My way or no way... Bush is such a manipulator.

Damocles said:
I am saying, that in the last month it has gone from "Bush should follow the recommendations in the Baker report." posted on this very board, to "This is stupid." even though it is in that very report.

That is hypocrisy. He is now doing what those people suggested, in fact has been for some time promoting the ideas listed in that report. Not every one of them, but many.

I have also heard that there is no change in the strategy, yet it is easy to point out where the change is, that is disingenuous. Each of those arguments are either hypocritical or disingenuous. There are better arguments against what he wants to do, I'd rather hear those.
Click to expand...

Yes ..and one of the arguments is the fact that we stand to lose more lives ... and for what cause? Why are we there in the first place....what is the reason for the loss of American Troops? For what reason do we have 18-22 year olds risking their lives? These are the most important questions ... all others pale in comparison.
 
Damocles said:
I am saying, that in the last month it has gone from "Bush should follow the recommendations in the Baker report." posted on this very board, to "This is stupid." even though it is in that very report.

That is hypocrisy. He is now doing what those people suggested, in fact has been for some time promoting the ideas listed in that report. Not every one of them, but many.

I have also heard that there is no change in the strategy, yet it is easy to point out where the change is, that is disingenuous. Each of those arguments are either hypocritical or disingenuous. There are better arguments against what he wants to do, I'd rather hear those.
Click to expand...


what change are you referring to?
 
Yes this all goes back to digging the hole deeper when the hole should not have been started in the first place.
 
Damocles said:
I am saying, that in the last month it has gone from "Bush should follow the recommendations in the Baker report." posted on this very board, to "This is stupid." even though it is in that very report.

That is hypocrisy. He is now doing what those people suggested, in fact has been for some time promoting the ideas listed in that report. Not every one of them, but many.

I have also heard that there is no change in the strategy, yet it is easy to point out where the change is, that is disingenuous. Each of those arguments are either hypocritical or disingenuous. There are better arguments against what he wants to do, I'd rather hear those.
Click to expand...

I don't have the report in front of me and please provide a link for this report with the specific part that states that we should increase our forces in Iraq, at this very time.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS IN THERE.

The reason I do not believe that the report recommends this is because I heard Baker and others speak on this very issue when the report was issued and because all of the reporting on this in the NEWS is that NO ONE CAN BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH is diregarding the recommendations of the BAKER rpt.

So, what site has said this to make you say it, or rather...PLEASE provide a link for the wording of it.

I fully acknowledge that IT IS ME that could have been totally misinformed by every news channel out there...soooooooo, let's see some proof that the Baker report recommends that the way to handle IRAQ NOW is to send in more troops and NOT to start redeplyment, pretty please.

care
 
The suggested change of strategy in the report was to tie the troops with the Iraqis and to take and hold Baghdad without regard to the political ideation of those who are attacking. This is being done.

Previously Baghdad was basically off-limits and political people such as al Sadr were off-limits. That was easy. Now, your turn to pretend that the change is non-existent and that it wasn't in the report exactly where I said it was.

So basically, they are taking off the gloves, letting them attack those who are killing our troops in order to give those people actual security in Baghdad. This is most definitely a change in strategy.
 
Care4all said:
I don't have the report in front of me and please provide a link for this report with the specific part that states that we should increase our forces in Iraq, at this very time.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS IN THERE.

The reason I do not believe that the report recommends this is because I heard Baker and others speak on this very issue when the report was issued and because all of the reporting on this in the NEWS is that NO ONE CAN BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH is diregarding the recommendations of the BAKER rpt.

So, what site has said this to make you say it, or rather...PLEASE provide a link for the wording of it.

I fully acknowledge that IT IS ME that could have been totally misinformed by every news channel out there...soooooooo, let's see some proof that the Baker report recommends that the way to handle IRAQ NOW is to send in more troops and NOT to start redeplyment, pretty please.

care
Click to expand...

I did. It is a PDF.
 
klaatu said:
The flower child has come out of the closet ... Ask Care... she'll tell you ....:)
Click to expand...

That's right Tiana!

Klaatu has joined the Peace-pipe smokers! hahahaha

This opened his eyes to the TRUTH regarding the war, a little while back...over 6 months....!!!!

thank God in Heaven!

lol

Care
 
Here it is...

I knew I'd find where I posted that link and that quote...

Damocles said:
The report spoke of a surge linked to the Iraqi government control of areas... It appears that the Baker Report is being followed.

Page 50 says:

"We could however support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the US Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.

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

So, he seems to be following the Baker report...

PDF Link
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
Here it is...

I knew I'd find where I posted that link and that quote...
Click to expand...

No, this is NOT what President Bush is doing....look it up!

He has no short term timeline at all!

He is not sending these 20k people in to Iraq temporarily to expedite THE TRAINING of Iraqis, and it is my understanding that many of these men will be sent to secure the border, outside of Bagdhad....

So, NO, this is not what president Bush is doing....he is not following the Baker report in this particular area.

Care
 
". . . f the US Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Seems like Bush made the call and then found a commander that would agree with it. ;)
 
Care4all said:
I don't have the report in front of me and please provide a link for this report with the specific part that states that we should increase our forces in Iraq, at this very time.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS IN THERE.

The reason I do not believe that the report recommends this is because I heard Baker and others speak on this very issue when the report was issued and because all of the reporting on this in the NEWS is that NO ONE CAN BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH is diregarding the recommendations of the BAKER rpt.

So, what site has said this to make you say it, or rather...PLEASE provide a link for the wording of it.

I fully acknowledge that IT IS ME that could have been totally misinformed by every news channel out there...soooooooo, let's see some proof that the Baker report recommends that the way to handle IRAQ NOW is to send in more troops and NOT to start redeplyment, pretty please.

care
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, a surge is NOT one of their 72(?) recommendations -- Its not found anywhere in the report's recommendations.

There's a reference to a surge in the report text, saying that the Commission could support it (they DON'T make it one of their recommendations) if the commander in iraq deems it neccessary.

At the time the report was written, the commanders on the ground in Iraq WEREN"T recommending more troops. Remember that bush removed those commanders, and found one who he arm-twisted to agree with him on the surge.

Here's the text of the report (page 73):

Adding more american troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the US presence is intened to be a long term occupation. We could, however, support a short term redeployment or surge of american combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equiping mission, if the US commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effecitve.

page 73

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps76748/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
No, this is NOT what President Bush is doing....look it up!

He has no short term timeline at all!

He is not sending these 20k people in to Iraq temporarily to expedite THE TRAINING of Iraqis, and it is my understanding that many of these men will be sent to secure the border, outside of Bagdhad....

So, NO, this is not what president Bush is doing....he is not following the Baker report in this particular area.

Care
Click to expand...
He is. He has done as they suggested informing the Iraqi government that our "patience is wearing thin" and that "we will not be there forever".

That he didn't give a strict timeline doesn't mean he isn't doing as it suggested. In fact, as I have shown, even the wording he is using is the same as that in the very report you wish him to follow. And, I also stated that he is not following every recommendation. Just as any leader takes advise and uses that which he deems the best, he has.

Promoting the idea that first there is no change means you think Americans are too stupid to see the change, and secondly that he isn't follow recommendations from the very report you want him to follow means pretty much the same thing.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
". . . f the US Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Seems like Bush made the call and then found a commander that would agree with it. ;)
Click to expand...

Even were that true, it seems that it is in there. Promoting the idea that he came up with this himself, that there is no change in strategy, that it is not in the very Report I quoted it from, all of these are disingenuous. As I said before, there are better arguments against what is happening in Iraq, I'd rather hear those than this pretense.
 
Cypress said:
As far as I can tell, a surge is NOT one of their 72(?) recommendations -- Its not found anywhere in the report's recommendations.

There's a reference to a surge in the report text, saying that the Commission could support it (they DON'T make it one of their recommendations) if the commander in iraq deems it neccessary.

At the time the report was written, the commanders on the ground in Iraq WEREN"T recommending more troops. Remember that bush removed those commanders, and found one who he arm-twisted to agree with him on the surge.

Here's the text of the report (page 73):

Adding more american troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the US presence is intened to be a long term occupation. We could, however, support a short term redeployment or surge of american combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equiping mission, if the US commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effecitve.

page 73

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps76748/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Click to expand...

I gave and link and quoted it thouroughly. This is pretense, it supposes that I did not, or that I took it out of context. I did not. I quoted that part specifically, even with the "if the US commander" part and stated earlier in the thread that it was linked to that caveat. Pretending you've made some huge score when I have already presented that information is disingenuous as well.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes you posted it all right damo, but you put just a tad of spin on it :)
Click to expand...

Spin. Then Hillary looks like a big old top I used to have, wooden with a steel end, wrap the string and throw it.....that sucker would spin at no telling how many RPMs.

I want us out and I want this to be over. Bush fouled up big time listening to Cheney, Rumsfeld and crew in the first place. Heck he may have even had the idea himself but I don't give him that much credit.

What I object to is the democrats demonizing this change in strategy by saying it isn't a change in strategy.....and it is very clear to me they are doing it for purely political reasons. If the tables were turned I'm sure the republicans would be acting the same way (I remember the Clinton years) but they aren't. It's the democrats turn to act like grown ups and they are acting the same way the baby republicans did back in the 90's......wag the dog ring a bell. I swear that if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times back then by some republican talking about the military action of Clinton being to take attention away from the Monica thing. The stakes are a lot higher now....a lot higher.

I think a phased withdrawal beginning now would put the region in dissarray so bad that the damage done would be irreparable. More troops, secure Baghdad and up the intensity of Iraqi troop training. Secure the borders to slow down the weapons from flowing into Iraq from other countries (we know it's happening). That's all OK with me. But somewhere along the way we are going to have to talk to Iran and Syria.

I can't stand politicians. Uscitizen, why don't you run for president.
 
The reason it is not a "change" in strategy is because we have had a "surge" of troops before and it only had made the violence worse, in the past.

this new surge is the same ole, same ole....with NO PLAN to WIN or to EXIT.....

And this troop surge does not even get us up to the levels of the LAST troop surge Damo, and Leaning.?
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
The reason it is not a "change" in strategy is because we have had a "surge" of troops before and it only had made the violence worse, in the past.

this new surge is the same ole, same ole....with NO PLAN to WIN or to EXIT.....

And this troop surge does not even get us up to the levels of the LAST troop surge Damo, and Leaning.?
Click to expand...
It is a different strategy on how to use the troops. Not once have we gone after each of those attacking or leading the attackers of our troops, not once have the troops been permitted to enter every neighborhood in Baghdad, not once have they taken off the leash and allowed them to take and hold a position as the military was designed to do.

It is a change, pretending otherwise is specious at best, blinders at worst.

My Navy SEAL friend is happier now that they will be able to do what they should have been doing from the first. He is upset that first they were allowed to gather strength in their positions before they were allowed and thinks it will cost because of that. However, he definitely recognizes a shift in strategy and it is easy to see from what has been proposed that there is one.

He also has come very, very close to giving a date and has made it clear that we will not be there through eternity and the government there must step up.

Now, if he would just talk to Iran and Syria all of the recommendations would be in evidence...

It may not be what you like to hear, or exactly how you wanted to see it done there, Care, but it is clearly a change in strategy, and taken, at least partially from the very recommendations that were so prevalent even last month on this board from Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top