[Vipvlad]

I noted with interest that the President intents to send another 20,000 or so military men and women to their possible death or maiming in Iraq. I want to make just a few points.
A- This war was won when the Iraqi held elections. We promised them a democracy and from now on its up to them to keep it. We are not there to referee a civil war.
B- If "mistakes were made", should someone not be held responsible. Like the Secretary of Defense who was told over and over again that things were not working out?
C- And finally: This war will, as always, be paid for with the blood of the lower and middle classes. When the presidents daughters enlist for officer cadet training it will be OK for my grandchildren to go. As long as they stay home, I hope my grandchildren do too.

[Eromereorybig]

Even some of the Republicans think Bush's idea sucks.

“This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

Hagel, saying it was “wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq’s civil war,” warned that Bush’s plan would “cost more American lives, sink us deeper into the bog of Iraq; making it more difficult to get out; cost billions of dollars more; [and] further strain an American military that has already reached its breaking point.”

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, an influential spokesman for conservative congressional Republicans, said that, after recently visiting Iraq for meetings with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, he was convinced that the solution in Iraq had to be a political one, not a military one. Some in GOP join Democrats in bashing plan - MSNBC TV - MSNBC.com

[usatramadolusa]

I didn't really get all the stuff which happened since late Nov. First, Bush says "We stay the course", then he says "We never stayed the course", then he says "Our course always was not to stay the course". He first praises the Iraq Study Group, but says he still wants to hear what the generals are saying, and the both of them told him that more troops won't solve the problem. And now, he shredders the Iraq Study group report, speeds back up the revolving door, sends more troops and stays the course. Which he never has been, by the way. W has flip-flopped so often in such a short time that what we have to do with here is called a serious "argumentative twister". George changes his opinion so fast that at any point, nobody can really say if the President is or is not against some idea. The only thing one can say with certainty is that he has absolutely no idea what to do. The Oval office really should release a probability-model on the Presidents point of view. This would make things easier.

[ahagotyou]

Transcript of Bush's Speech

I noted with interest that the President intents to send another 20,000 or so military men and women to their possible death or maiming in Iraq. I want to make just a few points.
A- This war was won when the Iraqi held elections. We promised them a democracy and from now on its up to them to keep it. We are not there to referee a civil war.

It is true that the goals stated in the Iraq War Resolution have been met long ago, however it was so sucessful so quickly that it suddenly developed a case of mission creep. Suddenly we had a opportunity to kill hundreds of Al Qaida members and help the new Iraqi goverment become a valuable ally.

B- If "mistakes were made", should someone not be held responsible. Like the Secretary of Defense who was told over and over again that things were not working out?

Bush takes responsibility for the mistakes. You know like Truman, "the buck stops here".

C- And finally: This war will, as always, be paid for with the blood of the lower and middle classes. When the presidents daughters enlist for officer cadet training it will be OK for my grandchildren to go. As long as they stay home, I hope my grandchildren do too.

As soon as the Army upped the age limit for new recruits making me eligable again I went to see a recruiter because I think what they are doing now is extremely important to the future of the world.

I know that soldiers don't make much money for the amount of work they do and it's hard for many of them to make ends meet. However because I worked hard (sometimes 3 & 4 jobs at a time) and invested wisely when I was younger money isn't really a big issue for me. I am now in a position where I only work because I want to, not because I have too. Hell, I could retire comfortably if I wanted and I'm not even 40 yet.

However the Army rejected me because of my extensive criminal record. I broke alot of laws in my younger wilder days because I got caught up in that whole drugs and gangs thing. For a while there I was in and out of jail alot.

But I do agree that lower income people are more likely to lured into the armed forces. That is because many more affluent people are not going to be satisfied with the opportunities the Armed Services can offer them.

I wouldn't want my kids to join because it would stifle their future opportunities and sidetrack their education and carreers.

The thing I didn't like about the speech was that Bush got into too much detail. I must question the prudence of going on worldwide television and announcing our strategy to the enemy. He might as well have just shouted, "Hey Al Qaida, we are making a major push into Baghdad, pack up your shit, get out of Dodge, and go attack Kirkuk before we kill your asses in Baghdad!"

" PS. We are sending 5 brigades to Baghdad, you might want to set alot of IED's on the roads to Baghdad before you leave"

What I mean is, the enemy has TV's too you know.

If there is a need for an increase of troops in Baghdad, you just do it. You don't fucking tell them you are going to do it first. That shit should be TOP SECRET!!!.

I think Bush is letting pressure from the left get to him. He is not used to a hostile majority in congress. He needs to learn to ignore them.

[Angeheade]

I didn't watch the speech. It's gotten to the point where I don't want to see him or hear him. But I read the transcript. And the first word that came to mind was - pathetic.

I thought the Baltimore Sun this morning had a good take on the speech.

When you look at what President Bush actually proposed last night, you begin to realize how little there was to it. Adding more than 20,000 troops is a move in the wrong direction, but the U.S. has been around the 150,000 mark before. More money for reconstruction and jobs is a good idea, but $1 billion is a tiny fraction of the money that has already been spent and largely wasted. Holding the feet of the Iraqi government to the fire sounds great, but the president, despite his protestations to the contrary, offered no reason to suppose that what hasn't worked in the past will work any better in the future.

It's not a change in strategy. It is instead an intensification of a strategy that has been a failure for nearly four years. At a time when America should be extricating itself from Iraq, it is an escalation. It is too small to make a significant difference in the war - but it will nonetheless put more American lives at risk, and, unbelievably, it includes the transfer of an Army infantry battalion from eastern Afghanistan, where it is badly needed. If the reinforcement should prove unsuccessful, it lays the groundwork for further escalations to come.

The White House had made much of the president's prime-time address, but in the end it had a whole lot more "stay the course" in it than Mr. Bush was willing to let on. There are two obvious explanations for this: the president's desire to thumb his nose at the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and his desire to pick a fight with the Democratic Congress. I agree - the increase in troop strength isn't much of a strategy - it's merely "staying the course" with more bodies. And in choosing to escalate, Bush is ignoring the Iraq Study Group (and the recommendations of his daddy's buddies), ignoring the advice of many/most military leaders, ignoring the views of Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans as well, and - most importantly - he is totally ignoring what the American people said very clearly two months ago in voting polls across the nation.

I know the comparison has been made before, and people either see something there or not, but I honestly haven't seen a President like Bush since the dark days of Nixon.

The hearings with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, scheduled for today, are, however, far more significant. Here are the main questions we'd like to see put to them:

• Will you explain to the country, please, how you expect the president's proposals to end the sectarian warfare in Iraq?

• Are 20,000 extra troops what the situation requires, or simply what's available?

• Are they going to be fighting primarily with Sunni insurgents or with Shiite militias? Can you explain why Americans should be fighting against both sides in a civil war?

• And how precisely does this promote reconciliation, which is what actually matters, and which is a political rather than a military task? Good questions. If Gates and Rice simply parrot the "stay the course" rhetoric of Bush, nothing will be gained. But they are good questions that deserve honest answers. Does anyone really think that honest answers will be forthcoming?

[Gogogo]

I'm still confused as to Bush is sending in additional troops anyway? Didn't he declare victory in Iraq some years ago? Don't tell me he was premature in his victory speech?

[cokLoolioli]

C- And finally: This war will, as always, be paid for with the blood of the lower and middle classes. When the presidents daughters enlist for officer cadet training it will be OK for my grandchildren to go. As long as they stay home, I hope my grandchildren do too.

We have a volunteer army. Everyone in there has chosen to be there. The last thing anyone in the military wants is for you grandchildren to be in there if they dont want to be.

Furthermore, you make it sound as if it would somehow be possible for the rich to make up the brunt of the military. Problem is, there arnt enough of them. Most of this country is middle class, which means most soldiers would come from the middle class. Even if all military age rich were in the military wed still be short by a million or so.

And finally, the facts show that the military is pretty solidly middle class, with a bunch of rich and poor thrown in.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2...13mythfact.pdf

[cokLoolioli]

I'm still confused as to Bush is sending in additional troops anyway? Didn't he declare victory in Iraq some years ago? Don't tell me he was premature in his victory speech?

As you well know, he did not claim Victory. He said the Mission was accomplished, which was the invasion of Iraq and destruction of Sadaams regime. He has not claimed victory in the war on islamic fascism which is what is going on in Iraq now. If you want to make jokes, we have a "just for fun" section. Sarcasm adds nothing to the debate.

[Cajlwdvx]

I noted with interest that the President intents to send another 20,000 or so military men and women to their possible death or maiming in Iraq. I want to make just a few points.
A- This war was won when the Iraqi held elections. We promised them a democracy and from now on its up to them to keep it. We are not there to referee a civil war.
B- If "mistakes were made", should someone not be held responsible. Like the Secretary of Defense who was told over and over again that things were not working out?
C- And finally: This war will, as always, be paid for with the blood of the lower and middle classes. When the presidents daughters enlist for officer cadet training it will be OK for my grandchildren to go. As long as they stay home, I hope my grandchildren do too.

D-Every war in the history of mankind is paid with the blood of the lower and middle classes. They see it as a way out of the pathetic situation they're in. The wealthy have no reason to fight, other than patriotism, because they're in a financial position the other classes hope to achieve.

Varus

[Cajlwdvx]

As you well know, he did not claim Victory. He said the Mission was accomplished, which was the invasion of Iraq and destruction of Sadaams regime. He has not claimed victory in the war on islamic fascism which is what is going on in Iraq now. If you want to make jokes, we have a "just for fun" section. Sarcasm adds nothing to the debate.

He may not know that. Many liberals refuse to actually base any of their idiotic statements on facts. They much prefer the liberal rhetoric they're being force fed.

Varus

[ahagotyou]

As you well know, he did not claim Victory. He said the Mission was accomplished, which was the invasion of Iraq and destruction of Sadaams regime. He has not claimed victory in the war on islamic fascism which is what is going on in Iraq now. If you want to make jokes, we have a "just for fun" section. Sarcasm adds nothing to the debate.

Good point jviehe. That style of sarcasm is just a backhanded way to present strawman argument. Sarcasm is great for an aside to punctuate a point you have already made or to make a joke, but if you use as the main point of your post it is simply a cowardly avoidance of the issue. A strawman.

And the Anti-USA activists' criticism of a "mission accomplished" banner on an ship returning to port after a long deployment is nothing but a diversion.

I'm sure the sailors on that ship felt that they did accomplish their mission and it was fucking great that the President went there and told them so in person. He let them know that their efforts are important and appreciated.

Of course that's going to piss-off anti-USA zealots and they will try to downplay and mischaracterize events like that. Anything that praises the sailors that contributed to the downfall of the bastion of socialism in the Mid-East, Der Furher Hussein, is going to piss off the leftos.

[fashikn]

I recall something about Rumsfeld saying that the attacks and the levels of violence traditionally decrease during the months of Feb/March/April.
If so, Bush is using this time frame to take advantage of this fact to quickly get these additional troops on the ground in Baghdad and falsely claim credit for the reduced violence.

Bush is clearly delusional if he actually believes that an additional 15K to 20K troops will make a whit of difference. " Together Forward " was a 50K influx and that was a failure.
But we are to believe that this time it will be a success becauise troops will remain on every street corner to keep the peace?
An area the rough equivalent to LA will be kept under control with 15K? Whose 15K? US troops or Iraqis? If it is us, cut that # in half - unless BushCo expects them to work 24 hours a day every day. So 7500 troops will secure and hold a city of 6 million people?
And if the Iraqis take up the task? Laughable - they will not confront their fellow Shi'ites. So the civil war will continue unabated.

[Cajlwdvx]

I recall something about Rumsfeld saying that the attacks and the levels of violence traditionally decrease during the months of Feb/March/April.
If so, Bush is using this time frame to take advantage of this fact to quickly get these additional troops on the ground in Baghdad and falsely claim credit for the reduced violence.

Yeah we know liberals are going to blame Bush if the violence increases and if it decreases. Liberals only solution is to quit and run as fast as possible.

Bush is clearly delusional if he actually believes that an additional 15K to 20K troops will make a whit of difference. " Together Forward " was a 50K influx and that was a failure. Liberals are delusional if they think surrendering will solve anything.

But we are to believe that this time it will be a success becauise troops will remain on every street corner to keep the peace?
An area the rough equivalent to LA will be kept under control with 15K? Whose 15K? US troops or Iraqis? If it is us, cut that # in half - unless BushCo expects them to work 24 hours a day every day. So 7500 troops will secure and hold a city of 6 million people?
And if the Iraqis take up the task? Laughable - they will not confront their fellow Shi'ites. So the civil war will continue unabated. What's laughable is that liberals think quitting is the answer. We know how they handled this threat with Clinton for 8yrs.

The simple fact is the liberals are afraid this military action will meet with complete success and they've been against it every step of the way.

It's f*cked up that we have to fight with half of our own country to defeat a known threat because they're afraid it'll make Bush look good.

Varus

[kylsq0Ln]

D-Every war in the history of mankind is paid with the blood of the lower and middle classes. They see it as a way out of the pathetic situation they're in. The wealthy have no reason to fight, other than patriotism, because they're in a financial position the other classes hope to achieve.

Varus

Hey, varus, you turned Marxist I see. This analysis could have come from the man himself.

[Cajlwdvx]

Hey, varus, you turned Marxist I see. This analysis could have come from the man himself.

Well except for the whole respecting property rights thing.

Varus

[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

I managed to fall asleep during Bush' speech. He did a great job impersonating Al Snore. That had to be one of his most boring speeches to date. A impressive feat considering all the new content Bush introduced before I dozed off.

[cokLoolioli]

What do you expect? People were just upset their Rosie vs Trump fight was interrupted. Im sure most of us on here already knew what he was going to say.

[annouhMus]

I noted with interest that the President intents to send another 20,000 or so military men and women to their possible death or maiming in Iraq. I want to make just a few points.
A- This war was won when the Iraqi held elections. We promised them a democracy and from now on its up to them to keep it. We are not there to referee a civil war.
B- If "mistakes were made", should someone not be held responsible. Like the Secretary of Defense who was told over and over again that things were not working out?
C- And finally: This war will, as always, be paid for with the blood of the lower and middle classes. When the presidents daughters enlist for officer cadet training it will be OK for my grandchildren to go. As long as they stay home, I hope my grandchildren do too.

Something I have noticed over the past couple of weeks, is that he is talking about a surge (like 20000 all at once) but is saying that they will go in by drips and drabs. (that doesn't make sense-you can't have it both ways) I wonder if it isn't somewhat true, that he wants Congress to stop him, so he can say it's their fault.

[annouhMus]

Now he's on a base in Fort Benning Georgia, trying to convince the people who have no choice but obey, that it's their best plan

[annouhMus]

I didn't really get all the stuff which happened since late Nov. First, Bush says "We stay the course", then he says "We never stayed the course", then he says "Our course always was not to stay the course". He first praises the Iraq Study Group, but says he still wants to hear what the generals are saying, and the both of them told him that more troops won't solve the problem. And now, he shredders the Iraq Study group report, speeds back up the revolving door, sends more troops and stays the course. Which he never has been, by the way. W has flip-flopped so often in such a short time that what we have to do with here is called a serious "argumentative twister". George changes his opinion so fast that at any point, nobody can really say if the President is or is not against some idea. The only thing one can say with certainty is that he has absolutely no idea what to do. The Oval office really should release a probability-model on the Presidents point of view. This would make things easier.

You forgot to mention one minor detail, like: he said he would listen to his Generals (Which he did) and then promptly fired them because they didn't agree with him.