The President's brochure..er-um War Plan

[Palestinian Jew]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

I'm assuming everyone here is going to read this because finally the Bush Admin has released some sort of plan, rather than the "they hate us for our freedom" non-sense.

But still, you'd think the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" would have more numbers and facts in it and stated goals, such as at what level do we deem the Iraqi economy successful? What is being done to ensure a democratic gov't is instated? Basically, the Bush Admin is assuming democracy will be embraced. I doubt they've even taken the scenario seriously that the Iraqi people would prefer a theocracy.

And what was that I saw at the end of the plan, the word "insurgent". Rummy would not be too pleased after his diatribe yesterday, but in all likelihood he'll never read the Strategy for Victory.

 

[Mariner]

there hasn't been much comment here on the President's speech or war plan.

I too was taken aback by his use of the word "insurgent." For three years now, I've been unable to understand his constant conflating of different types of terrorists with one another. Palestinians who bomb Israel, Al Qaeda members who committed 9/11, and home-grown insurgents who are responding to the fact that U.S. troops killed their innocent relatives are all entirely different groups--and there are 100s of such groups. Bush's constant babble about "those who want to kill us" confuses this issue unnecessarily.

But the most surprising thing in his speech was very subtle--but couldn't possibly be accidental. He said something about how leaving Iraq now would risk allowing Al Qaeda to "turn Iraq into" a base for terrorism. That's a subtle but very meaningful admission that Iraq was not previously a base for Al Qaeda terrorism. Bush was of course forced into this admission by the revelation of the report he got on 9/21/01 debunking the notion that Saddam had any role in 9/11. Still it's amazing to me that he actually said it, implying that the invasion could potentially make us less safe, not more.
In all his run-up to the war, he never once considered downsides or the possibility of failure.

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

there hasn't been much comment here on the President's speech of war plan.

I too was taken aback by his use of the word "insurgent." For three years now, I've been unable to understand his constant conflating of different types of terrorists with one another. Palestinians who bomb Israel, Al Qaeda members who committed 9/11, and home-grown insurgents who are responding to the fact that U.S. troops killed their innocent relatives are all entirely different groups--and there are 100s of such groups. Bush's constant babble about "those who want to kill us" confuses this issue unnecessarily.

But the most surprising thing in his speech was very subtle--but couldn't possibly be accidental. He said something about how leaving Iraq now would risk allowing Al Qaeda to "turn Iraq into" a base for terrorism. That's a subtle but very meaningful admission that Iraq was not previously a base fo Al Qaeda terrorism. Bush was of course been forced to this position by the revelation of the report he got on 9/21/01 debunking the notion that Saddam had any role in 9/11. Still it's amazing to me that he actually spoke the truth, implying that the invasion could potentially make us less safe, not more.

Mariner.

Bush has never claimed Iraq was a base for Al Qaeda. He claimed a connection between bin Laden and Hussein. As remote as it was, THAT was not a lie.

And there was in fact, an Al Qaeda training base in NW Iraq during Saddam's reign.

You're seeing what isn't there.

 

[Avatar4321]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

I'm assuming everyone here is going to read this because finally the Bush Admin has released some sort of plan, rather than the "they hate us for our freedom" non-sense.

But still, you'd think the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" would have more numbers and facts in it and stated goals, such as at what level do we deem the Iraqi economy successful? What is being done to ensure a democratic gov't is instated? Basically, the Bush Admin is assuming democracy will be embraced. I doubt they've even taken the scenario seriously that the Iraqi people would prefer a theocracy.

And what was that I saw at the end of the plan, the word "insurgent". Rummy would not be too pleased after his diatribe yesterday, but in all likelihood he'll never read the Strategy for Victory.

You know, you would think you liberals would attempt to be intellectually honest here.

This war plan is nothing new. Its the same one that has been around since before we went it. Only difference now it was outlined on 48 pages and given to the public to shut you libs up because you've been denying it exists.

Of course, you guys still have no plan. And the fact that the President has an indepth plan still doesn't satisfy you. So honestly I am not sure why the President should care what the heck you think about the war or the plan. It's obvious he cant do anything youd approve of. So who cares?

 

[deaddude]

Only difference now it was outlined on 48 pages and given to the public to shut you libs up because you've been denying it exists.

We agree, this is a ploy to " shut libs up." Now they will point to this document every time some one asks about their plan. So rather than a war plan we get a vague 48 page insipid political ploy.

 

[dilloduck]

You know, you would think you liberals would attempt to be intellectually honest here.

This war plan is nothing new. Its the same one that has been around since before we went it. Only difference now it was outlined on 48 pages and given to the public to shut you libs up because you've been denying it exists.

Of course, you guys still have no plan. And the fact that the President has an indepth plan still doesn't satisfy you. So honestly I am not sure why the President should care what the heck you think about the war or the plan. It's obvious he cant do anything youd approve of. So who cares?

Exactly---how many times do you libs need to hear the plan--is to too frickin complicated or so good that you have no idea on how to attack it? WE WILL STAY UNTIL OUR JOB IS DONE AND THE IRAQIS TELL US THEY ARE READY TO GO IT ON THEIR OWN.
PS--you will not get a deadline like 3:27AM on Dec 28th because that would be really stupid. Now sit down and see if you can think of 3 reasons why that would be a stupid idea----( it's not even a timed test--I don't care how long it takes you--you can take years if you can only get it right)

 

[Annie]

Exactly---how many times do you libs need to hear the plan--is to too frickin complicated or so good that you have no idea on how to attack it? WE WILL STAY UNTIL OUR JOB IS DONE AND THE IRAQIS TELL US THEY ARE READY TO GO IT ON THEIR OWN.
PS--you will not get a deadline like 3:27AM on Dec 28th because that would be really stupid. Now sit down and see if you can think of 3 reasons why that would be a stupid idea----( it's not even a timed test--I don't care how long it takes you--you can take years if you can only get it right)

Hey, it was the LIBS plan, you forgot!

 

[dilloduck]

Hey, it was the LIBS plan, you forgot!

Then they outta know the fricken plan by now and shut up. I mean really--playing stupid isn't even challenging.

 

[Psychoblues]

Once again you're so full of shit, gunnyl. 'Tis absolutely true that Al Queda had a training camp in Northwest Iraq. 'Tis also absolutely true that the camp was located in a "NO-FLY ZONE". 'Tis also absolutely true that even Saddam Hussein begged for permission to take the camp out to the UN and more emphatically to the United States Of America. He was absolutely refused permission to do so. But, now you make the allegation Hussein and Iraqi peoples in general were somehow complicit in Al Queda objectives.

That's a crock you lemmings will have to deal with at a later date.

And GWB DID claim Iraq was a base for Al Queda and you just pointed that out.


Psyuchoblues

Bush has never claimed Iraq was a base for Al Qaeda. He claimed a connection between bin Laden and Hussein. As remote as it was, THAT was not a lie.

And there was in fact, an Al Qaeda training base in NW Iraq during Saddam's reign.

You're seeing what isn't there.

 

[Mariner]

I agree with you completely that the Democrats have no better plan. At the moment, I'm equally frustrated with both parties.

Dilloduck, it really isn't so simple. How do you define "victory" in such a complicated situation? Less that one suicide bombing a week? A month?

New insurgent groups are appearing every day. I posted here yesterday about how Bush keeps talking about "terrorists" while ignoring the specifics. The NYT has a nice piece today that strongly supports my viewpoint--over 100 named insurgent groups are currently operating in Iraq, with more appearing daily,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/international/middleeast/02insurgency.html?th&emc=th

Their decentralized, hydra-headed nature might make them very difficult to kill and therefore "victory" might be almost unattainable. As the article points out, all they have to do to "win" is not lose. Simply surviving the full attention of the world's greatest superpower can look like a victory for Allah.

GunnyL, Bush repeatedly and consistently sought to portray Saddam Hussein as responsible for 9/11, and by the time of the '04 election 53% of the populace believed it. It wasn't true, and we now know that the President himself knew it wasn't true. You don't have to be a liberal to conclude that he used this fear-mongering to justify his invasion--the moment the approval ratings fall below 50% you know that many Republicans see this too.

As for the economy, I don't agree that it is stronger now than in the Clinton years. Yes, growth is strong, and so is productivity. But wages are stagnant, the rich/poor gap is wider than ever, and, most important to me--our entire economy is dependent on borrowing $4 billion per month from the Chinese, while running a massive trade deficit (hundreds of billions of dollars) with them. Vast deficits and vast debt weaken our country more than Al Qaeda ever could, in my opinion. Did you notice how Bush was quiet as a mouse on his recent China trip? China's as mean to its citizens as Hussein was, but we can't do anything about it, because we're the addicts and they're "our Daddy." And all this simply because Republicans are allergic to taxes and too cowardly to ask us to pay our own way. Better to let the nice Chinese and Saudis bail us out, and hand whatever debt is leftover to our children. Nice behavior. Unpatriotic, in my opinion.

Mariner.

 

[dmp]

Nobody on this board is smart enough to out-think our Military Planners. Nobody on this forum 'gets it' any better than our Intel people. You guys keep whining about plans, details and such - here's a tasty tidbit....it's none of your damn business. Rest soundly knowing Generals and High-level civilians are doing the BEST JOB they can - which is infinately better than you or I could do - at sorting this mess out.

 

[deaddude]

Then they outta know the fricken plan by now and shut up. I mean really--playing stupid isn't even challenging.

If we "outaa know the plan by now" than surely you should. If you can describe the plan in anything but the vaugest generalities and empty statements, then I at least will shut up about the plan. The problem that I have wiith this "plan" is that its criteria for mission accomplished are vauge statements like "when the Iraqis have a stable economy" which, without the details describing what exactly they mean by a stable economy, are absolutly meaningless.

 

[dilloduck]

If we "outaa know the plan by now" than surely you should. If you can describe the plan in anything but the vaugest generalities and empty statements, then I at least will shut up about the plan. The problem that I have wiith this "plan" is that its criteria for mission accomplished are vauge statements like "when the Iraqis have a stable economy" which, without the details describing what exactly they mean by a stable economy, are absolutly meaningless.

We will be out in at least 2 years--that good enough for ya?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

there hasn't been much comment here on the President's speech or war plan.

I too was taken aback by his use of the word "insurgent." For three years now, I've been unable to understand his constant conflating of different types of terrorists with one another. Palestinians who bomb Israel, Al Qaeda members who committed 9/11, and home-grown insurgents who are responding to the fact that U.S. troops killed their innocent relatives are all entirely different groups--and there are 100s of such groups. Bush's constant babble about "those who want to kill us" confuses this issue unnecessarily.

But the most surprising thing in his speech was very subtle--but couldn't possibly be accidental. He said something about how leaving Iraq now would risk allowing Al Qaeda to "turn Iraq into" a base for terrorism. That's a subtle but very meaningful admission that Iraq was not previously a base for Al Qaeda terrorism. Bush was of course forced into this admission by the revelation of the report he got on 9/21/01 debunking the notion that Saddam had any role in 9/11. Still it's amazing to me that he actually said it, implying that the invasion could potentially make us less safe, not more.
In all his run-up to the war, he never once considered downsides or the possibility of failure.

Mariner.

attempting to deny Iraq was a base for terrorism prior to 9/11 and prior to the ouster of saddam is simply crazy. Saddam openly paid terrorists. There clearly were terrorist training sites. Saddam offered Iraq as a refuge for OBL.

"Not turn Iraq into a training base for terrorists" simply means IT ISNT ONE NOW, and has NOTHING to do whether or not it was prior to us kicking saddams ass into a hole in the ground fit only for pigs.

(but I must admit, I like the way you read in between the lines and manufacture things that arent there, in the true liberal form)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You know, you would think you liberals would attempt to be intellectually honest here. ?

HA!, and I thought I was an optimist!

This war plan is nothing new. Its the same one that has been around since before we went it. Only difference now it was outlined on 48 pages and given to the public to shut you libs up because you've been denying it exists.?

Of course its nothing new. Elections will be coming, and Bush needs to improve public support, so he makes public what the press should have been feeding the public the whole time.
The press has not lived up to its responsability, but of course, thats W's fault.

Of course, you guys still have no plan. And the fact that the President has an indepth plan still doesn't satisfy you. So honestly I am not sure why the President should care what the heck you think about the war or the plan. It's obvious he cant do anything youd approve of. So who cares?

Oh, they have a plan, desert Iraq now, then blame the resulting loss of Iraq to terrorists on PRESIDENT Bush.

Oh, and an extension of their plan:

raise taxes and ruin a great economy
continue to funnel wasteful money into public education and continue to graduate kids who cant read or write

Increase welfare giveaways and make more people dependent on govt

make abortion fully and unlimitedly available to all females, including minors without them having to inform the parents of the minor

remove God from everything public, destroy christmas, and shove all Christianity into the tiny closet it belongs

create a cradle to grave mentality, so that we can follow in the deterorating footsteps of western europe

allow kids to wear shirts that say "fuck off" to school, but ban shirts that say "God bless you"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

In all his run-up to the war, he never once considered downsides or the possibility of failure.

Mariner.

so, you were in on all the high level meetings eh?

Yea, very believable, that he spent months discussing this, with generals, chief of staff, soldiers, his secretary of defense, and NOT ONE OF THEM MENTIONED DOWNSIDES or possibility of failure, NOT ONCE.

Hey, I got a slice of cheese, moon cheese, you wanna buy???
and I got some very recent pics of Elvis,

OJ didnt do it

and the moon landing was staged

 

[LuvRPgrl]

We agree, this is a ploy to " shut libs up." Now they will point to this document every time some one asks about their plan. So rather than a war plan we get a vague 48 page insipid political ploy.

prior to your post, did you actually read the entire 48 pages? c'mon now, be honest.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Exactly---how many times do you libs need to hear the plan--is to too frickin complicated or so good that you have no idea on how to attack it? WE WILL STAY UNTIL OUR JOB IS DONE AND THE IRAQIS TELL US THEY ARE READY TO GO IT ON THEIR OWN.
PS--you will not get a deadline like 3:27AM on Dec 28th because that would be really stupid. Now sit down and see if you can think of 3 reasons why that would be a stupid idea----( it's not even a timed test--I don't care how long it takes you--you can take years if you can only get it right)

awww c'mon, its only fair if they want a time deadline on us leaving, then you should give them one on their test!

 

[dilloduck]

awww c'mon, its only fair if they want a time deadline on us leaving, then you should give them one on their test!

It's like you're in on a high-stakes poker game and your opponent wants you to announce LOUDLY if you are bluffing or not------or ya --sure--tell tell the enemy what we are planning to do.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If we "outaa know the plan by now" than surely you should. If you can describe the plan in anything but the vaugest generalities and empty statements, then I at least will shut up about the plan. The problem that I have wiith this "plan" is that its criteria for mission accomplished are vauge statements like "when the Iraqis have a stable economy" which, without the details describing what exactly they mean by a stable economy, are absolutly meaningless.

yea, yea, yea, PRESIDENT Bush was talking to the general public, informing them in generalities like he should.

IF he got into details, like, "once the GDP of Iraq reaches an annual 10% increase, coupled with a deflationary rate of 3% and monetary funds flowing from intra continental investment fundsl..."
almost everyone would fall asleep by page 3. You dont understand communicating to the general public very well if you think thats how he should have done it,

strike ONE!

and besides, we dont want the terrorists to know any more details than necessary.

FOr example, if he stated a goal of 80% of pre war oil production, then the terrorists would target oil facilities.

Strike TWO!

Lastly, the situation is quite fluid. It would be hard to determine in details what the economy or security forces will be like in two years. When things like foreign and local investment in high rise buildings continues to rapidly grow, then we know sucess is being achieved,,nuff said

Strike THREE! YER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!! (hey, just kidding, frustrated Yankees fan!)