Congress has oversight responsibilities as caretaker of the financial purse strings. It would be nice if it exercised those constitutional responsibilities sometime in the foreseeable future. Better yet, they can start now.

[Praxius]

The Iraqi people in majority have been surveyed and say that they would see greater progress made if the occupation was ended and they can deal with their problems themselves.

Adding 20,000 more troops is kinda the opposite of this.

If this is the case and Bush decides to go ahead with his mental plan, I think it would be time for the people of the US to take him out of power, regardless if the Democrats support it or not.

By the people and for the people.....

Weither or not the Iraqi government can handle it on their own, I doubt.... but if that's what they want, well.... they're a democracy now are they not? Let them learn what democracy is and the troubles that come with it.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: The Decider Three top generals--Casey, Abizaid, and Powell--all oppose a troop surge. The military community is not enthusiastic about this approach. It's not just the "fat sack of dogshit." And Congress has oversight responsibilities as caretaker of the financial purse strings. It would be nice if it exercised those constitutional responsibilities sometime in the foreseeable future. Better yet, they can start now.

I think you may be missing my point. I have no objections to congress declaring war, or cutting off the money to end a war. I just don't think congress has any business directing individual actions in whatever war we may be involved in. I can just see some congressional committee deciding what targets to strike, how many troops to use, or what kind and how many planes or missiles to commit. Congress should not have the power to extort some particular action (or inaction) by threatening to cut off funding. Military strategy and planning should be left up to the military commanders and the CIC to work out, not vote-pandering politicians.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think you may be missing my point. I have no objections to congress declaring war, or cutting off the money to end a war. I just don't think congress has any business directing individual actions in whatever war we may be involved in. I can just see some congressional committee deciding what targets to strike, how many troops to use, or what kind and how many planes or missiles to commit. Congress should not have the power to extort some particular action (or inaction) by threatening to cut off funding. Military strategy and planning should be left up to the military commanders and the CIC to work out, not vote-pandering politicians.

As I said, the top military commanders in our nation opposed this move--until they were relieved of command. Congress is responding to doubts within the military AND popular sentiment against escalating this war, which should mean something in a democracy.

Refusing to fund this troop surge in no way resembles the kind of micromanaging you are alleging (ie missile strike targets or troop positions on the ground). It is more "stay the course." We've tried troop surges before and they've failed, miserably. Congress has a right and a duty to protect the American people from an executive branch that wants to continue this war because it can't find the political will to end it--and admit failure.

I just don't see your slippery slope argument.

[harami]

The president is constitutionally the commander in chief. I agree with Zeebadee's analysis. .For example, most agree that Lyndon Johnson screwed up the Viet Nam war with personal micro management. Just imagine what a senate's worth of micro-managers would do, or most likely, not do. In my jaded opinion, most people in congress and the senate are accountable for nothing except tending to their constituents whims and problems (aka "getting re-elected").

It doesn't bother me that Bush may be contradicted by 3 generals. Lincoln had to go through quite a few to find one who could win. These generals play into the media and politics, and that is not the same as determining the best course to win quickly. It is more akin to demagoguery. Bush has bet his whole presidency on this issue. He may yet come out smelling like a rose. We will know in a couple of years, or maybe in 20-50.

The other side of the coin, for all the critics here, is to answer the quesion "What would the world be like today if the US has not invaded Iraq". That takes some reflection to answer, some recalling of the world political situation at the time of the invasion. Maybe it should be a new thread.

[The Decider]

Quote by: harami The president is constitutionally the commander in chief. I agree with Zeebadee's analysis. .For example, most agree that Lyndon Johnson screwed up the Viet Nam war with personal micro management.

No, most historians agree that the Vietnam War was a mistake from the get go.

And while the president is commander in chief, the Congress is overseer of that commander in chief and the military. You may not like the Congress but the constitution is fairly clear on this issue. Congress controls the purse strings and the investigative machinery.

Quote by: harami Just imagine what a senate's worth of micro-managers would do, or most likely, not do. In my jaded opinion, most people in congress and the senate are accountable for nothing except tending to their constituents whims and problems (aka "getting re-elected").

Whereas President Bush is apolitical I suppose. Utter hogwash.

Quote by: harami It doesn't bother me that Bush may be contradicted by 3 generals. Lincoln had to go through quite a few to find one who could win.

Lincoln replaced incompetant generals, not generals who fundamentally disagreed with the war. Could you explain why you believe Abizaid, Casey, and Powell were incompetant?

Quote by: harami These generals play into the media and politics, and that is not the same as determining the best course to win quickly. It is more akin to demagoguery.

Please explain why you believe that Abizaid, Casey, and Powell are "demagogues."

Quote by: harami The other side of the coin, for all the critics here, is to answer the quesion "What would the world be like today if the US has not invaded Iraq". That takes some reflection to answer, some recalling of the world political situation at the time of the invasion. Maybe it should be a new thread.

We would have more troops available for Afghanistan, for one thing. Our national honor would not reek of feces. And 3,000 young Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis would still be alive. That's the very short list of benefits.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: The Decider Congress has a right and a duty to protect the American people from an executive branch that wants to continue this war because it can't find the political will to end it--and admit failure.

Fine, then congress can vote to stop the war. But allowing congress to force a particular military strategy by threatening to withold funds is a very bad precedent to set. It's micro-managing by any interpretation of the term. bush is the CIC, he has the power to choose whoever he wants to run the military. If his strategy fails, that's when congress should get involved.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Zeebadee Fine, then congress can vote to stop the war. But allowing congress to force a particular military strategy by threatening to withold funds is a very bad precedent to set. It's micro-managing by any interpretation of the term. bush is the CIC, he has the power to choose whoever he wants to run the military. If his strategy fails, that's when congress should get involved.

The troop surge strategy HAS failed. This is nothing new. We threw troops into Baghdad before each of the elections and during the Fallujah campaign. The insurgency simply adjusted its tactics. The current "new" strategy is all about politics and saving face. Bush will not be the one to withdraw the troops no matter how many dead Americans and Iraqis it takes over the next two years. It's Vietnam all over again. Instead of beginning the pull-out in 1968, after the Tet Offensive, we waited for five more bloody years before accepting the inevitable.

Should Congress just sit idly by and watch this president prolong an unnecessary war? It's time that Congress put a halt to EXPANDING the war and then work for a rational and orderly withdrawal of our troops. That won't require a complete cut off of funds, a political non-starter in any case.

Your slippery slope argument has no legs IMO. Congress, historically, has used its oversight powers judiciously and this case is no different.