[Gymnfacymoota]

Kerry isn't the one lying in this thread.





With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals - washingtonpost.com



NPR : Iraq Study Group Delivers Report to the President



TomPaine.com - Surging To Defeat In Iraq

I take it Sam's post was conveniently ignored?

[JTS_tv]

But, Slon, it's so much easier to scream about "liberals" and be Internet tough-guys than it is to actually address facts.

[86GlSqSK]

He is still steaming from having "mouthed" himself out of another White House attempt, or at least a seat in teh VP chair.

Anything could happen.

His head might even explode.

What an idiot that guy is.

The top general in the US military opposes the surge. . .

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops - washingtonpost.com

As for the other Generals, gauging their view of the the surge based solely on their own comments is impossible since their commission implicitly prohibits them from speaking against the President's wishes, . . .

so the only likely indicator of their views is from the comments of recently retired Generals. . .

Retired Generals Criticize Bush’s Plan for Iraq - New York Times

So much for Kerry being an "idiot."

[annouhMus]

Isn't it strange that certain people on this forum can make these garbage lying statements, and when called on it conveniently Ignore the facts presented.????? ----apparently having no response rather than insults,

[andreas]

Man... Kerry certainly is a lying motherfucker. And dumb motherfuckers in the pinko press suck grape kool-aid riight out of his cock

Here is the facts that are contrary to what Kerry said yesterday in Congress.

1) Bush appointed Bob Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group, to be Secretary of Defense.

2) The Iraq Study Group report advocated the "surge".

We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.

We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake.

We believe that our recommended actions will give the Iraqi Army the support it needs to have a reasonable chance to take responsibility for Iraq’s security.

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf

3) Petraeus is the U.S. commander in Iraq


4) Petraeus Supports Troop Increase in Confirmation Hearing


Kerry is clearly a liar.

[kranfid]

I lie on the floor if my back bothers me.........

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

I take it Sam's post was conveniently ignored?

From the Washington Post reference in Sam’s post, dated January 10, 2007:
Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq. From General J.P.Abizaid’s Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony (under oath), November 15, 2006: http://armed-services.senate.gov/sta...2010-15-06.pdf :
In discussions with our commanders and Iraqi leaders it is clear that they believe Iraqi
forces can take more control faster, provided we invest more manpower and resources into the coalition military transition teams, speed the delivery of logistics and mobility enablers, and embrace an aggressive Iraqi-led effort to disarm illegal militias. This is particularly important with regard to the Jaysh al Mahdi elements operating as armed death squads in Baghdad and elsewhere. As we increase our efforts to build Iraqi capacity, we envision coalition forces providing needed military support and combat power to Iraqi units in the lead. Precisely how we do this continues to be worked out with the Iraqis as ultimately capable independent Iraqi forces, loyal to an equally capable independent Iraqi government, will set the conditions for the withdrawal of our major combat forces. From the NPR reference in Sam’s post, dated December 6, 2006:
The Iraq Study Group's other major recommendation is a change in the focus of U.S. military operations in Iraq. The reports says U.S. troops should transition to a support role, with the Iraqi army taking "over primary responsibility for combat operations." Indeed, that is one of the recommendations. However they recommend that multiple non-exclusive approaches are required for success. These approaches include diplomatic, Iraqi international support, intelligence, internationl, and military. From the Iraq Study Group report: http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/i...p_findings.pdf
II. The Way Forward – A New Approach
B. The Internal Approach: Helping Iraqis Help Themselves
3. Security and Military Forces
A Military Strategy for Iraq
There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq….
While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units….
One of the most important elements of our support would be the imbedding of substantially more U.S. military personnel in all Iraqi Army battalions and brigades, as well as within Iraqi companies….
Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against Al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.” We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. We also reject the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake.

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

Today Kerry said Bush's "surge" plan ignores the Iraq Study Group report.

Kerry also said our Generals are against the "surge".

Kerry is a liar.

Your thoughts?

Kerry lied, his political career died (again).

[Edwardthe_third]

Man... Kerry certainly is a lying motherfucker. And dumb motherfuckers in the pinko press suck grape kool-aid riight out of his cock

Here is the facts that are contrary to what Kerry said yesterday in Congress.

1) Bush appointed Bob Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group, to be Secretary of Defense.

2) The Iraq Study Group report advocated the "surge".

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf

3) Petraeus is the U.S. commander in Iraq


4) Petraeus Supports Troop Increase in Confirmation Hearing


Kerry is clearly a liar.

Well SLON - let Samantha answer THAT answer...LOL...seems to me she has been shown up to be the liar - following in the steps of her defeatest leader as usual.

[Gymnfacymoota]

I read Abizaid's quotes, and I don't see him supporting the surge. He appears to be advocating an Iraqi-led effort.

[Gymnfacymoota]

Man... Kerry certainly is a lying motherfucker. And dumb motherfuckers in the pinko press suck grape kool-aid riight out of his cock

Here is the facts that are contrary to what Kerry said yesterday in Congress.

1) Bush appointed Bob Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group, to be Secretary of Defense.

2) The Iraq Study Group report advocated the "surge".

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf

3) Petraeus is the U.S. commander in Iraq


4) Petraeus Supports Troop Increase in Confirmation Hearing


Kerry is clearly a liar.

Here is the entire paragraph:

Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.” We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. Note the word "could" in the lower part, not that they "do" support. And again, they don't focus on surge, they said it could be a redeployment. To say that they advocate that one specific action is a stretch.

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

Note the word "could" in the lower part, not that they "do" support. And again, they don't focus on surge, they said it could be a redeployment. To say that they advocate that one specific action is a stretch.

The Iraqi Study Group supports a non-exclusive multilateral approach. One aspect of that approach is an increase in troops in Iraq (read on in the study, there is much more stating that more temporary personnel are recommended). One can deploy (or redeploy - deploy again) from Fort Campbell to the Mideast, for example. Either way, it is more personnel. Deployment is movement of troops.

[Gymnfacymoota]

The Iraqi Study Group supports a non-exclusive multilateral approach. One aspect of that approach is an increase in troops in Iraq (read on in the study, there is much more stating that more temporary personnel are recommended). One can deploy (or redeploy - deploy again) from Fort Campbell to the Mideast, for example. Either way, it is more personnel. Deployment is movement of troops.

Ah, I see. Still, they only say they "could" support it.

[andreas]

Here is the entire paragraph:



Note the word "could" in the lower part, not that they "do" support. And again, they don't focus on surge, they said it could be a redeployment. To say that they advocate that one specific action is a stretch.

Bullshit. It's crystal clear. It advocates the surge if the commander determines that it is necessary to be effective.

When questioned directly, Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of MNFI without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentc...20Hearing.aspx

[Gymnfacymoota]

Bullshit. It's crystal clear. It advocates the surge if the commander determines that it is necessary to be effective.

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentc...20Hearing.aspx

That's something Petraeus said, not the ISG report. What's crystal clear is that the the ISG is uncertain if the surge is the right idea, using words like "could support" describe their opinion about it.

[BJEugene]

Both of those fuckin losers spent more time wearing a uniform than the whole GOP leadership combined, what fuckin' losers, neither one could figure out that only suckers die for short change. Not only that, they actually vote for ideals rather than personal profit, no wonder the GOP won't have'em...............

NO ONE has picked up on your uniformed Move On Liberal dribble & bullshit, which would fit Hillarys DNC Speech, but again You are fucking WRONG!!!
Show me one fucking Day this Kennedy, the murdering drunken perverted slime ball, ever spent in the Military!!

However if you count his efforts to dive a little in an erffort to establish he gave a rats ass about Kopechne, and his "survival" trainiung to AVOID the Law all night, is Liberal Military training!

You will also find that if History could JUDGE the stupidest and most uncalled for Medal disposition, it would be Kerrys 3 Purples for Superficial injuries, and the staging of his Silver Star award, backed by Navy brass in debt to Mass Lawmakers!!




My apologies as Kennedy served 2 years on the FRONT Lines of Paris, working in a Cushy fucking job at SHAPE headquarters!! Whoopie, sounds like Gores Nam service as a Reporter in the FAR South of Nam where he could put his toes in the China Sea! (Real Danger there!)

Bob Kerry whom I knew when I lived in Nebr, was a TRUE Dem hero, as he holds the MOH, and lost his ankle & foot, participating in a Seals sweep in N.Vietnam!

[Gintovtosik]

Both of those fuckin losers spent more time wearing a uniform than the whole GOP leadership combined, what fuckin' losers, neither one could figure out that only suckers die for short change. Not only that, they actually vote for ideals rather than personal profit, no wonder the GOP won't have'em...............

John Kerry should have been tried and convicted of treason and executed for his role in aiding the North Vietnamese in defeating American forces and for his lies about the American military during the Winter Soldier hearings. He forfeited any honor gained from wearing a uniform.

As for Ted Hiccup Kennedy, the man has shit all over his family's name and his son is turning out to be a chip right off the old block himself. He is responsible for the death of a woman, he is a drunk, and his comments and behavior in public over the years has been unconscienable.

Neither of these men have held a job in their lives and they acquired their wealth through inheritence or marriage. They have no clue what's involved in living in the real world and only regurgitate socialist propaganda because it resonates with jealous and bitter Marxist tools like yourself and the rest of the people in your state. The party of the working poor indeed.

[annouhMus]

Man... Kerry certainly is a lying motherfucker. And dumb motherfuckers in the pinko press suck grape kool-aid riight out of his cock

Here is the facts that are contrary to what Kerry said yesterday in Congress.

1) Bush appointed Bob Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group, to be Secretary of Defense.

2) The Iraq Study Group report advocated the "surge".

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf

3) Petraeus is the U.S. commander in Iraq


4) Petraeus Supports Troop Increase in Confirmation Hearing


Kerry is clearly a liar.

POT/KETTLE/Black sir. Petraeus was NOT the commander in Iraq at the time the statement was made. The then commander did not think the surge was beneficial so Bush replaced him. It was NOT Petraeus who was referenced. Your spin simply doesn't work. And you already knew that this was so, Thus, the prevarication belongs to YOU, not to Kerry. Let's see now, isn't a prevarication a "LIE"????

[annouhMus]

John Kerry should have been tried and convicted of treason and executed for his role in aiding the North Vietnamese in defeating American forces and for his lies about the American military during the Winter Soldier hearings. He forfeited any honor gained from wearing a uniform.

As for Ted Hiccup Kennedy, the man has shit all over his family's name and his son is turning out to be a chip right off the old block himself. He is responsible for the death of a woman, he is a drunk, and his comments and behavior in public over the years has been unconscienable.

Neither of these men have held a job in their lives and they acquired their wealth through inheritence or marriage. They have no clue what's involved in living in the real world and only regurgitate socialist propaganda because it resonates with jealous and bitter Marxist tools like yourself and the rest of the people in your state. The party of the working poor indeed.

But apparently not evrybody agrees with you since thay are both STILL serving in the Senate. They didn't write in all those votes, A majority of the voting public must have voted for him.

Now, I don't agree with the vote either, but this is equivelant to Bush being reelected. A lot of people were wrong then too.

[DrCeshing]

Boy, it's getting pretty tiring debating a failed policy that has no good options left.