Bush is losing the Bushies

[Gunny]

I am not so sure. I am not sure there (and apparently the Dems aren't either) is a majority among the voters for timetables. It really does smack of tipping off the enemy and a great case could be made for exactly that.

Only people completely uneducated in strategy/tactics and/or just plain cowards and/or people who wish to see the US fail would support announcing one's future strategy to the enemy.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The timetables themselves are "pork."

How so? Please explain your reasoning.

 

[maineman]

Only people completely uneducated in strategy/tactics and/or just plain cowards and/or people who wish to see the US fail would support announcing one's future strategy to the enemy.

Do you think they won't notice that we're gone? Do you think that people who have vehemently hated one another for a milennium can't wait until after we leave to recommence their carnage? Do you really think that sunni and shiite members of the Iraqi Army will remain loyal to their government and not to their sect?

I offer up Robert E. Lee, USMA '29 in obvious rebuttal.

 

[Rosotar]

Only people completely uneducated in strategy/tactics and/or just plain cowards and/or people who wish to see the US fail would support announcing one's future strategy to the enemy.

Well we don't even appear close to reaching some type of "armistice" or truce.

We're no closer to victory than the day we invaded.

What do you suggest?

 

[Gunny]

How so? Please explain your reasoning.

The funding bill is for funding. Period. Anything that does not directly relate to funding, IMO, is "pork." That is using a literal definition; which, if left up to me is how ALL proposed legislation would be addressed.

Deployment timetables relates to the operational side of the occupation of Iraq.

 

[red states rule]

Pentagon says funding fight affecting war effort
POSTED: 8:28 p.m. EDT, May 2, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The standoff between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war funding bill already is delaying some military training and orders for spare parts, Pentagon officials said.

Bush on Tuesday vetoed legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress that would continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

The bill would have required U.S. combat troops to begin to withdraw on October 1, with a goal of a complete pullout within six months.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion," Bush said, explaining his veto of the legislation. "It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

The president and congressional leaders have agreed to meet to discuss a compromise. (Full story)

In the meantime, military officials said some effects are already or will soon be felt.

According to the Pentagon, the Army two weeks ago told commanders to purchase fewer parts, delay repairs on training equipment and postpone nonessential travel.

This month, the Army also will freeze hiring for civilian jobs, release temporary workers and sign no new contracts.

An Army official said these disruptions will hurt military readiness.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/war.funding/index.html

 

[Care4all]

Only people completely uneducated in strategy/tactics and/or just plain cowards and/or people who wish to see the US fail would support announcing one's future strategy to the enemy.

Well Gunny, here is Mitch Mc Connell's (R) the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate.....

Is he completely uneducated in Strategy/tactics and or a plain coward?

THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING


Republican senator slams Iraqi government
May 13, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate on Sunday expressed frustration with the Iraqi government, saying Republicans were "overwhelmingly disappointed" with the lack of political progress.

"The Iraqi government is a huge disappointment," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN'S Late Edition on Sunday.

"So far, they've not been able do anything they promised on the political side," the Kentucky Republican said, citing the Iraqis' failure to pass a new oil revenue bill, hold local elections and dismantle the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. "It's a growing frustration."

"Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government," he added.

McConnell spoke as the Senate is trying to approve funding for the Iraq war with a compromise that President George W. Bush can sign. Bush has threatened to veto a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that provides only enough money to continue combat for two or three months.

McConnell said there was a growing sense of frustration across all political divides in the U.S. Senate with failures of the Iraqi government.

"I don't know what their problem is but this country has made an enormous investment in giving the Iraqis a chance to have a normal government after all of these years of Saddam Hussein and his atrocities," he said.

Citing media reports, McConnell said some lawmakers in Iraq's parliament wanted a vote to ask the United States to leave.

"I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request," he said.
McConnell's comments came as a group linked to al Qaeda claimed in an Internet message to have seized three U.S. soldiers in an ambush south of Baghdad and a suicide truck bombing killed 50 people in the Kurdish north.

McConnell made no apology for the U.S. invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"I think Republicans believe overwhelmingly, is that the decision to get on offense in the war on terror after 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq has protected us fully here at home," McConnell said.

"What we are all discovering, however, it's very difficult to set up a functioning government in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

The United States should consider whether the threat from al Qaeda would be increased at home if its troops withdrew from Iraq, he said.

"If we give up prematurely, we go home, declare it over, will they be back here on the -- in our own country?" McConnell said. "And I think the chances of that are overwhelmingly likely."



© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

It may not be a timeline, but it sure sounds like it is a time limit....

What I find hypocritical is that when the American People and the elected officials like the Democrats in office suggest a time line, the republicans like him say that if we leave Iraq now the enemy will follow us here and all the garbage that goes with that....

But yet the Minority leader says that if the Iraqis want us out, then WE ARE OUT!

I guess the enemy WAS never going to come and get us as they proclaimed?

I also guess that timetables are okay if it is the Iraqi gvt's timetable....so Mitch is saying that it is ok for OUR FOREIGN POLICY to be dictated by another foreign country...the Iraqis....but not okay to be run by our elected officials...?

Care

 

[red states rule]

Well Gunny, here is Mitch Mc Connell's (R) the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate.....

Is he completely uneducated in Strategy/tactics and or a plain coward?



It may not be a timeline, but it sure sounds like it is a time limit....

What I find hypocritical is that when the American People and the elected officials like the Democrats in office suggest a time line, the republicans like him say that if we leave Iraq now the enemy will follow us here and all the garbage that goes with that....

But yet the Minority leader says that if the Iraqis want us out, then WE ARE OUT!

I guess the enemy WAS never going to come and get us as they proclaimed?

I also guess that timetables are okay if it is the Iraqi gvt's timetable....so Mitch is saying that it is ok for OUR FOREIGN POLICY to be dictated by another foreign country...the Iraqis....but not okay to be run by our elected officials...?

Care

BY telling the enemy when you are leaving, when they know they can spread their terror unchecked - it is surrender

 

[Gunny]

Well we don't even appear close to reaching some type of "armistice" or truce.

We're no closer to victory than the day we invaded.

What do you suggest?

The Iraqi government just voted to gradually replace our troops with theirs. IMO, we need to encourage them at every turn to hold to that course. If they are willing to take responsibility for their country and its security, it is their right to do so as democratically elected representatives of the Iraqi people.

 

[Gunny]

Well Gunny, here is Mitch Mc Connell's (R) the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate.....

Is he completely uneducated in Strategy/tactics and or a plain coward?



It may not be a timeline, but it sure sounds like it is a time limit....

What I find hypocritical is that when the American People and the elected officials like the Democrats in office suggest a time line, the republicans like him say that if we leave Iraq now the enemy will follow us here and all the garbage that goes with that....

But yet the Minority leader says that if the Iraqis want us out, then WE ARE OUT!

I guess the enemy WAS never going to come and get us as they proclaimed?

I also guess that timetables are okay if it is the Iraqi gvt's timetable....so Mitch is saying that it is ok for OUR FOREIGN POLICY to be dictated by another foreign country...the Iraqis....but not okay to be run by our elected officials...?

Care

As usual, you are all over the place, grasping at straws. The Iraqi government HAS been a disappointment; especially, in dragging its feet to assume responsibility for the pyhisical security of Iraq.

If the Iraq government wants to step up, then they have my support 100%.

That crap that if we left under the Dem timeline the enemy would come here is just that ...crap. It's announcing the day we will unilaterally abandon the field to the enemy. And yeah, ANYONE suggesting such a thing either doesn't know shit about strategy and tactics, or places personal partisan hackery above sound doctrine.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that you can't see the difference between the Dems in Congress creating arbitrary timelines to leave, regardless the situation, and the Iraqi government wishing to set up a timeline to assume responsibility for the security of their own country.

That isn't the Iraqis' dictating our foreign policy either. THAT is just crap. That is the Iraq government taking responsibility for its own security. Our leaving has been contigent from Day One on their ability to do so.

And you have the NERVE to say anyone is just "saying what their party tells them to."

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The Iraqi government just voted to gradually replace our troops with theirs. IMO, we need to encourage them at every turn to hold to that course. If they are willing to take responsibility for their country and its security, it is their right to do so as democratically elected representatives of the Iraqi people.

I agree.

And I think our troops should be moved to the edges of Iraq with focus on sealing the borders with Syria, Iran, and Turkey (to deter them from the Kurds.)

 

[Care4all]

As usual, you are all over the place, grasping at straws. The Iraqi government HAS been a disappointment; especially, in dragging its feet to assume responsibility for the pyhisical security of Iraq.

If the Iraq government wants to step up, then they have my support 100%.

That crap that if we left under the Dem timeline the enemy would come here is just that ...crap. It's announcing the day we will unilaterally abandon the field to the enemy. And yeah, ANYONE suggesting such a thing either doesn't know shit about strategy and tactics, or places personal partisan hackery above sound doctrine.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that you can't see the difference between the Dems in Congress creating arbitrary timelines to leave, regardless the situation, and the Iraqi government wishing to set up a timeline to assume responsibility for the security of their own country.

That isn't the Iraqis' dictating our foreign policy either. THAT is just crap. That is the Iraq government taking responsibility for its own security. Our leaving has been contigent from Day One on their ability to do so.

And you have the NERVE to say anyone is just "saying what their party tells them to."

In all of that "song and a dance" that you just gave me, did you happen to explain why leaving when the Iraqis want us to on their timetable IS NOT ANNOUNCING TO THE ENEMY, when we are leaving?

Care

 

[Gunny]

In all of that "song and a dance" that you just gave me, did you happen to explain why leaving when the Iraqis want us to on their timetable IS NOT ANNOUNCING TO THE ENEMY, when we are leaving?

Care

There's no song and dance, just YOU missing the obvious. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a Pvt's understanding of strategy and tactics.

An arbitrary decison on our part to leave on a certain date regardless the situation is a completely different scenario than the Iraqi government willingly assuming the responsibility of physical security for the nation it was democratically elected to do so for.

The plan from the beginning has been for the US to turn over physical security of Iraq when the Iraq government was capable of handling it. So the REAL problem here is you can't stand the fact the Dems and their recipe for disaster have been cut out of the deal. Your loyalty to partisan politics supercedes your loyalty to doing the right thing.

Sad.

 

[Gunny]

I agree.

And I think our troops should be moved to the edges of Iraq with focus on sealing the borders with Syria, Iran, and Turkey (to deter them from the Kurds.)

IMHO, we should broker a separate deal with the kurds. They're the only group in this mess that has remained steadfast loyal and appreciative, and acted like adults.

But we won't for political reasons.

 

[red states rule]

There's no song and dance, just YOU missing the obvious. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a Pvt's understanding of strategy and tactics.

An arbitrary decison on our part to leave on a certain date regardless the situation is a completely different scenario than the Iraqi government willingly assuming the responsibility of physical security for the nation it was democratically elected to do so for.

The plan from the beginning has been for the US to turn over physical security of Iraq when the Iraq government was capable of handling it. So the REAL problem here is you can't stand the fact the Dems and their recipe for disaster have been cut out of the deal. Your loyalty to partisan politics supercedes your loyalty to doing the right thing.

Sad.

it is the job of majority congress to FIRST take care of our troops in harms way.. without the games and fund them ...then battle it out all they want in some other way but NOT with our troops lives and using our troops as a pawn in their battle to get what they want!

 

[Care4all]

There's no song and dance, just YOU missing the obvious. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a Pvt's understanding of strategy and tactics.

An arbitrary decison on our part to leave on a certain date regardless the situation is a completely different scenario than the Iraqi government willingly assuming the responsibility of physical security for the nation it was democratically elected to do so for.

The plan from the beginning has been for the US to turn over physical security of Iraq when the Iraq government was capable of handling it. So the REAL problem here is you can't stand the fact the Dems and their recipe for disaster have been cut out of the deal. Your loyalty to partisan politics supercedes your loyalty to doing the right thing.

Sad.

What is SAD is that you can even conjure up such GARBAGE....and you're really good at it....must be the experience.....?

and btw, you still make no sense and appear to be back tracking imo....

Care

 

[Care4all]

gunny, are the terrorist going to come and get us over here if we leave iraq?

 

[red states rule]

gunny, are the terrorist going to come and get us over here if we leave iraq?

They hit us here on 9-11

Many terrorist attacks have been prevebted here

Yes, they will continue to try and hit us here

 

[Superlative]

They hit us here on 9-11

Many terrorist attacks have been prevebted here

Yes, they will continue to try and hit us here

They will fight and blow things up where ever they can, and you will attribute the fact that there have been no attacks here to the supreme leadership of the "Decider"

When in fact they are perfectly happy killing our soldiers in Iraq.

And thanks to our invasion and occupation you can be absolutely sure, there will be another attack in the future.

Thanks to the "Decider"

 

[Gunny]

What is SAD is that you can even conjure up such GARBAGE....and you're really good at it....must be the experience.....?

and btw, you still make no sense and appear to be back tracking imo....

Care

I've conjured up nothing. Simple fact you just refuse to see because it doesn't suit your partisanship.