The Real Bush Strategy?

[Pexster]

From last Sunday's Meet the Press . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, you said on Friday that you’ve made a—you’ve reached a tentative conclusion that people in the administration believe that the war is lost, perhaps even including the vice president, and that they simply want to go along and try to keep the war at a point where they can pass it off to the next president. Do you really believe that?

SEN. BIDEN: Here’s what I believe. I was referring to—I was being asked about the vice president and the former secretary of defense, Rumsfeld, and I said they’re two of the smartest people I’ve ever known in my years here in Washington, and they could not have believed what they’d been saying for the last three years that we’re winning. They could not believe that. So what is the explanation? Why would they continue to say we’re winning when, as bright as they are, they know that was pure malarkey? And the only conclusion I can—and I said I’ve tentatively concluded among—about those two people, that they concluded that the required change in, in, in, in approach to Iraq would be so radical that they don’t think it could work. Therefore, keep it stitched together, pray for a Hail Mary pass and/or pass it off to the next guy. Because, look, do you believe—rhetorical question, I acknowledge—do you believe Rumsfeld and Cheney believed what they’ve been saying for the last three years? We’d come back, both of us, on this show, both of us together, and say, “Look, this is what we saw on the ground here.” How could they not know we were losing so badly? So that’s why I was referring to those two men.

Is this latest really just a holding pattern until Bush can get out of Dodge City? Most pundits I've heard maintain that to make any surge meaningful, the numbers would have to be much higher than 20,000.

Furthermore, if things will be different this time as Bush says about our previous inability to go into certain neighborhoods, how as Commander-in-Chief could he have put our troops into such sitting duck positions? It's unconscionable, any way you look at it.

(And then his supporters claim that dissenters are the ones playing politics with the situation? That's a laugh.)

[Disley]

It's a pity that the people who vote for Bush and back his policies, don't have to pay for the damage they do to the countries they bomb and destroy.
If he has anything to do with bombing another innocent country, Iran or Syria, causing a worldwide depression when oil is unavailable, because the Persian Gulf will become closed if it's to dangerous for the huge supertankers to risk sailing through.
He and the US will become pariahs of the world.
Bullshit about protecting freedom is only for schoolboys under eight and idiots.
Extra troops and another taskforce in the gulf off Iran, has nothing to do with winning in Iraq, but about being a visible threat to Iran, if it's attacked by Israeli bombers, for WMDs it doesn't have, and has no chance of getting for many years.

[mad1]

Disley;It's a pity that the people who vote for Bush and back his policies, don't have to pay for the damage they do to the countries they bomb and destroy.

Its called taxes,to the tune of 18.4$ billion.

If he has anything to do with bombing another innocent country, Iran or Syria,

Iran is complicit in the actions of the insurgency due to the support given by Iran. Iran gives money and weapons support to Mehdi Army,or Jaish al-Mahdi, the militia of the powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Extra troops and another taskforce in the gulf off Iran, has nothing to do with winning in Iraq, but about being a visible threat to Iran, if it's attacked by Israeli bombers, for WMDs it doesn't have, and has no chance of getting for many years.

The nut case leading Iran has stated on several occasions his desire to remove Israel from the globe. This same nut case has denied the existence of the Holocaust. The Iranian people must live in fear of the prospect that this moron will bring Iran into another war.

[Epidemic]

Democrats spend the last few months saying more troops, More troops, More troops.

Bush complies with more troops and they say no we don't need more troops....


Are they simply contrarian

[MTAtech]

Epi, which Democrats called for more troops? I don't remember any. If it was Lieberman, that doesn't count.

The reality is that troop numbers have fluctuated up and down by 20,000 over the last three years. Making a speech doesn't turn that into a plan.

[zen]

I was happy to hear Iran and Syria are now fair game! Im sure a few Generals prolly agree!

[mad1]

Epi, which Democrats called for more troops? I don't remember any. If it was Lieberman, that doesn't count.

The reality is that troop numbers have fluctuated up and down by 20,000 over the last three years. Making a speech doesn't turn that into a plan.

Pelosi,

"MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?

REP. PELOSI: What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground. I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American, that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO. I agree with Senator Kerry in that respect to come..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5086094/

[MTAtech]

Mad,
I would contend that on May 30, 2004, when that quote was recorded, events were somewhat different in Iraq. Iraq had not deteriorated to the chaos and civil war that now exists. We can even go back to 2003 when Gen. Shinseki said that several hundred thousand soldiers were required for the invasion.

Now, it's too little too late.

EDIT:
If you think that Pres. Bush is adding 20,000 soldiers in 2007 because Democrats mentioned it in 2004, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Back in 2003, the generals wanted more troops but Rummy Wolfowitz denied them. Now, the generals, both active-duty and retired, say that it won't help - but now Bush wants more.

I was happy to hear Iran and Syria are now fair game! Im sure a few Generals prolly agree!

The Authorization for use of force does not apply to Iran and Syria. From a practical position, do we really want a regional war?

[Front242]

How does a quote from 2 and a half years ago equate to the last few months?

[Pexster]

In any case, I think Biden's conjecture makes sense. Bush wants a holding pattern so he can try to claim some deniability for this fiasco.

[MTAtech]

Pex, agreed. To add, and this forces the Democrats to be the ones to bring the troops home. Then Bush and the Reps can claim (falsely) that the Dems let the U.S. lose in Iraq. It may not be true, but they hope there will be enough wingnuts that will want to believe that something would be different if we stayed.

The difference is that the public knows the reality and gave the Dems a mandate to end the war.

[Epidemic]

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”


Senator biden August of 2005 calling for more troops.


I have heard it on the radio so I can not find any links but I thought as late as may biden was still calling for troops.

[MTAtech]

Rep. Reyes has an opinion but his view isn't the concensus. It's surprising since Reyes voted against the Use of Force Auth.

Biden in the last few months has not supported more, as the Generals, and the Baker report.

[TOAD6147]

Congressioanl Republicans are jumping ship left and right...mostly to the left.

[Disley]

=mad1;2021259]Its called taxes,to the tune of 18.4$ billion.

I read it's more like $500Billion. But how do you pay for the suffering that all the innocents have been through, and 600 thousand to 1 million dead Iraqis.
Bush and his cohorts should be on trial for genocide, and if he has anything to do with bombing Iran or Syria, two other innocent countries.

Iran is complicit in the actions of the insurgency due to the support given by Iran. Iran gives money and weapons support to Mehdi Army,or Jaish al-Mahdi, the militia of the powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

You will blame anyone to get Bush out of trouble.
The idiot running the war left the arms and ordnance dumps unguarded for months. They have all the weapons they bought of America and Europe, they don't need hand me downs from others, if some of the money they give for humanitarian work gets diverted, it's not Irans fault.

The nut case leading Iran has stated on several occasions his desire to remove Israel from the globe. This same nut case has denied the existence of the Holocaust. The Iranian people must live in fear of the prospect that this moron will bring Iran into another war.

He says a lot less aggressive things than Bush. But it's ok if Americans threaten the world with WMDs they and Israel have, and are preparing to use on a country that even your intelligence service tells you it will be at least another ten years before they might get. Then print in the news they are practicing bombing runs as a trial, before they nuke Iran.
WHO'S the insane ones here. Bush and Olmert, those two rabid pit bulls should be put on a chain, before they destroy the world.
All because you're getting your ass kicked again, by another third world country.
Your less hot headed countrymen warn you about letting jerks like Bush, Cheyene, Rumsfeld and all the other neo con cheerleaders play with guns.
This is another fine mess you've gotten us in to Stanley.
The thing is Ahmedinejah won't get killed for the lies they say about him, in what is sadly supposed to be factual news reporting.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians probably will, and if that doesn't bother you, then you are a psychopath.

[mad1]

Disley;I read it's more like $500Billion. But how do you pay for the suffering that all the innocents have been through, and 600 thousand to 1 million dead Iraqis.
Bush and his cohorts should be on trial for genocide, and if he has anything to do with bombing Iran or Syria, two other innocent countries.

"Civilian deaths have risen dramatically in Iraq since the country was invaded in March 2003, according to a survey conducted by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Columbia University School of Nursing and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. "
"Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred."
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...nham_Iraq.html

The number of dead is far less than your exaggerated numbers, 600 thousand to 1 million. The genocide here that you speak of was committed by Saddam and his military, have you intentionally forgotten about the atrocities of the Saddam era or are you in denial of there existence?

You will blame anyone to get Bush out of trouble.

Place the blame where it lies, not on your fantasy where you want it to. You attempt to portray Saddam,Iran and Syria as innocent bystanders in this situation when there is proof to the contrary.

They have all the weapons they bought of America and Europe, they don't need hand me downs from others, if some of the money they give for humanitarian work gets diverted, it's not Irans fault.

Humanitarian work diverted,what a poor attempt to justify the actions of Iran.Iran has been a facilitator in the sectarian violence in Iraq via money and arms.

He says a lot less aggressive things than Bush.

The leader of Iran is a nut case. To deny the existence of the holocaust when there is documented proof further the diagnosis of his mental instability.Calling to wipe Israel off the map is less aggressive than statements from Bush is a fallacy, give me some quotes of Bush stating more aggressive statements than the leader of Iran?

But it's ok if Americans threaten the world with WMDs they and Israel have, and are preparing to use on a country that even your intelligence service tells you it will be at least another ten years before they might get.

I am unaware of anytime America has threatened another country,other than Japan during WW11, with WMD's?

Then print in the news they are practicing bombing runs as a trial, before they nuke Iran.

Do you dream up this information?

The thing is Ahmedinejah won't get killed for the lies they say about him, in what is sadly supposed to be factual news reporting.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians probably will, and if that doesn't bother you, then you are a psychopath.

You need to read other news sources other than the Ahmadinejad times. Do you subscribe to this misinformation you are posting?

[MTAtech]

Look at how much this has deteriorated when the argument is whether we killed 'only' 100,000 Iraqis or 600,000. Getting back to the topic, Toad is right when he says,

Congressioanl Republicans are jumping ship left and right...mostly to the left.

Increasing troop levels has no large constituency. Democrats generally oppose it and so do many Republicans. Basically, the Congress and the public have no confidence in the president.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, described the president’s proposals as a “dangerous foreign policy blunder,” at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on 1/11/07.

Expressing doubt about whether Iraqis “are done killing each other,” Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, said, “Why put more American lives on the line now in the hope that this time they’ll make the difficult choice?” Senator Warner is also critical of the plan.

With respect to broadening hostility to Iran, at a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden said that the vote to authorize the president to order the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein should not be used as a vehicle for mounting attacks inside Iran, even in pursuit of cells or networks assisting insurgents or sectarian militias.

“I just want the record to show and I would like to have a legal response from the State Department if they think they have authority to pursue networks or anything else across the border into Iran and Iraq that will generate a constitutional confrontation here in the Senate, I predict to you,” Mr. Biden said.

Meanwhile, 61% of Americans oppose increasing troop levels. (ABC News/Washington Post Poll) That means that Republicans also oppose it. Also, 53% say that Democrats should block the president's actions.

(Sources for this post is a compilation of various news outlets)

[Disley]

Sorry what I said is true, Bush has threatened to take out Irans nuclear power facilities, even though his CIA info says it's not a risk. He also refused to take a nuclear strike out of his plans, WHO'S the mad man.
He should be put away for threatening a non hostile country with nukes, doesn't he understand diplomacy.
Everything I said is true, you can deny the 600 thousand to 1mil dead Iraqis, but its closer to the real numbers than your estimates, and done by a reputable source.
I get the complete translations from independent sources, your nonsense about wiping Israel of the map and denying the holocaust is propaganda, can't you tell the difference.
Iraq didn't come over and invade the US.
Iran won't invade you either.
Stop being scared and killing people who are no threat to you.
You went 6000miles to kill innocent Iraqis, and if other moslems don't like it, stay at home.
Nobody wants you out of your country anymore.

[Pexster]

Now I'm thinking Bush has a different strategy -- he wants to provoke Iran into a war. This incident in the Kurdish area of Iraq is scary. My wife has been telling me for a few years that he's going to find a way to start a war with Iran. I used to tell her, "Nah, no way. No one would stand for it after what he's done."

Today, I'm not so sure. This guy is headed off the deep end, and he's already demonstrated that he can't swim.

[MTAtech]

I just had to go back and re-read the thread: "Does Bush have big ones or what?" Does Bush have "big ones" or what?

Only history will decide if it's the wrong road.