So does President Bush's speech today mean anything?

[JoeChalupa]

I agree with Bill O'Reilly on his take.

Who the hell cares. It'll be the same old crap about more training needed for the Iraqi troops, blah, blah. How long does it take to train the Iraqi troops?
We've been at it for 3 years now.

How long is boot camp now a days for the Army? Shit, after they are done they are ready to go to Iraq. Why are we still training Iraqi troops after 3 years.

Do they just not get it or what?

Tell us something new!!

[boutons]

"today mean anything"

It means the WH is RE-acting to the disastrous polls, since the WH hasn't been ACTing to run the Repub war as a priority, just like the WH/admin is failing to clear up the hurricane messes, or run the US govt with competence and seriousness.

"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins," Bush told the audience of uniformed U.S. Navy midshipmen. "America will not abandon Iraq."

Cheap talk from a dumbshit liar and war evader. He's lost all credibility and any moral authority his naive followers ever gave him. People don't respect him, don't believe him, and his bullshit slogans and sound bites, plus sliming and trashing by dickhead, won't turn that around.

160K US military are being beaten by the 10K - 20K insurgents, "diffuse and sophisticated" (and with probably 100K sympathsizers providing cover and support) such that the daily violence continues, public security is absent, re-building the Iraq broken by the Repubs is being delayed by years, even impossible.

The US military runs a campaign to clear out a town or area, and then leaves, not having enoguh US or Iraqi forces (the fundamental problem) to keep the area clear, so the insurgents return.

[101A]

"today mean anything"

It means the WH is RE-acting to the disastrous polls, since the WH hasn't been ACTing to run the Repub war as a priority, just like the WH/admin is failing to clear up the hurricane messes, or run the US govt with competence and seriousness.

"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins," Bush told the audience of uniformed U.S. Navy midshipmen. "America will not abandon Iraq."

Cheap talk from a dumbshit liar and war evader. He's lost all credibility and any moral authority his naive followers ever gave him. People don't respect him, don't believe him, and his bullshit slogans and sound bites, plus sliming and trashing by dickhead, won't turn that around.

160K US military are being beaten by the 10K - 20K insurgents, "diffuse and sophisticated" (and with probably 100K sympathsizers providing cover and support) such that the daily violence continues, public security is absent, re-building the Iraq broken by the Repubs is being delayed by years, even impossible.

The US military runs a campaign to clear out a town or area, and then leaves, not having enoguh US or Iraqi forces (the fundamental problem) to keep the area clear, so the insurgents return.


I guess you are just going to ignore Lieberman's piece which pretty much refutes all you have to say on the war, huh?

Cheap talk from a liberal hate monger.

[Spurminator]

How long is boot camp now a days for the Army? Shit, after they are done they are ready to go to Iraq. Why are we still training Iraqi troops after 3 years.

I'm no military expert by any means, but I would imagine we're talking about a lot more training than boot camp noobs here... The entire military hierarchy has to be trained.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess you are just going to ignore Lieberman's piece which pretty much refutes all you have to say on the war, huh?

Cheap talk from a liberal hate monger.


Well I like Lieberman but I think he is part of the 'optimistic' crowd as oppsed to the 'realistic' crowd that most of America resides in.. I am a liberal but far from a hate monger..

[101A]

Well I like Lieberman but I think he is part of the 'optimistic' crowd as oppsed to the 'realistic' crowd that most of America resides in.. I am a liberal but far from a hate monger..

The label was pointed squarely at Boutons - he's obviously blinded by hatred.

As for Lieberman, he's been there 4 times in the past 17 months - so I give his optimism more weight than the pessism of people who are relying on what news is chosen to be reported for their opinions.

Have you read his article?

[spurster]

The Iraqization of the war is the right, maybe the only, exit strategy, but it isn't working too well even after a couple of year of "training". If Iraqi forces (the non-insurgent ones) were capable or becoming capable, the US would already be heading out, or at least I would hope so.

As for Lieberman's article, it's very hard to know the truth from what anyone says. The reporters can't move much because it's too dangerous so they get information and misinformation secondhand. Any major official like Lieberman is going to get a show put on for them. No Bush officials can be remotely critical otherwise they're fired.

The only thing that seems pretty sure is that we are still there with no immediate or clear plans to get out, which has pretty much been the status quo for a couple of years. That tells me Iraqization is not working as far as their armed forces are concerned. Politically, there has been progress with a constitution and elections, though there I think Iraq (minus the Kurds) will end up as an Islamic state more allied with Iran than friendly to the US.

[boutons]

101A, you're blinded by stupidity and the shit in your eyes from having your head up your ass.

Lieb, a politician (ie, with an agenda trying to exploit Iraq for his own ends), writes a single puff piece, in a sea of relentlessly negative reports, and you're so fucking desparate for ANY good news from Iraq, that you ignore all the bad stuff.

Did Lieb mention that public security, the KEY issue now, is so low and hard to assure that he probably had 100's of US military and mercenaries on the ground and air support for any move he made outside of Green zone or other armed camps?

Vigorous dissent against the Repub war, and total disrespect for dubya/dickhead/friends is based on their disastrous peformances of the past 5 years. Has nothing to do with hate.

[101A]

Scream louder, Boutons, it really helps make your point.

There is good new out of Iraq, Lieberman aside.

Saddam is out of power, his murderous sons are dead. Elections have been held, a constitution voted upon & there are more to come. The insurgency is not growing, and seems to focus more and more on soft targets - terrorism, not war. By the accounts of most soldiers they are welcomed by the Iraqi people, and those same people do not wish to leave prematurely, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. The economy is booming, house sales are up, I've got a nice bonus headed my way.

I have plenty to be thankful for, and positive about. If things are so bad for the adminstration, why are you so damned pissed all the time?

[101A]

The only thing that seems pretty sure is that we are still there with no immediate or clear plans to get out, which has pretty much been the status quo for a couple of years. That tells me Iraqization is not working as far as their armed forces are concerned.

From Lieberman's article:


Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

Did I miss something? Sounds like a plan to me.

[SA210]

Just politics from Bush today. Meant nothing. His numbers are still down. That's what today's speech was about.

[boutons]

Same as his "border security" bullshit in the Valley yesterday.

Reacting to in-the-toilet polls with bullshit speeches/slogans/sound bites because border security is a big hot button for a lot of red-staters, but also a negaive hot button for a lot of MA's who want the MX border porous, was NOT a program to actually spend the $$$ to increase real border security.

[SA210]

he always seems to make his speeches in front of a military crowd. :rolleyes

[101A]

His speech was primarily to introduce this:

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

[boutons]

"to introduce this:"

.... should have been introduced 3 years ago, and voted upon in Congress as part of the war authorization.

Too fucking little, too fucking late.

The Repug war was bullshit, half-truths, outright lies in conception, and has been bullshit in execution. Nothing can change that.

THAT is the unforgettable, unavoidable background (that dubya/dickhead wish everybody WOULD forget) to whatever new bullshit dubya/dickhead are laying us this week as they squirm under the weight of the The Great American People calling them on their bulllshit.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The applause was canned

[Vashner]

Bush kicked some ass today.

Soldiers win.. you loose. Go back to watching reruns of Platoon loozers.

http://home.satx.rr.com/krograth/images/fuckantiwarpeople01.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

Bush kicked some ass today.

Soldiers win.. you loose.


It must be true if Bush says so. :rolleyes

http://www.foxnews.com/images/106207/6_22_bush_mission_banner.jpg

[Useruser666]

Let's see, everyone still have their own preconceived notions? Check.

[Mr. Peabody]

It must be true if Bush says so. :rolleyes

http://www.foxnews.com/images/106207/6_22_bush_mission_banner.jpg

Shut up, you flaming liberal. If you had any balls, you'd be in Iraq spreading the seeds of democracy, instead of in your room spreading your seed on your keyboard. :jack

[Oh, Gee!!]

spreading your seed on your keyboard. :jack

Doesn't this imply that I do in fact have balls? I couldn't produce my pimp fluid without 'em could I?

[Mr. Peabody]

Wouldn't I need balls for this activity?

Doh!

<----- :idiot

[Yonivore]

I agree with Bill O'Reilly on his take.

Who the hell cares. It'll be the same old crap about more training needed for the Iraqi troops, blah, blah. How long does it take to train the Iraqi troops?
We've been at it for 3 years now.
I don't know Joe, how long did it take to train all the U. S. Marines now involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Were they all trained in armed in one boot camp?


How long is boot camp now a days for the Army? Shit, after they are done they are ready to go to Iraq. Why are we still training Iraqi troops after 3 years.

Do they just not get it or what?
I think it's you that doesn't get it.


Tell us something new!!
Okay...but, will you listen?

Here's four succint facts for ya.

• U.S. forces have turned over control of about 29 military bases to the Iraqis.

• Baghdad's once-violent Haifa Street is now more peaceful and under the control of an Iraqi army battalion.

• The Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none in July 2004.

• The number of Iraq army battalions "in the fight" has grown to 95, compared to five in August 2004.

Progress takes time...

[SA210]

It must be true if Bush says so. :rolleyes

http://www.foxnews.com/images/106207/6_22_bush_mission_banner.jpg
:lmao

[SequSpur]

This war is not what it was 3 years ago. Back then, it was about changing the leadership of the country and instilling a democratic society.

Now its about policing a country that has terroristic problems.

The battles and war were won long ago. Obviously Boutons doesn't know shit about the military.

Let me tell you something, the US military can take out an entire neighborhood in about 2 seconds. No other military has this capability.

When called upon, the US military takes swift action and destroys whatever is necessary to accomplish the mission.

Currently, the military is policing a country, which is not the mission of the military. Sorry...

I have had 3 nephews that have gone over there, 2 military police officers and 1 Ranger. They all experienced some sort of attack while there and the force they used was overwhelming and insurgents were scraped up off the floor after they were finished.

How do you stop car bombs? Suicide missions? Landmines? You don't.

I am quite sure that the deployment is already underway, troops are coming home and not being replaced.

There are more support troops now than there are combat troops.

To sit here and say that we are getting our ass kicked is frickin stupid.

[boutons]

The New York Times
December 1, 2005

News Analysis

Gaining Control in Iraq, and Regaining Support at Home
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - The political calculation behind President Bush's speech in Annapolis on Wednesday is that Washington, not Baghdad, is the battlefront that will decide the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq, but that Mr. Bush's decisions do not have to be driven by fears of heavy Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections.

At a time of increasing Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war and a drop in public support for the conflict, Mr. Bush's political advisers assert that they can still hold Congress next year. By their reasoning, there will be only 35 to 40 competitive seats in the House of Representatives, and at this point they see no evidence that the war will be the determining factor in those races. While there may be Democratic gains in the Senate, both parties doubt that the Republicans will lose control.

In any case, the advisers say, Mr. Bush is adamantly committed to holding tough in Iraq, even if it means disregarding the domestic political repercussions and pressure from his own party. The White House regularly asserts that Mr. Bush pays little heed to political considerations and no attention to opinion polls.

( ..... the lying bastards lie evey time they open their mouths.)

Democrats did not dispute the White House estimate of the number of competitive House races next year, but they said it was far too early to dismiss Iraq as a major factor in the elections. And Amy Walter, the senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which closely tracks Congressional races, said that most House races had not even started, and that the antiwar political climate "could still overwhelm the structural advantages of Republicans."

The longer term worry of the White House, Mr. Bush's advisers say, is that support for the war could drop so precipitously by the 2008 presidential election that a majority in Congress could demand withdrawal and start to hold back financing - the "cut and run" strategy that Mr. Bush both derides and fears.

(... ie, the polls indicate how people might vote, so the Congressbastards pay attention to them, and therefore the WH really does pay close attention to the polls, no matter how many times they lie that they don't.)


Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, said Mr. Bush must make adjustments in his Iraq policy or face failure there. If Mr. Bush does not, Mr. Biden said, "We will have traded a dictatorship for chaos, we will have a regional war from a civil war and a new haven for terrorists."

For those reasons, Mr. Bush presented a more comprehensive explanation on Wednesday of the administration's policy in Iraq than he has in recent months. What he left unclear in his strategy for "victory in Iraq" is how Americans will be able to measure any progress, and whether it is realistic to believe his ambitious goals.

The 35-page document that accompanied Mr. Bush's speech in Annapolis, titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," defined victory in the short term as "steady progress" in fighting terrorists, the meeting of political milestones, the building of democratic institutions and the training of Iraqi security forces. In the long term, it said victory would require no less than a peaceful and secure Iraq, "well integrated into the international community" and a "full partner" in fighting terrorism.

But in redefining victory as, effectively, creating conditions that would allow the United States to leave, Mr. Bush made no promises that he would be able to reduce American forces significantly in 2006.

But that is the one measure of success most meaningful to Americans, Ms. Walter said. "Voters' perceptions of success may not be the same as how military planners define success," she said. "If voters are still seeing a lot of violence and upheaval, success with a constitution or an election does not mean as much. They need some sort of tangible change. Troops coming home seems to be that sort of change."

In response to the Democrats who have demanded a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, Mr. Bush said that setting a deadline would send a message around the world that America was weak, and "would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America."

The "victory in Iraq" document does say that troop levels in Iraq "will decrease over time," but cautions that "we expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year."

Between the lines, the document offers an unusually candid assessment of what the administration still faces in Iraq. For example, it says that "it is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power." The words stand in dramatic contrast to what the administration was saying less than three years ago.

Mr. Bush's advisers said that his speech and the document were long overdue, and that the need for such a statement dated to last summer, when antiwar sentiment coalesced around Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who staged a monthlong protest outside the president's Texas ranch. In the view of some of Mr. Bush's advisers, the president lost a connection with the American people in August, when Ms. Sheehan commanded the stage and Mr. Bush spent much of the month out of sight.

The advisers said that a chance for the president to regain ground with voters was lost in September, when the White House was overwhelmed by Hurricane Katrina, and then again in October, when the West Wing remained in limbo over the investigation into the C.I.A. leak case.

After that, Mr. Bush's first significant speech on Iraq was on Nov. 11, when he punched back at his critics. The strategy now is to make a series of speeches on the subject.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[101A]

The advisers said that a chance for the president to regain ground with voters was lost in September, when the White House was overwhelmed by Hurricane Katrina, and then again in October, when the West Wing remained in limbo over the investigation into the C.I.A. leak case.

Anybody else notice that once Rove got (temporarily) out of hot water, the White-House's string of missteps & lackadaisacal handling of the beating they've been taking kind of stopped. Everybody's back on message now.

[boutons]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2005/ta051201.gif


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po051130.gif


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpswi/2005/wpswi051201.gif

.

[Nbadan]

Anybody else notice that once Rove got (temporarily) out of hot water, the White-House's string of missteps & lackadaisacal handling of the beating they've been taking kind of stopped. Everybody's back on message now.

Rove is hardly out of hot water. Fitzgerald is threatening to call a new grand jury any day now and this time, Rove may take Cheney down with him. The Republicans have initiated a campaign of fresh lies about the original justification for the Iraq war and since a majority of Americans spend less than 30 minutes listening to news, including such 'credible' sources as Bill O'Reilly and Rush, the lies seem to be working for now.

A temporary fix at best. The administration knows that with the current troop levels in the Army and Marines, we can't continue hold Iraq in it's present condition for ever. This is why we have all the 'wishful' thinking about troop redeployment coming from a bunch of Republican talking-heads.

Nixon did the same thing in Vietnam, except Nixon could be more critical of the Vietnam war because he didn't start it.

[gtownspur]

^Dude, you should just resort to masturbation instead of having Rove indictment wet dreams. It's worked for everyother liberal on this board.

But seriously, the only reason Fitz crackers has called a second grand jury was becuase of Bob Woodwards statement exonerating Libby.

[Nbadan]

^Dude, you should just resort to masturbation instead of having Rove indictment wet dreams. It's worked for everyother liberal on this board.

But seriously, the only reason Fitz crackers has called a second grand jury was becuase of Bob Woodwards statement exonerating Libby.

Woodward's statements don't exonerate Libby. Libby was indicted for lying to a federal investigator and obstruction of Justice. Nothing Woodward says can have the slightest effect on those charges.

[101A]

Rove is hardly out of hot water. Fitzgerald is threatening to call a new grand jury any day now and this time, Rove may take Cheney down with him. The Republicans have initiated a campaign of fresh lies about the original justification for the Iraq war and since a majority of Americans spend less than 30 minutes listening to news, including such 'credible' sources as Bill O'Reilly and Rush, the lies seem to be working for now.

A temporary fix at best. The administration knows that with the current troop levels in the Army and Marines, we can't continue hold Iraq in it's present condition for ever. This is why we have all the 'wishful' thinking about troop redeployment coming from a bunch of Republican talking-heads.

Nixon did the same thing in Vietnam, except Nixon could be more critical of the Vietnam war because he didn't start it.

I was just making an observation, Dan. I did put the "temorarily" disclaimer in there, after all. I believe Rove is certainly still under the gun, but the heat has been turned down in the most recent weeks, relatively.

In that time, the administration has:

1. Gotten rid of a very questionable Supreme Court Nominee
2. Picked a fight with a very conservative Nominee
3. Stayed much more on point and aggressive w/their talking points on Iraq.
4. Published their "Victory" guidelines.

Just suggesting Rove's fingerprints. Before this latest string, when it appeared an indictment was immenent, the WH looked about as discombobulated as any I can remember, since he didn't get handed one, it has looked more cohesive. That's all I was saying.

[SA210]

Woodward's statements don't exonerate Libby. Libby was indicted for lying to a federal investigator and obstruction of Justice. Nothing Woodward says can have the slightest effect on those charges.
This is actually common senes to some ppl.