Our Troops Must Stay

[101A]

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

[
Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. :hat The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

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.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.



THIS is bigger news that what Murtha had to say. ALL kinds of good, encouraging news in there. NONE of this gets reported. Hell, the only places reporting this take from a DEMOCRAT are conservative talk-show radio hosts! CBS, CNN, NBC et al. couldn't wait to put Murtha's blubbering face all over my set - where the hell is the coverage for this?

Are they too busy basking in the glow of G.W.'s falling numbers to get distracted? Are they (and the democrats) so hate-filled and power starved that they would throw an entire, budding, aspiring democracy asside for their own purposes. It appears they would.

Shame on them.

[101A]

NBADAN, Boutons, any liberal out there have a comment on this? Pretty much says it all, doesn't it. It's working, it's going well, Iraq is a shining beacon to the rest of the ME. Cheney, Rumsfeld and GW were all correct. Mistakes were made, but learned from, and forgiven!

This guy was on the Democratic Ticket not 6 years ago people. This is big.

Anyone, Bueller....Bueller....

[Big Pimp_21]

Good article. What I want to know is why this topic is yet to get a response, but when Jeb Bush's son got a DUI, we get a frenzy of posts and replies.

[101A]

Good article. What I want to know is why this topic is yet to get a response, but when Jeb Bush's son got a DUI, we get a frenzy of posts and replies.

They just want this topic off the front page.

Can't deal with the truth.

Now lets start a thread about how the economy launching.....the timing couldn't be better for the elections next year.

[ChumpDumper]

This isn't big at all -- he's said this all along.

We're there and we have to stay there to not look like the big bunch of pussies we may or may not actually be.

So what?

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't support the President and I think the War in Iraq was unjustified at the outset. I have always supported the War in Afghanistan, which to my way of thinking is the only justifiable war on terror at the moment -- and sadly, while Afghanistan is the most important front in the war on terror, it receives little or no mention these days and has been mentally subsumed in most minds within the action in Iraq.

With that said, however, I also agree with Lieberman's position on this. It makes no sense, now that we're there to pull out until the situation has been fully stablized. The Mujahedeen was emboldened by the Soviet pullout of Afghanistan in the early 80's - given reason to believe that it had won. We can't make that mistake, because the consequences of an early pullout would only redouble the efforts and resolve of the small faction of militants who contort the principles of Islam to suit their political agenda. So, while I don't think we should have ever gone there in the first place, now that we're there, it's imperative that we leave on our terms and only after the threat of terrorism has been effectively eradicated. Unfortunately, I think that means that the United States will have a military presence in Iraq for the remainder of my lifetime and that such a presence will only cause the problem to remain unsolvable.

But, if we're going to remain, we might as well provide a soil in which an attempt at a middle eastern democracy can take root. If those things are happening, it's a nice byproduct of what I think was a massive foreign policy mistake.

I don't support regime change for the sake of regime change, and I think the invasion of a sovereign Iraq on false pretenses sets a horrendous precedent that will leave this country perceived either as a bully or as horribly inconsistent.

[101A]

I don't support regime change for the sake of regime change,

I honestly no longer no where I stand on that anymore. 5 years ago, no question, I was right there with you. I just have trouble sitting idly by (not saying that is necessarily your position), only attacking AFTER we've been attacked - which is why I assume you feel the Afghanistan war is legitimate.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, and here I thought it was the Democrats who were supposed to be soft on defense.

:rolleyes

Liebermann is a war hawk, has always been a war hawk and will always be a war hawk. So his position on Iraq is not surprising in the least. In fact, it would be more surprising if Liebermann stood up with John Murtha, and members of the Administration in calling for a withdrawal time-table from Iraq.

It’s funny that Iraqi polls are rarely mentioned in the U.S. mainstream media unless they can be some how twisted to benefit the news coming from Iraq. For instance, poll after poll in Iraq have shown that a majority of Iraqis, including Kurds and Shiite, want U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq. Perhaps this is part of the shiny, optimistic future Iraqis look forward too?

The latest lame attempt by war supporters to justify this boon-dongle is to try and personalize the war by showing schools opening in Iraq while they are closing back home. 200+ billion dollars later, more money than we are spending in the rebuild of New Orleans, and the city of Baghdad still has intermittent power, dirty water, and a virtually non-existent police force.

Republican chicken-hawks have to try and personalize the war because if you look at the big picture, things in Iraq look bleak. Predominantly, Shiite Iraqi cities that once had virtually little resistance are now hot-beds of terrorism. The Iraq-Syrian border area is a virtual war zone as this war threatens to spread into a regional conflict. The number and sophistication of road-side bombings and suicide bombings has gone up exponentially. Thanks to this war, Iraq has become a terrorist training ground. The bombing in Jordan was planned and supplied in Iraq.

[101A]

Murtha didn't call for a timetable - he called for immediate withdrawal. I live in Western PA - I have heard the quote far more than y'all can imagine.

Could you cite one of your polls, please.

The bombings have not gone up exponentially. You do understand exponents don't you?

I think if terrorists are dumb enough to try to train in the midst of the US military, let them.

So Lieberman is a liar?

[FromWayDowntown]

I honestly no longer no where I stand on that anymore. 5 years ago, no question, I was right there with you. I just have trouble sitting idly by (not saying that is necessarily your position), only attacking AFTER we've been attacked - which is why I assume you feel the Afghanistan war is legitimate.

That's precisely why I believe in the war in Afghanistan.

My problem with a foreign policy that embraces regime change is that it either: (1) creates an imperialism in which this country assumes that it can dictate the political decision-making in sovereign nations by suggesting regime change when we dislike leadership; or (2) is inherently applied on an inconsistent basis because it is used only in some circumstances.

If it is important that we bring democracy to Iraq by regime change, why doesn't the same principle apply in North Korea or other such places? It doesn't apply there because a war with North Korea would be brutal in many respects. But if we're all about liberating oppressed people and giving them the freedoms associated with democratic states, we should seemingly be willing to bear any cost to accomplish that goal. The reason we aren't willing to bear any cost to accomplish that goal, though, is because it's truly not that important to the government. It's important only where there is some other goal that can be attained. So it's not truly a foreign policy choice -- it's a backhanded rationalization for invading countries that jeopardize our strategic interests.

I find that troubling, but I understand that others don't. In any event, that's where I stand.

[Nbadan]

Murtha didn't call for a timetable - he called for immediate withdrawal. I live in Western PA - I have heard the quote far more than y'all can imagine.

You heard what the MSM wanted to you hear. Here is Murtha's plan from his own congressional site... (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html)


My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Now that hardly sounds to me like a immediate withdrawl plan.

[Yonivore]

This isn't big at all -- he's said this all along.

We're there and we have to stay there to not look like the big bunch of pussies we may or may not actually be.

So what?
So, I guess this means you'll be supporting the war effort from here out?

[ChumpDumper]

So, I guess this means you'll be supporting the war effort from here out?My opinion hasn't changed either -- it's only the idiots like you who can't read that never got it.

We're there for the long run, good or bad.

[Yonivore]

My opinion hasn't changed either -- it's only the idiots like you who can't read that never got it.

We're there for the long run, good or bad.
So, why don't you just quit with the criticism and get behind the effort? If we're there for the duration what good is the Monday morning quarterbacking?

[ChumpDumper]

So, why don't you just quit with the criticism and get behind the effort?Because I'm not a lap dog like you.

I'm happy for whatever successes are achieved there but I will never pretend it was a fabulous idea to go in the first place.

[Yonivore]

Because I'm not a lap dog like you.

I'm happy for whatever successes are achieved there but I will never pretend it was a fabulous idea to go in the first place.
Even if your criticism undermines the efforts being undertaken? Well, that's pretty selfish, if you ask me.

Nobody's asking you to be a lap dog. Why not just shut the fuck up if you don't have anything positive to contribute?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why not just shut the fuck up if you don't have anything positive to contribute?

I'm pretty sure this is actual language from the Patriot Act.

[ChumpDumper]

Even if your criticism undermines the efforts being undertaken?It doesn't.
Nobody's asking you to be a lap dog.No, you're telling me to shut up.

Nice. It's all about freedom isn't it?

[Yonivore]

It doesn't.
I believe it does.


No, you're telling me to shut up.
Which is my right. I can't compel you shut up, I can only appeal to what is obviously a very small logic center in your very small brain.


Nice. It's all about freedom isn't it?
Apparently.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe it does.Nah.
Which is my right.As it is mine to tell you to go fuck yourself with a steely dan.

[Yonivore]

Nah.As it is mine to tell you to go fuck yourself with a steely dan.
Very good, conversation over scrote-sucker. ;)

[Oh, Gee!!]

Very good, conversation over scrote-sucker. ;)


are you a dude or a chick?

[FromWayDowntown]

I believe it does.

And that belief should be conclusive as to the rest of us? Come on.

You can't really be that arrogant, can you?

I mean, by what virtue does your personal belief as to whether Chump's arguments are subversive lead to an ironclad conclusion that criticisms like his actually undermine the American activities in Iraq?

Are the terrorists going to disappear if Chump or I (or countless others) cease to be critical of the reasons that we're in Iraq in the first place? If you can absolutely guarantee me that result with 100% certainty, you'll win at least my silence on this issue.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't get the whole "hurting the effort with criticism" argument. If the soldiers who chose to serve our country can be beat into submission by a few internet posts that question the wisdom of their being in Iraq in the first place, we truly are a nation of pussies who won't win any war.

I have a higher opinion of those soldiers.

I haven't seen anything close to a real, measureable goal for the Iraqization schemes everyone is talking about, so I can only conclude that it's a bunch of political gainsaying bullshit so far -- and we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[exstatic]

So, if they have 27 million good Iraqis, and only 10,000 derelicts, why can't THEIR 27 million fucking people deal with them?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[SpursWoman]

I'm pretty sure this is actual language from the Patriot Act.


:lol :lol

[exstatic]

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 think that's the crux of the matter. People are pissed because more troops keep dying to RE-TAKE some of the same towns. THAT, my friends, constitutes a waste of troop's lives.

They're only ramping up 100K Iraqi troops? And they're expecting them to pull the load that 150K of our troops are straining under? We'll never be out of Iraq...

[jochhejaam]

Are the terrorists going to disappear if Chump or I (or countless others) cease to be critical of the reasons that we're in Iraq in the first place?
Freedom of expression gives you the right to beat a dead horse but why would you want to?
Information comes out about good news in Iraq and the best some can come up with is to offer a negative rehashing about how unjust the War is

The desecration of freedom by partisans, how refreshing!

[ChumpDumper]

So the government can throw us into any situation it pleases and we're just supposed to shrug and think the only thing to do is to swallow any story and believe any press release and just wave my flag until we get thrown into another shitstorm?

Being told to blindly go through life without a thought in your head, how refreshing!

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]So the government can throw us into any situation it pleases and we're just supposed to shrug and think the only thing to do is to swallow any story and believe any press release and just wave my flag until we get thrown into another shitstorm?
No, believe the worst and continue beating the 'unjust war" issue to death, that's far more constructive than the option of looking for the positives.






Being told to blindly go through life without a thought in your head, how refreshing!
Hoping for the best and enjoying the good reads that the liberal news mediums fail to report is refreshing and also far from being blind.

[ChumpDumper]

It's a hypocritical war at best, and forgive me for not thinking the long term effects of the invasion and occupation might not be all rainbows and puppy dogs -- especially since the issue of withdrawl is now a political football.

[jochhejaam]

It's a hypocritical war at best and forgive me
<sigh> I can see that you just can't help yourself...I forgive you.

[ChumpDumper]

Show me the rainbows and puppy dogs.

[ChumpDumper]

Better yet, just show me an actual exit strategy if that's what we're supposed to eventually do.

[FromWayDowntown]

Freedom of expression gives you the right to beat a dead horse but why would you want to?
Information comes out about good news in Iraq and the best some can come up with is to offer a negative rehashing about how unjust the War is

The desecration of freedom by partisans, how refreshing!

Yes, you're right. I should relent and just wait until the next time my government is about to become entrenched in a completely unjustifiable war. I should join the lemming parade and parrot those raving about how wonderful this President is.

Or something.

Frankly, joch, I'd rather be a vigilant reminder that the policies of this government have placed the nation in an untenable situation again -- that we still haven't learned from our earlier mistakes. Apparently, sitting idly by and resisting the temptation to "beat a dead horse" wasn't very persuasive when it came time to decide about creating another quagmire in an extremely hostile environment where there is relatively little to gain and a great deal to lose. If you wish to castigate me for that, so be it. I don't consider questioning the government's policies to be either subversive or counter-productive.

[jochhejaam]

Show me the rainbows and puppy dogs.
Why, so you can give me the pull-a-string response about how unjust the war is?
Your take on the war is clouded by your perception that we shouldn't be there and because of that I don't believe your capable of reviewing any good news that comes out of Iraq in an objective manner.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]Yes, you're right. I should relent and just wait until the next time my government is about to become entrenched in a completely unjustifiable war. I should join the lemming parade and parrot those raving about how wonderful this President is.
Nice and balanced response FWD, thanks for illustrating objectivity, I had thought that was a dying art...

[ChumpDumper]

Exit strategy please. Be specific. None of the "standing on there own feet" platitudes.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]Frankly, joch, I'd rather be a vigilant reminder that the policies of this government have placed the nation in an untenable situation again -- that we still haven't learned from our earlier mistakes.
You and 20 million others so don't come off like your a pioneer with that stance, who's the lemming here?






Apparently, sitting idly by and resisting the temptation to "beat a dead horse" wasn't very persuasive when it came time to decide about creating another quagmire in an extremely hostile environment where there is relatively little to gain and a great deal to lose. If you wish to castigate me for that, so be it. I don't consider questioning the government's policies to be either subversive or counter-productive.
I don't wish to castigate you for the stance you've taken, I'm just airing my opinion that it's become a jaded position.

[FromWayDowntown]

Nice and balanced response FWD, thanks for illustrating objectivity, I had thought that was a dying art...

Gosh, is that all you can get on my position -- that I'm not objective? What on Earth requires or even suggests that I should even try to be objective about my viewpoint on this issue, joch? I disagree with the President. I find that many who support the President cannot articulate principled reasons for their support. I find their position to be similar to that of lemmings and parrots. It's my opinion on a political issue; it's not as if I'm trying to report fact or anything like that. Is expressing my opinion that the President is inept beating a dead horse too?


You and 20 million others so don't come off like your a pioneer with that stance, who's the lemming here?

I never suggested that I was attempting to be pioneering. I just noted that I won't shy away from my position because I also don't support willy-nilly withdrawal of our troops. If I'm joined in that by 20 million citizens as you say, then it suggests to me that support for my position is actually fairly strong, which I find redeeming. Thanks.



I don't wish to castigate you for the stance you've taken, I'm just airing my opinion that it's become a jaded position.

Hey, what happened to balance and objectivety, joch? What's good for the goose . . . right?

:lol

[jochhejaam]

Exit strategy please. Be specific. None of the "standing on there own feet" platitudes.
When the Iraqi government stabilizes and their military can control the insurgents. Those conditions are progressing and cannot be helped by negativity or pointing out how unjust it is that we're there.

Please justify how the naysayers and complaining crowds of politicians and American citizens can benefit our soldiers and facilitate a quick and effective withdrawl of our troops. Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

When the Iraqi government stabilizes and their military can control the insurgents.Not specific at all. Quantify stability and control.
Please justify how the naysayers and complaining crowds of politicians and American citizens can benefit our soldiers and facilitate a quick and effective withdrawl of our troops.Are you serious? If we're just talking about soldiers, they could bring them all home immediately. That would benefit the soldiers immensely.

I can only assume you ddin't mean that and that you find words "hard."

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]Gosh, is that all you can get on my position -- that I'm not objective? Uhm, no, my main take on you position is that you're negative.


What on Earth requires or even suggests that I should even try to be objective about my viewpoint on this issue, joch? Nothing requires it FWD, stay in your foxhole and only consider the fact that "it's an unjust war".





I disagree with the President. I find that many who support the President cannot articulate principled reasons for their support. Why do you feel that I think you should reconcile your views on the war with the present Administration? I haven't suggested that at all.




I never suggested that I was attempting to be pioneering.
Of course you weren't, your vigilant and those that don't see it your way are lemmings.
So you're intelligent and anyone that doesn't agree with you is a lemming, that's ridiculous.

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course you weren't, your vigilant and those that don't see it your way are lemmings.

So you're intelligent and anyone that doesn't agree with you is a lemming, that's ridiculous.

And you apparently either can't read or choose not to.

I specifically said that I find that some of those who support the President have no principled reasons for their support. I didn't say all and I didn't even say most. I said some. I said that because your suggestion that I relent from my position would require me to assume a place in that parade -- I cannot support the President's actions in the first instance and any attempt to suggest that I could would be an act of mindless following, similar to the behavior of lemmings. Hence, my effort to equate my acquiesence to your point to my joining the parade of lemmings. Got it?

I respect (but disagree with) the viewpoints of those who have principled bases to support the President. I think those people are wrong, but I appreciate the fact that they've thought about the reasons for their taking up those positions. To be perfectly clear, joch -- I'm not calling those people lemmings even though they disagree with me. Is that easy enough?

[jochhejaam]

[
QUOTE=ChumpDumper]Not specific at all. Quantify stability and control.
Since it's almost 1:00am here and my alarm goes off at 5:00 I'll have to quatify stability as me needing to get off the keyboard and in to bed. :lol




Quote=jochhejaam:Please justify how the naysayers and complaining crowds of politicians and American citizens can benefit our soldiers


=chumpdumper: Are you serious? If we're just talking about soldiers, they could bring them all home immediately. That would benefit the soldiers immensely.
Okay, that does not answer my question about how negativity and complaining benefits them or anyone.
I'll answer it for you and save you the time, it does not benefit them or anyone!

[ChumpDumper]

Sure it answered your question -- a poorly thought out and worded question.

You're just overtired.

[MannyIsGod]

God, it feels as though it is the same thread everyday.

[gtownspur]

Exit strategy please. Be specific. None of the "standing on there own feet" platitudes.

:pctoss

THis is getting nerve racking to explain for those who have selective hearing.

The president said from the get go that the war on Iraq would take a while to complete. He also said that we will withdraw upon the suggestion of the ground generals assesment and the Iraqi people's success in sef governing and ruling. The withdrawal is based on set conditions, not on imaginary datelines. We're dealing with an enemy who is patient, and thrives on impatience and weakness.

What you want is to to fuck conditions, lets have an imaginary time table/war itinerary where we can play pretend and dictate the progress of the war, and the terms on which the insurgents will surrender so we can declare victory. Once Zarqawi and OBL find out we have an exit strategy, they will concede because this is the world of Make believe Liberal policies. Sounds reasonable? Here i came up with my own exit strategy.

By april 1st, 2006, We will withdraw 40k troops from iraq and hold a national parade just for shits and giggles. After that Zarqawi once knowing that we set up a schedule will start to reign in on the car bombings and roadside explosions. Because look everybody, its the exit strategy! Everything will go as planned without battleground errors, massive uprising, more insurgent attack or logistical errors.

By the Beggining of June, I will invoke executive order 12536 to have Jessica Alba have an all nude all female sitcom. During the first episode, we will negotiate with syria on a border fence, and then we will withdraw 40k more troops along with Kanye West radio play in the Middle east.

By september, we will have all troops sent home in time for the NFL season to start and we will declare victory becuase the exit strategy has commenced. :elephant

Can you believe the stupidiy? It's like a concerned relative asking the doctor when their loved one will be healed or become healthy again, and the doctor not knowing himself. But hey, he has an exit strategy. Who cares if the patient ever recooperates, he'll pull the plug and all viable life supporting liquids by midnight and declare success!

"..Boy Dr. Freeman, I guess poor ol' bobby bit the dust and was denied proper treatment. But, hey now, we wont level a lawsuit. You had an exit strategy!":lmao

[ChumpDumper]

The withdrawal is based on set conditionsOk, what are these conditions?

How many times do I have to ask what these conditions are?'

I never called for a specific date, so why is your stupid, ignorant ass trying to use that straw man?

[gtownspur]

Well i was assuming how you were a big lawyer and all and your well informed, you would of heard of Bush's conditions for victory the many times he said it. You want an exit stategy, provide one and quit talking out your ass. I mean, every time the democrats demanded an exit strategy, they demanded time tables. ANd you can't have time tables if your exit strategy is based on the performance and will of a third party.

The conditions are we leave once:

The iraqi's have enough battalions to support their defense.

And the iraqi people can govern their country, or ask us to leave.

Those are not only conditions for withdrawal, but for victory. That's the exit strategy. THe exit strategy is based on Iraqi performance as well as victory.

I mean what else can you base an exit strategy on... a date?

[ChumpDumper]

The iraqi's have enough battalions to support their defense.How many?
And the iraqi people can govern their countryHow do you know when that happens?

Again, quit with the fucking chickenshit, nonexistent straw man.

If you don't know the number of battalions or what comprises ability of the Iraqis to govern themselves, quit making yourself look like a a fucking fool.

I ask a simple question that should be easy for you to answer -- all i get is the same vague bullshit.

[gtownspur]

Why does the number of battalions matter. In the end it will all be the army's assesment that matters. What happens if Bush say's a certain number of batallions will do the job and it doesnt? It's pointless. You want Bush to pull out a library of military strategy to prove that there's an exit strategy.

Let me ask you. How many batallions do you want? WHatever number you give the country is the number we'll go by since you are so tuned into military tactics and all.

I'm not using a strawman. You say you want an exit strategy, but what you reall want are dates, and pathetic numbers that wont determine readiness in the end.

I mean what happens if Iraq's readiness won't come in the near future? Am i gonna expect you to commence with a time table?

[SA210]

Bush is a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does the number of battalions matter.You just said it would.
You want Bush to pull out a library of military strategy to prove that there's an exit strategy.No I want actual, measurable goals. They can certainly e changed if circumstances warrant.
Let me ask you.Why should I make up a plan? They say they have the plan. I simply want to know what the plan actually is. What is wrong with that?
I'm not using a strawman. You say you want an exit strategy, but what you reall want are dates, and pathetic numbers that wont determine readiness in the end.Again with the fucking straw man -- you don't even know what one is do you? Tell me what the fuck determines readiness.
I mean what happens if Iraq's readiness won't come in the near future?I personally don't think it's possible in the near future and that we're going to be there for a long time. What your stupid ass has never comprehended is that I have never called for a withdrawl since the invasion started and have never made a mention of any chickenshit strawman date.

If measureable progress is being made toward a goal in Iraq, how come the goal itself is not measureable?

[gtownspur]

If measureable progress is being made toward a goal in Iraq, how come the goal itself is not measureable?


Because numbers wont accurately measure readiness. The iraqi people and the US generals who are far more advanced in those areas will at that time. LIke i said. Number of battalions wont determine anything.

[Neuromancer]

What an idiot.

[gtownspur]

What determines readiness are the generals on the ground like bush said. THat will be a complicated issue, and cannot be simplified or dumbdown in a brochure like you'd like it.

THis is a war plan and not a freakin Treadmill instrucion manual.

Get it through your head.

[gtownspur]

Bush is a liar.

Pants.....on....fire... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

So the generals have no strategy and no measureable goals for this readiness?

They aren't working toward anything?

You were the one who threw the number of battalions out there -- why are you backing off of that now?

Are they just going to jump up and say "Surprise! We're ready!" one day?
THis is a war plan and not a freakin Treadmill instrucion manual. Yes, it's a war plan.Wars have plans and goals. It might be too compicated for your tiny mind to understand, but i'm sure I can handle an overview of some measureable goals.

[SA210]

Pants.....on....fire... :lol
Exactly!!! :lol

[gtownspur]

I backed off the number of batallions, becuase i wasn't sure of whether that was a qualifier.

THe generals do have a strategy, and that's only to deter civil war and rebuild iraqs defense infrastructure. That's their strategy. To make a very specific and detailed goal would do no good because one cannot predict on readiness of the Iraqis by projections. It make take more than what one would expect or less. Who knows.

[ChumpDumper]

To make a very specific and detailed goal would do no good because one cannot predict on readiness of the Iraqis by projections.That's exactly what they do. Of course they are subject to change, but to think the Pentagon doesn't have very specific and detailed goals already written down is absurd.
Who knows.You don't, which was my real point.

Hopefully, the underground right wing media will shine some light on this.

All kidding aside I do want to know the preliminary details of this plan. It's no crime if you are curious as well.

[Nbadan]

I backed off the number of batallions, becuase i wasn't sure of whether that was a qualifier.

THe generals do have a strategy, and that's only to deter civil war and rebuild iraqs defense infrastructure. That's their strategy. To make a very specific and detailed goal would do no good because one cannot predict on readiness of the Iraqis by projections. It make take more than what one would expect or less. Who knows.

That's not a strategy, that's more of the same old, same old. Putting lipstick on a pig does little use.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I got my answer from the White House in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

It's "largely classified."

So the surprise theory is reality after all. Wave the flag until further notice.

[Nbadan]

Well, I got my answer from the White House in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

It's "largely classified."

So the surprise theory is reality after all. Wave the flag until further notice.

This may come in handy...read it and weap...


The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining.

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected."

CNN posts document: National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (pdf file) (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/11/30/iraq.strategy.pdf)

[Nbadan]

The 'terrorists' are desperate...


RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi militants attacked a U.S. base and a local government building with mortar rounds and rockets in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, on Thursday, before holding ground on several central streets, residents said.

Around 400 heavily armed and masked men were patrolling the main thoroughfares of the city, long a focus of guerrilla activity, and had set up checkpoints at entrance and exit points, residents from across Ramadi told Reuters. snip

"They've taken control of all the main streets and other sections of Ramadi," a reporter for Reuters in the city said. "I've seen about 400 armed men controlling streets, some of which were controlled by Americans before," he said.

Swiss Info (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6281902&cKey=1133428827000)

You are in your last throes!! So finish throeing already!

:lol

[Nbadan]

Plan: We Win
Published: December 1, 2005


We've seen it before: an embattled president so swathed in his inner circle that he completely loses touch with the public and wanders around among small knots of people who agree with him. There was Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's, Richard Nixon in the 1970's, and George H. W. Bush in the 1990's. Now it's his son's turn.

It has been obvious for months that Americans don't believe the war is going just fine, and they needed to hear that President Bush gets that. They wanted to see that he had learned from his mistakes and adjusted his course, and that he had a measurable and realistic plan for making Iraq safe enough to withdraw United States troops. Americans didn't need to be convinced of Mr. Bush's commitment to his idealized version of the war. They needed to be reassured that he recognized the reality of the war.

Instead, Mr. Bush traveled 32 miles from the White House to the Naval Academy and spoke to yet another of the well-behaved, uniformed audiences that have screened him from the rest of America lately. If you do not happen to be a midshipman, you'd have to have been watching cable news at midmorning on a weekday to catch him.

The address was accompanied by a voluminous handout entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which the White House grandly calls the newly declassified version of the plan that has been driving the war. If there was something secret about that plan, we can't figure out what it was. The document, and Mr. Bush's speech, were almost entirely a rehash of the same tired argument that everything's going just fine. Mr. Bush also offered the usual false choice between sticking to his policy and beating a hasty and cowardly retreat.

On the critical question of the progress of the Iraqi military, the president was particularly optimistic, and misleading. He said, for instance, that Iraqi security forces control major areas, including the northern and southern provinces and cities like Najaf. That's true if you believe a nation can be built out of a change of clothing: these forces are based on party and sectarian militias that have controlled many of these same areas since the fall of Saddam Hussein but now wear Iraqi Army uniforms. In other regions, the most powerful Iraqi security forces are rogue militias that refuse to disarm and have on occasion turned their guns against American troops, like Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Mr. Bush's vision of the next big step is equally troubling: training Iraqi forces well enough to free American forces for more of the bloody and ineffective search-and-destroy sweeps that accomplish little beyond alienating the populace.

What Americans wanted to hear was a genuine counterinsurgency plan, perhaps like one proposed by Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a leading writer on military strategy: find the most secure areas with capable Iraqi forces. Embed American trainers with those forces and make the region safe enough to spend money on reconstruction, thus making friends and draining the insurgency. Then slowly expand those zones and withdraw American forces.

Americans have been clamoring for believable goals in Iraq, but Mr. Bush stuck to his notion of staying until "total victory." His strategy document defines that as an Iraq that "has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency"; is "peaceful, united, stable, democratic and secure"; and is a partner in the war on terror, an integral part of the international community, and "an engine for regional economic growth and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region."

That may be the most grandiose set of ambitions for the region since the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's son Belshazzar, who saw the hand writing on the wall. Mr. Bush hates comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge sacrifices ahead.

A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more.

Op. Ed, NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01thur1.html?hp)

[boutons]

Talking about planning ....

Here we go again, more of this week's "WH War on the Polls" PR puffery.

For $400B/year, EVERY YEAR, the generals are still always fighting the last war.

==================================

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Directive Prioritizes Post-Conflict Stability

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, December 1, 2005

A broad Pentagon directive issued this week orders the U.S. military to be sure, the next time it goes to war, to prepare more thoroughly for picking up the pieces afterward.


More than a year in the making, the directive represents an ambitious attempt to bring about a fundamental, permanent widening in what U.S. troops are trained and equipped to do. Accustomed to focusing primarily on combat operations, U.S. forces under the new order must now give post-conflict stability operations similar priority, which means they must be ready in foreign countries to carry out such tasks as developing political institutions, establishing judicial systems and reviving economic activities.

"Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support," the directive says. "They shall be given priority comparable to combat operations and be explicitly addressed and integrated across all" Pentagon activities.

The revised policy follows widespread criticism that the Pentagon neglected to plan sufficiently for the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Not only did conditions in the country turn out worse than anticipated -- in the form of a fierce insurgency and mammoth reconstruction challenges -- but early Pentagon hopes of being able to hand off a large share of responsibility to U.S. and foreign civilian organizations and to Iraqis proved overly optimistic.

As a result, the U.S. military in Iraq has been badly stressed to come up with the skills, equipment and troops to ensure security and begin rebuilding the country. The difficult experience has driven home the lesson that U.S. forces cannot always depend on others to step forward and help manage stability tasks.

"Many stability operations are best performed by indigenous, foreign or U.S. civilian professionals," the directive says, reflecting the Pentagon's sentiment still that it need not always lead in this area. "Nonetheless, U.S. military forces shall be prepared to perform all tasks necessary to establish or maintain order when civilians cannot do so."

The 11-page directive, signed Monday by acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, assigns long lists of specific responsibilities to the Pentagon's various civilian branches, military services and regional commands.

For instance, it instructs the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel to develop methods for recruiting people for stability operations and to bolster instruction in foreign languages and cultures. It orders the undersecretary for intelligence to ensure that "suitable" information for stability operations is available. And it directs the undersecretary for policy to create a "stability operations center" and submit a semiannual report to the secretary of defense.

These and other measures appear to go a long way toward addressing shortfalls highlighted in a critical study last year of the Pentagon's approach to stability operations. The study, done by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, concluded that though U.S. forces are good at winning conventional battles, they have tended to give short shrift to managing the aftermath.

One of the reasons for this, experts inside and outside the Pentagon said, has been the assumption among military planners that U.S. forces could win wars quickly, then withdraw from combat zones.

"In the 1990s, the talk, every time we were going to deploy something, was, 'What's the exit strategy?' " said Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The focus in war games, he recalled, was: "How do we get forces to places quickly? It was assumed they wouldn't be there long."

But the Iraq conflict has made clear that a rapid exit is not always possible. Warning that Iraq may not prove an exception, the Defense Science Board recommended that stability operations be made an explicit mission of the Defense Department and treated with the same seriousness as combat operations. That led Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to order the directive, senior aides said.

Craig Fields, who co-chaired the study, expressed satisfaction yesterday with the directive, an unsigned draft of which was reported on last week in the New York Times. "It covers a lot of ground, and it's in the right direction," he said.

At the same time, Fields noted that the release of the directive is only the start of change. Acting on it, he predicted, will "take a lot of effort over a long time."

Some defense scholars have urged the Pentagon to create constabulary units and other specialized forces to handle stability operations, saying that such troops could be kept abroad longer and provide skills not easily developed in conventional troops. But military commanders have considered the idea impractical, and Pentagon officials involved in drafting the new directive rejected it.

"As we looked at that question," said Jeffrey "Jeb" Nadaner, the deputy assistant secretary for stability operations, "we felt it was better to have the skills across the force."

Nadaner said the biggest sticking point during drafting of the document came in deciding who should monitor compliance. One option still being given serious consideration as recently as a few months ago involved putting a large committee in charge. But that was ruled out as too cumbersome, and the job ultimately went to the Pentagon's policy office.

"The idea is to get information frequently and directly to the secretary of defense so he could track the progress of change," Nadaner said. "If it's going through a big committee, there could be a lot of processing and a lot of delay."

Asked how much instituting the directive will cost, Nadaner said: "It shouldn't cost a whole lot, in the sense that it's not about the procurement of major weapons systems, which generally are your most costly things. It's about reshaping a lot of current activities."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]And you apparently either can't read or choose not to. One or the other eh? :lol




I specifically said that I find that some of those who support the President have no principled reasons for their support. I didn't say all and I didn't even say most. I said some. I said that because your suggestion that I relent from my position would require me to assume a place in that parade -- I cannot support the President's actions in the first instance and any attempt to suggest that I could would be an act of mindless following, similar to the behavior of lemmings. Hence, my effort to equate my acquiesence to your point to my joining the parade of lemmings. Got it?
Okay FWD I get the gist of the lemming comment but what's the point of even addressing that group of people? How about if we omit reference to those who aren't capable of articulating their position on any of the issues, they're on both sides of the political spectrum and have no grasp of the issues so it's rather petty to draw them into a discussion in an attempt to strengthen your position. what's the point in contrasting them to you? Strengthen your position with substance not by paralleling it to the weak.
I'll expect better from you in the future.

[spurster]

The 27 million vs. 10 thousand comparison is absurd.

The US has been trying to train Iraqis for over two years with little progress. What is going to change now to make it work?

[101A]

You heard what the MSM wanted to you hear. Here is Murtha's plan from his own congressional site... (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html)



Now that hardly sounds to me like a immediate withdrawl plan.

Again I live RIGHT NEXT to Murtha's district, I heard the whole, damned speach. The blubbering, etc....they may have made it more palatible now that they've had time to write it down on their website. But in the original speach he said he wanted an immediate withdrawal.

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay FWD I get the gist of the lemming comment but what's the point of even addressing that group of people? How about if we omit reference to those who aren't capable of articulating their position on any of the issues, they're on both sides of the political spectrum and have no grasp of the issues so it's rather petty to draw them into a discussion in an attempt to strengthen your position. what's the point in contrasting them to you? Strengthen your position with substance not by paralleling it to the weak.

{Game show buzzer sounds}

You still don't understand my point. My effort to explain my comment to you is distracting from the substantive discussion in the thread. I'd try one more time, but that would create two more posts that others would have to skip over to get to the real discussion.


I'll expect better from you in the future.

What are you? The forum's rhetoric monitor? I'll hope to get a gold star from you some time in the future. :rolleyes

[boutons]

101A, under 200 posts, is the emotional/hate temperature taker as well as self-appointed scolder and feel-good pollyanna, which is a lot more fun than posting serious substance.

[2centsworth]

And that belief should be conclusive as to the rest of us? Come on.

You can't really be that arrogant, can you?

I mean, by what virtue does your personal belief as to whether Chump's arguments are subversive lead to an ironclad conclusion that criticisms like his actually undermine the American activities in Iraq?

Are the terrorists going to disappear if Chump or I (or countless others) cease to be critical of the reasons that we're in Iraq in the first place? If you can absolutely guarantee me that result with 100% certainty, you'll win at least my silence on this issue.
It's important that we debate the reasons why we are there because when we're successful in Iraq some will be overly zealous to maybe invade other countries. I just want intellectual honesty from both sides of the table and that's what Lieberman has given us.

[Nbadan]

Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:


I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting.

atrios.Blogspot (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558)

[101A]

101A, under 200 posts, is the emotional/hate temperature taker as well as self-appointed scolder and feel-good pollyanna, which is a lot more fun than posting serious substance.

Because post count on SpursTalk is such a barometer for what type of posts to make.

You statement is baseless, by the way.

You are the only one I have called a hater.

Let me know when you post something of substance, or come up with any ideas of your own, instead of simply tearing down everything you don't agree with.

You are a parrot of the radical wing of the Democratic party. You are straight party-line in your opinions, and intellectually empty.

You debate without wit or intelligence, you insult, ridicule, condemn and whine. You are an immature simpleton; a lightweight.

You somehow define your success by the number of people you can piss off and chase out of a thread, and also, as pitiful as it might be, apparently by the number of posts you have accumulated on this forum.

Sad.

[101A]

Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:



atrios.Blogspot (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558)

That's an interesting quote, and I certainly am not above believing Lieberman could be spinning.

(This is without sarcasm - actual questions, NBADan)
But to what end?
What does JL stand to gain by supporting the troops staying, when the base, and especially the people he needs support from to get the nomination, are wholeheartedly against the position he is taken, as are, apparently now, most of the United States population, if we are to believe most of the polling data being reported.

Is he going to change to the Republican party, or start a deluded war-crazy Hawk party? Why would he spin it this way?

[boutons]

dubya and WH is now getting the military to blame itself for failing to communicate how excellent Iraq is really going. Sounds like Pace was chosen to be Chief Spinner of JCOS.

So few people believe any of them now. They should just STFU and get the job done, rather than trying to spin the story into something else.

=========================

The New York Times
December 1, 2005

Pace: Message of Iraq Progress Stymied
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:04 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- If the American public has a distorted picture of the combat readiness of Iraqi troops, the U.S. military is largely to blame for it, the most senior American military officer said Thursday.

''We have done ourselves a disservice in the way that we have defined how we are tracking the progress of Iraqi forces,'' Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience of military and civilian students at the National Defense University.

It was his first public speech focusing on Iraq since he became Joint Chiefs chairman on Oct. 1, and his remarks came one day after President Bush outlined his administration's strategy for achieving victory in Iraq.

Pace was among several senior officials who spoke publicly Thursday about the strategy for winning in Iraq. Eric Edelman, the under secretary of defense for policy, was speaking to members of the Council on Foreign Relations, along with Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the senior assistant to Pace.

Edelman, whose predecessor, Douglas J. Feith, was considered one of the architects of the Iraq war, said senior U.S. military commanders told him on a recent visit to Iraq that they are very optimistic about stabilizing the country.

''Overall, when one considers the challenges that the Iraqis face -- not least that of overcoming the political and social effects of 3 1/2 decades of monstrous tyranny -- what is most impressive is not how much remains for them to do, but rather how far they have come in less than three years,'' Edelman said in remarks prepared for delivery.

An important element of Bush's strategy is building Iraqi security forces that can defend the country on their own.

Pace said the U.S. military's own means of measuring progress in training Iraqi forces have created confusion in some quarters.

''In an attempt to be very precise with ourselves, to give ourselves metrics that we could all understand, we have done ourselves and everyone who is listening to us a disservice,'' he added.

Pace made the remark after mentioning that people often ask him, ''How can there be only one -- count them -- only one Iraqi battalion capable of independent operations?''

He was referring to the public stir that arose when Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress in September that the number of Iraqi army battalions rated at ''level one'' proficiency -- meaning capable of combat with no U.S. support -- had dropped from three to one. Some interpreted that as evidence the Iraqis were regressing.

Pace indicated that Iraqi units do not have to reach ''level one'' proficiency to be capable of fighting the insurgency, and said that even some battalions in the American military would be rated below ''level 1.''

He cited his own experience as a Marine battalion commander from 1983-85 and noted that his unit was reliant on either the Navy or the Air Force to transport it to the battle front and that if required to remain in combat for more than 60 days, his battalion had to rely on the Army for resupplying.

''So if you asked me then to grade my own battalion on a piece of paper as far as level one, level two, level three, level four, I would have to put level two,'' he said. ''Why? Because I'm very capable but I do need some outside help.''

Pace's point was that even though only one Iraqi battalion is rated at ''level one,'' there are nearly 40 rated at ''level one,'' which is defined as capable of taking a lead role in fighting the insurgency with some degree of U.S. support. About 80 others battalions at rated at ''level three,'' meaning that are capable of fighting, but with U.S. troops in the lead.

* Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown

You still don't understand my point. My effort to explain my comment to you is distracting from the substantive discussion in the thread. I'd try one more time, but that would create two more posts that others would have to skip over to get to the real discussion. I understood your point. Actually by posting this you've created the two they now have to skip. You're the one who posted the "I should join the lemming parade and parrot those raving about how wonderful this President is" comment and you call that real discussion? My point is to leave that nonsensical sarcasm out of your posts if you want substantive dialogue.









What are you? The forum's rhetoric monitor? I'll hope to get a gold star from you some time in the future.
I can do that for ya if you'd like but you're going to have to earn it.

[Nbadan]

But to what end?
What does JL stand to gain by supporting the troops staying, when the base, and especially the people he needs support from to get the nomination, are wholeheartedly against the position he is taken, as are, apparently now, most of the United States population, if we are to believe most of the polling data being reported.

Is he going to change to the Republican party, or start a deluded war-crazy Hawk party? Why would he spin it this way?

Liebermann is a pro-war Neo-lib. He's no better than the NeoCons. He'd sell ya up the river without a paddle quicker than a Bush crony in Iraq. This is why I don't get about this 'blind party loyalty' bullshit which I am always criticized about. I hate some Democrats just as much as I hate some conservatives, but the Republicans have the power.

[gtownspur]

Liebermann is a pro-war Neo-lib. He's no better than the NeoCons. He'd sell ya up the river without a paddle quicker than a Bush crony in Iraq. This is why I don't get about this 'blind party loyalty' bullshit which I am always criticized about. I hate some Democrats just as much as I hate some conservatives, but the Republicans have the power.

Funny how you'd still vote for Hillary who has the same Iraq oppinions like Lieberman, and that she is pimpin you out for the moobat you are. But wasn't it a month ago that you said you admire hillary even though she's a sellout because she's doing it to gain power? Sorry NBA, i called your bluff.

I'm gonna pull a SA210 stunt and say that you basically hate Lieberman because he's a Jew and your a holocaust denier. Atleast i didn't curse. :lol

Jew hater!

Holocaust denier!

[Nbadan]

:lol

Hardly. Jews are largely Democratic voters, and Hillary is the devil.

[Nbadan]

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/cut.jpg

[gtownspur]

:lol

Hardly. Jews are largely Democratic voters, and Hillary is the devil.

Yeah i know. I was jj. :lol, except for the Hillary part. I know you will vote for her in '08.

THe Jews are slowly going Gop though , and what's not to say that you jump for joy at every carbombing in a deli in Jerusalem?

Anyway back to my SA210 style rhetoric.

Your obviously full of hate. Your a hatemongerer and an anti american.

Jew burner.

[gtownspur]

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/cut.jpg

Yeah that was Reagan's dumbest move ever. But he did not cower to Qaddafi though. And most of all, THe soviet Union was viewed as the real threat, and the lebanese were seen as just dogs.

[101A]

Liebermann is a pro-war Neo-lib. He's no better than the NeoCons. He'd sell ya up the river without a paddle quicker than a Bush crony in Iraq. This is why I don't get about this 'blind party loyalty' bullshit which I am always criticized about. I hate some Democrats just as much as I hate some conservatives, but the Republicans have the power.

So you're saying he's actually (as a pro-war Neo-Lib) being honest about his actual postition - and he is not spinning?

Because the original piece cited "spinning".

[SA210]

Yeah i know. I was jj. :lol, except for the Hillary part. I know you will vote for her in '08.

THe Jews are slowly going Gop though , and what's not to say that you jump for joy at every carbombing in a deli in Jerusalem?

Anyway back to my SA210 style rhetoric.

Your obviously full of hate. Your a hatemongerer and an anti american.

Jew burner.


Actually to try and copy my style, you'd have to actually have some compassion.

[gtownspur]

Yes compassion, with a dash of rainbow and skittles, sugar and spice and everything nice.:rolleyes


HEy SA210, are you a female?

[SA210]

Yes compassion, with a dash of rainbow and skittles, sugar and spice and everything nice.:rolleyes


HEy SA210, are you a female?

Hey Gtown, usually men who call other men females alot are usually the ones that are very insecure about themselves and their own sexuality. Seems you have some hidden secrets and might be in the closet and even angry about a thing or two.

Why do rainbows come to your mind? Skittles? Sugar and Spice? How do you really feel inside Gtown? Are you gay? It's ok actually. No need to hide it.

Come out the SpursTalk closet. Don't be afraid. It's the holidays. Have a gay ol' time. I think everyone here will accept you, never fear.

[smeagol]

Yes compassion, with a dash of rainbow and skittles, sugar and spice and everything nice.:rolleyes


HEy SA210, are you a female?
:rolleyes

[gtownspur]

Hey Gtown, usually men who call other men females alot are usually the ones that are very insecure about themselves and their own sexuality. Seems you have some hidden secrets and might be in the closet and even angry about a thing or two.

Why do rainbows come to your mind? Skittles? Sugar and Spice? How do you really feel inside Gtown? Are you gay? It's ok actually. No need to hide it.

Come out the SpursTalk closet. Don't be afraid. It's the holidays. Have a gay ol' time. I think everyone here will accept you, never fear.

No, sorry. I'm not gay, and not available to help you pick out a good nail tech or the latest fashions on the weekends. Maybe you were excited to find a freind to help you with your makeover? Who knows? :smokin

No, my question was not based on your viewpoints, just your comments. You like to point out how your caring, passionate, loving, and full of love and anyone else who disagrees with you is full of hate. And you try to come out like Miss USA when after you level putdowns at somebody. You also do abunch of these :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes , all the time.

I never thought you were even a man, much less gay. I just had a hunch that you were probably a woman since arguing with you is like arguing with my freinds girlfreind who levels the same type of comments consisting of "well your just insecure about yourself that's why you're so macho this macho that..blah blah blah".

[SA210]

:rolleyes is for your forever talk about things you know nothing about. I didn't know you had to be a woman to care about ppl or issues. I didn't say ppl who disagree with me are full of hate. I said YOU say hateful things and alot of time talk from hate. Just cuz you lose an arguement, you shouldn't try to label me with "everyone". I said, YOU.

I only mentioned how caring I am because you don't care about the poor and you criticized me for it. And just because I point out how insecure you are doesn't reflect anything on me except for clarifying why your so bothered by anythying you see as feminized or caring, or of a woman, or what you percieve to be female characteristics. Says alot about you.

[gtownspur]

^Doesn't say much about anyone. All i'm saying is you whine like a you know what, and you put yourself on a pedestal. I cannot discuss anything with you because the first thing you do is label my viewpoint and then say i'm hateful. You know nothing personally about me, and if you think you won an argument, fine. If your the score keeper when it comes to those silly things, then go ahead and blow hot air and lift your already inflated ego.

First of all, your wrong that i hate poor people, cuz trust me it takes alot to hate someone. Second, i don't criticize your efforts to help them, and besides that's a cheapshot because i've given you props for doing so.

Also you said..


I didn't know you had to be a woman to care about ppl or issues....

You see. I just finished in the previous post why i came to the conclusion that you might be female. And that was because of your style of reaction and rhetoric and had nothing to do with you viewpoint. HELL, Spurswoman is female, but she doesn't agree with what you say. But this is all useless to you anyways since i know you'll go on repeating of how i label you because of your compassion and love for people, which is false. And when you do i will post this paragraph to show how much you lack in comprehension.

This is a forum and anything goes. As far as i know you could be a child molester, theif or a two dollar whore. Who knows? Especially since we're online and we can't see face to face.

And if you want to know, yes,.. you are so caring in effect that if your were to argue quantum physics with a MIT proffessor, you'd win simply because you have so much compassion.:vomit

[SA210]

Funny how you try to sound different in what you say now, from other things you have said. Nothing has changed. Say what you want, we can both argue about you being gay or me having female-like comments. You can try and label me for your hope that others will follow and label me the same. Back and forth and back and forth, try all your spin, all your tactics. I'm compassionate, you're not, you hate the poor or you don't, doesn't matter. Because after all your baloney and wisecracks and immature comments, the truth remains,

You know absolutely nothing about poor people or what it's like to be poor at all, whatsoever, even if your life depended on it. Period. Nothing changes that.

Spin that any way you want. :tu

[gtownspur]

^keep talking Beauty queen. :lol, I'm not going to change your mind.

Anything i say will be processed in your brain as "I think welfare reform is a good solution because---Hatred! HATred! hatred!:pctoss, I hate JEws and poor orphans, burn in an oven you hebrew!!!!!!!!!"

So even if i tried hard to convince you to open up to a different point of view, you're too nutty. ANd who gives a damn if you were a female, you don't consider that to be slanderous do you? After all you can ask me if i'm gay, since it would mean the world to you if i was, but you'd be dissapointed and i'd have nothing to be defensive about. I ask you if your a woman, and you get all bonkers. So as far as insecurity, you know jack shit. And how can you say i know nothing about poor people, you don't know anything about me and i don't try to analyze your past experiences or try to write them for you. Maybe that serves your purpose, but you will not convince anyone by telling them they're full of hatred. If anything your full of many things yourself, as i don't have to make up stuff about you, people can decide themselves by your posts.

[SA210]

^^^ all those words, and it all meant nothing. you still know nuthin about it.

[gtownspur]

^^^ all those words, and it all meant nothing. you still know nuthin about it.

:lol, you're sad and you just don't know it girl.

[Crookshanks]

Last I heard, war plans and strategies are highly classified. Why do some of you think the President and Rumsfeld should share those plans with the American people?

I'm sure the President and the Pentagon have plans for their exit strategy - they just aren't stupid enough to reveal them to the whole world!

[ChumpDumper]

Why do some of you think the President and Rumsfeld should share those plans with the American people?We don't expect them to share anything with us.

The goal is total victory and the way they'll do it is the plan for victory and whatever the outcome we'll say it's victory because we say what victory is and no one else could possibly conceive what could constitute victory.

[gtownspur]

We don't expect them to share anything with us.

The goal is total victory and the way they'll do it is the plan for victory and whatever the outcome we'll say it's victory because we say what victory is and no one else could possibly conceive what could constitute victory.

You were requesting the exit strategy in this thread for the past 3 pages!
You seem to me a dishonest person.

So you know what? i hate calling someone who's mature names, so i'll hear what you'll have to say to clear this confusion up.

Tell me. were you not calling for bush to let you see the exit strategy?

[ChumpDumper]

I hate dealing with someone who can't detect sarcasm.

[gtownspur]

Your last sentences were sarcasm, but your first was actually you speaking out of your hiney.

ANd btw, i hate dealing with back trackers.

[ChumpDumper]

We don't expect them to share anything with us.Nah, this is pretty much a given these days. No sarcasm necessary.

If you're so stupid as to not know the difference between wanting and expecting, I can't help you.

[gtownspur]

What's the difference in your case? Wanting or expecting, you should know better that it's fruitless to declassify war plans whens in the middle of the war. WHat's the point of having them classified.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Last I heard, war plans and strategies are highly classified. Why do some of you think the President and Rumsfeld should share those plans with the American people?

I'm sure the President and the Pentagon have plans for their exit strategy - they just aren't stupid enough to reveal them to the whole world!

I think what people want is something other than "we'll leave when we leave." That isn't satisfactory in light of the loss of US soldiers, serious questions re: W's reason for going to Iraq, and the unpopularity of the war at home and abroad.

[gtownspur]

I think what people want is something other than "we'll leave when we leave." That isn't satisfactory in light of the loss of US soldiers, serious questions re: W's reason for going to Iraq, and the unpopularity of the war at home and abroad.


You mean, what they want is declassification of the war strategy? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

What's the difference in your case? Wanting or expecting, you should know better that it's fruitless to declassify war plans whens in the middle of the war. WHat's the point of having them classified.Indeed, what is the point -- Bush had no trouble rattling off the current combat readiness of Iraqi forces and the number of bases we're turning over to them.

It might be different if there was a question of whether we would stay.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You mean, what they want is declassification of the war strategy? :lol


no, maybe someone other than that bumbling idiot, Bush, should tell the nation what our goals are for Iraq and a rough timetable. We don't have to know exactly when we're leaving but some reassurances that we'll be leaving before this thing turns into Vietnam.

[gtownspur]

^because that kind of information is easy to find out since it's visible on the ground at the moment. And when he talks about our progress it's after the fact. But declassifying material that has yet to commence is stupidity on your part to expect.

[Oh, Gee!!]

^because that kind of information is easy to find out since it's visible on the ground at the moment. And when he talks about our progress it's after the fact. But declassifying material that has yet to commence is stupidity on your part to expect.


so Bush has no plan for Iraq that he can put into words? Not a good way to run a war. He's figuring this out as he goes along? Not a comforting thought

[gtownspur]

NO, and i was talking to chump but you managed to post before i did. All he can tell you is that he has an exit strategy, but he cannot declassify that strategy since it is during the middle of a war. That kind of stupidity only enables the terrorist to plot out their attack on our exit strategy ahead of time.

[Mr. Peabody]

Bush, should tell the nation what our goals are for Iraq

He did say what our goals were:

1. To find and destroy the WMDs
2. To fight the terrorists on their turf
3. To spread freedom and democracy
4. To rid the world of an evil dictator
5. Whatever else he can get people to believe and buy him some time.....

[ChumpDumper]

^because that kind of information is easy to find out since it's visible on the ground at the moment.Really? Any insurgent can tell how many Iraqi battalions are combat ready just by looking around?

[gtownspur]

Not an insurgent, but the whole organization of Alqueda in Iraq Inc. since they have their own intelligence gathering.

[Mr. Peabody]

NO, and i was talking to chump but you managed to post before i did. All he can tell you is that he has an exit strategy, but he cannot declassify that strategy since it is during the middle of a war. That kind of stupidity only enables the terrorist to plot out their attack on our exit strategy ahead of time.

Let me ask you the obvious question. If an exit strategy cannot be revealed for national security reasons, how can you be so sure that he even has one.

It this a case where nobody can know about the exit strategy but you?

Or is it a matter a faith to believe in an exit strategy?

[gtownspur]

He did say what our goals were:

1. To find and destroy the WMDs
2. To fight the terrorists on their turf
3. To spread freedom and democracy
4. To rid the world of an evil dictator
5. Whatever else he can get people to believe and buy him some time.....


Those are fine. those are goals only and not strategy of how to accomplish those goals.

In this case Bush wants an effective exit strategy. That's his goal. But the strategy itslef cannot be declassified and dumbed down to a Pheonix online certified law student... I'm just ribbing ya. Chump! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Not an insurgent, but the whole organization of Alqueda in Iraq Inc. since they have their own intelligence gathering.But don't you see we've arleady shown our hand that we're going to definitely pull out at some time?

And that Bush's giving specific metrics about how well things are going merely shows that these are the metrics that will be used to dtermine the pullout?

Is it really a big secret anymore?

[gtownspur]

Let me ask you the obvious question. If an exit strategy cannot be revealed for national security reasons, how can you be so sure that he even has one.

With that kind of expectations, what's to keep the president and military from having to declassify every military objective just for the sake of armchair generals? Might as well keep nothing classified. If we were to have a strategy to invade NKorea, then by your standards we should declassify our moves and strategy to the whole world. That sounds assinine.


It this a case where nobody can know about the exit strategy but you? Or is it a matter a faith to believe in an exit strategy?

It was a matter of faith in government to expect FDR to contain hitler and defeat the japaneese. He didn't have to declassify his military strategies. But i'm thankful lefties like you didn't exist back then, since that would of secured hitler every chance to have us speaking german.

[gtownspur]

But don't you see we've arleady shown our hand that we're going to definitely pull out at some time?

And that Bush's giving specific metrics about how well things are going merely shows that these are the metrics that will be used to dtermine the pullout?

Is it really a big secret anymore?

Ofcourse, but had we not said so, the terrorist organization of insurgents would of known that already. they know that our mission is to pull out some day. They weren't thinking that we were gonna annex iraq into the 51st state. That's a given.

[gtownspur]

But don't you see we've arleady shown our hand that we're going to definitely pull out at some time?

And that Bush's giving specific metrics about how well things are going merely shows that these are the metrics that will be used to dtermine the pullout?

Is it really a big secret anymore?

btw, are you still asking to give away alqueda and the whole world our specific strategy to obtain such goals? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

btw, are you still asking to give away alqueda and the whole world our specific strategy to obtain such goals?Nope, I hit the brick wall that is the Plan for Victory in Iraq and dropped it there. You're the one who brought it back up.

[gtownspur]

I'm sorry that you have split personalities and a short memory. But your last post was suggesting that since bush was already giving progress reports about the war, why not classify the exit strategy to the public. Unless you're gonna deny the last part, and suggest you were going nowhere in your suggestion.

[ChumpDumper]

What part of "you brought it back up" do you not understand?

I am completely resigned to the administration's taking no accountability for this war and the ensuing withdrawl.

Give me a flag to wave.

[gtownspur]

and even if i did, you still went on defending your previous position.. SO whose to blame?

[SA210]

All this Bush backing, and I just keep thinking about that q&a rehearsal with those troops for the Bush photo oportunity.

Bush, he doesn't decieve, no way.

[gtownspur]

Give me a flag to wave.

Sorry but i do not have any white flags in my possesion. :lol

But seriously, WHat are you bitching about? That Bush can't declassify war strategies to you and you're finally realizing it?

[ChumpDumper]

The only answer i got was it's classified for classification's sake. The published plan didn't say it was ALL classified, but didn't even provide any non-classified specifics.

Why not include those non-classified plans in document titled Plan for Victory?

Tell me that much.

[Mr. Peabody]

http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg

[gtownspur]

All this Bush backing, and I just keep thinking about that q&a rehearsal with those troops for the Bush photo oportunity.

Bush, he doesn't decieve, no way.

Before i speak to you, i have to figuratively kiss the water you walk on and admit that i'm full of hate.<sarcasm>

The story you're taliking about has already been debunked as inaccurate.

[gtownspur]

http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg


WHen liberals, bring out photoshop material or plain ol' images and have nothing to say, that's their surrender cue.

[SA210]

Before i speak to you, i have to figuratively kiss the water you walk on and admit that i'm full of hate.<sarcasm>

The story you're taliking about has already been debunked as inaccurate.
oh man,

if your gonna deny that one.......

[SA210]

http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg

Hey, isn't that from the time we won the war and....

er, nevermind.

[gtownspur]

Mission accomplished can refer to a battle objective being completed, inwhich Bush was referring to when he was talking to that navy crew. He also said way before that that the Iraq war would take years to complete.

SOrry, nice try. you should stick to being CHump's and P'body's cheerleader and bake cookies for them.

[gtownspur]

oh man,

if your gonna deny that one.......

Aw. the never ending "...... ". Oh wait, you should know alot about never ending periods. :lol

[SA210]

Gtown, what's with your facination with men in cheerleading outfits?

[gtownspur]

Wow that's news to me. I never thought you were a man.

[SA210]

Aw. the never ending "...... ". Oh wait, you should know alot about never ending periods. :lol
you wish u had them?

[gtownspur]

besides, calling someone sombebody elses cheerleader doesn't imply homoeroticism.

[SA210]

Wow that's news to me. I never thought you were a man.
u hoped i was female, i'm not, can we move on now, you're getting creepy.

[SA210]

http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg
Where's the flight suit picture? :lmao that one was good. :lmao

[Mr. Peabody]

With that kind of expectations, what's to keep the president and military from having to declassify every military objective just for the sake of armchair generals? Might as well keep nothing classified. If we were to have a strategy to invade NKorea, then by your standards we should declassify our moves and strategy to the whole world. That sounds assinine.



It was a matter of faith in government to expect FDR to contain hitler and defeat the japaneese. He didn't have to declassify his military strategies. But i'm thankful lefties like you didn't exist back then, since that would of secured hitler every chance to have us speaking german.

This exit strategy must be a huge secret, because neither the House nor the Senate have gotten wind of it.

You must be some kind of insider, gtown, to have access to the information that you do.

[gtownspur]

Here you go again, with speaking for me in order to prove a point and go nowhere with it. I thought you said i had blind faith in his exit strategy. How could i have blind faith if i know the details?

But, you'd make more sense if you stuck to photoshoping.

[gtownspur]

Where's the flight suit picture? :lmao that one was good. :lmao

Why? As a woman, do you have a right wing fetish?:vomit

[Mr. Peabody]

Here you go again, with speaking for me in order to prove a point and go nowhere with it. I thought you said i had blind faith in his exit strategy. How could i have blind faith if i know the details?

But, you'd make more sense if you stuck to photoshoping.

Please read my previous post before commenting on it.

I asked you if you had inside information or if you were merely relying on faith.

Question marks usually denote questions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

besides, calling someone sombebody elses cheerleader doesn't imply homoeroticism.


Three-quarters of your posts involve homoeroticism

[gtownspur]

Those are dumb questions and sarcastic ones at that. I don't awnser to those.

[gtownspur]

Three-quarters of your posts involve homoeroticism


That's wishful thinking on your part Oh Gee. You're fascination with me is way scarier.

[Mr. Peabody]

Those are dumb questions and sarcastic ones at that. I don't awnser to those.

:lol

You responded to them in your very next post.

:lol

[gtownspur]

gtownspur is the mayor of gtown

And elpimpo is the pimp of....elpimpo. :lol

[gtownspur]

:lol

You responded to them in your very next post.

:lol

I responded to your stupidity, the questions were already awnsered long before you posted?

[Mr. Peabody]

I responded to your stupidity, the questions were already awnsered long before you posted?

Is that a question or a statement?

[ChumpDumper]

Is that a question or a statement?That's classified!

[SA210]

Is that a question or a statement?
It's whatever spin it takes to make Bush great.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Is that a question or a statement?


Is that a sentence or a question? Or both?

[SA210]

Why? As a woman, do you have a right wing fetish?:vomit

Nah, just funny seeing Bush in a flight suit. :lol
Gtown, what's with u and fetishes and homeroticism? I'm a man. These are not things you should ask me, I'm straight Gtown. You may wanna look elsewhere.

[Mr. Peabody]

Is that a sentence or a question? Or both?

All questions are sentences, but not all sentences are questions.

You might need a Venn diagram to avoid confusion.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson_images/lesson364/Venn.gif

[Oh, Gee!!]

just say both

[ChumpDumper]

It's a quentence.

Or a suestion.

Whichever sounds more homoerotic.

[Mr. Peabody]

just say both

Both

[SA210]

It's a quentence.

Or a suestion.

Whichever sounds more homoerotic.
:lol

[gtownspur]

Stupid, who cares. SO i typed a ? instead of a period. WHooptee do. all you douchebags did was waste your hot air on a grammar mistake when you clearly lost an issue.

You see. I don't think any of you give a damn about the fact that you cannot declassify war strategy. You'll act stupid as if the fact went in one ear and out another. You're arguments have no substance, and you try to steer the conversation from the facts and go into little trivial stuff. Just face it you lost the argument. IF all you can post about is about making one grammar mistake, then you have nothing worth debating about.

i mean what's so funny about an exit strategy being classified. Is that news to you. Do you think independent thinking people who read your post think you have a clue when you can't grasp the idea of the president's strategy for war being classified? Seriously, when in the History of the World has a nation shared it's details of a classified war planning with the public during an act of war? WHen? THat's right. And in the mean time all you can do is taunt people and bring up stupid photshop images, while not awnsering the issue yourselves.

Ask yourself, would you as a president foil the military's planning by declassifying it to the public? I thought so.

IF you cannot bring a coherent argument of why a president should declassify a war strategy, then i suggest you drop it.

[Mr. Peabody]

Stupid, who cares. SO i typed a ? instead of a period. WHooptee do. all you douchebags did was waste your hot air on a grammar mistake when you clearly lost an issue.

You see. I don't think any of you give a damn about the fact that you cannot declassify war strategy. You'll act stupid as if the fact went in one ear and out another. You're arguments have no substance, and you try to steer the conversation from the facts and go into little trivial stuff. Just face it you lost the argument. IF all you can post about is about making one grammar mistake, then you have nothing worth debating about.

i mean what's so funny about an exit strategy being classified. Is that news to you. Do you think independent thinking people who read your post think you have a clue when you can't grasp the idea of the president's strategy for war being classified? Seriously, when in the History of the World has a nation shared it's details of a classified war planning with the public during an act of war? WHen? THat's right. And in the mean time all you can do is taunt people and bring up stupid photshop images, while not awnsering the issue yourselves.

Ask yourself, would you as a president foil the military's planning by declassifying it to the public? I thought so.

IF you cannot bring a coherent argument of why a president should declassify a war strategy, then i suggest you drop it.

It must be so highly classified that not even Congress or the Senate are aware of its presence.

My question to you is that if both Congress and the Senate are still in the dark about the existence of an exit strategy, how can you be so sure one exists?

I understand your argument about not wanting to reveal exactly what the plan is, but you are not understanding my argument. I am not asking for the details of the plan, I just want to know if one exists. If our own legislature doesn't know if one exists, how can I just assume that this administration has one in mind?

[gtownspur]

Finally a decent post.

One does exist and the president has alluded to it. But what the democrats want is a timetable. And when you put a timetable on progress, that's basically saying that one will withdraw only on time issues, no matter the outcome. The terrorist would twist our time table expectations as a victory for alqueda.