Democrats extend troop deployments

[Enigma]

"The bottom line is this: Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to our veterans, it’s unacceptable to our military families, and it’s unacceptable to many in this country. " - GWB

Ummmmm.....:shifty:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Tours of duty for members of the U.S. Army will be extended from 12 months to 15 months effective immediately, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday.
"What we're trying to do here is provide some long-term predictability to our soldiers and their families," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
In exchange for the extension, Gates said the service will be able to give all units a year at home between deployments.
He denied the order was a sign that the Army has passed its breaking point under the stresses of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying the service has met or passed its recruiting and retention goals.
But he added that the military has been "stretched" by the conflicts.


It just seems to me as if Bush's sense of urgency on this thing is utterly false.

[SUBMAN1]

It just seems to me as if Bush's sense of urgency on this thing is utterly false.

I don't think so. It has many parallels to the Vietnam era, so if I were Bush, I'd be worried too.

-S

[waste gate]

Yesterday Harry Reid said that 'we represent the american people and he doesnt'.

Perhaps some one should give Senator Reid a civics lesson.

[Skybird]

Extremely cheap shot at the democrats in this topic headline. :down:

As a matter of fact the Pentagon announced the decision, which was made by the pentagon, and accoriding governmental and Republican figures.

If Bush only would honour the will of the majority of Iraqis ordinary people (who since months said they demand a definite date for withdrawal - we even had a heated debated on that in this forum, many months ago), and if he just would admit that two thirds of Americans, roughly said, are against his policy in general, and handling of Iraq in special, so that Bush just would accept responsibility for a catastrophic military failure, and would agree to name a date within a reasonable timeframe instead of crushing the military more and more for the purpose of chasing follies, then he would have acchieved cooperation with the democrats on the issue of war funds.

That's what it will be about in the years to come: getting the troops out and blaiming Republicans rightfully to be responsible for the Iraq mess, while Democrats will be accused of being responsible for not accepting to wage an eternal, lost war for nothing. what it means: American soldiers are risking their lifes for internal American party politics, and get shot for winning voter's marks.

Grossartig.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-military.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Senator Chuck Hagel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/chuck_hagel/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Nebraska Republican who has been highly critical of President Bush’s conduct of the war, called the Pentagon announcement “a stark admission that the administration’s policies in Iraq are doing permanent damage to our military.”

[Enigma]

Extremely cheap shot at the democrats in this topic headline. :down:

You are missing my sarcasm, sir. :p

[Skybird]

If so, my apology! You just touched an itching allergy of mine :lol:

[Enigma]

:lol: No worries....

It was a crass way of pointing out that Bush is accusing the Dem's of attempting to extend troop deployments, when obviously we have to do so anyway, per the Pentagon....

Or, in other words, Misleading and Hypocrisy from the President....

[Enigma]

...And just for the record, I think it's important to point out the the Presidents remarks, and the Pentagons statement came within 24 hrs of each other.

Incredible.

Reactions from Dems:


Reid:

"Today's news that active-duty troops' tours in Iraq will be extended to 15 months is another in a long line of examples of how the President's Iraq policies are making us less secure. A bipartisan majority of Congress sees it, the American people see it and military experts see it.
"It is time for the President to work with Congress to change course in Iraq. Congress will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place a strategy that neither our troops nor the American people can afford any longer."
Pelosi:
"Today’s announcement just underscores the fact that the burden of the war in Iraq has fallen upon our troops and their families. The Bush Administration has failed to create a plan to fully equip and train our troops, bring them home safely and soon, and provide our veterans with the quality care they deserve.
"Extending the tours of all active-duty Army personnel is an unacceptable price for our troops and their families to pay.
"Democrats have offered a new direction in Iraq – one that would bring our troops home safely and soon. We encourage President Bush to sit down with us to find a solution to bring this war to an end."

[Tchocky]

Yesterday Harry Reid said that 'we represent the american people and he doesnt'.

Perhaps some one should give Senator Reid a civics lesson.
Weeeelll, the most recent demonstration of American political opinion got the Dems into Congressional majority, so.....

EDIT: This looks like I want to argue. Christ no.

[waste gate]

What does chicken little have to say about my country now? Try to stay within your own contry's sh1t chicken little. Unless of course you'd like us to point at yours.

[Enigma]

EDIT: This looks like I want to argue. Christ no.

:lol:


What does chicken little have to say about my country now? Try to stay within your own contry's sh1t chicken little. Unless of course you'd like us to point at yours.


:o

[Tchocky]

waste gate, I've missed you

have some love

http://www.eyehook.com/free/img/heart.gif

[turnerg]

Meh, Iraq, whatevs.....we'll be in Iran soon anyways..... Might have to re-enlist for that round:hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

we'll be in Iran soon anyways..... Might have to re-enlist for that round:hmm:
No need to enlist.

Just follow the yellow brick road (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/BAGV9P6C0S6.DTL).

[The Avon Lady]

For years Democrats in Congress demanded that Donald Rumsfeld be fired.

Well, he is gone, and we have a new Secretary of Defense.

They screamed that they couldn't possibly support the war because there weren't enough boots on the ground.

Well, we're putting more boots on the ground.

Then they screamed that wasn't enough -- we needed a new strategy.

But we have put a new strategy in place - the same one that was so successful in Tal Afar.

But now that the military obstacles are out of the way, they say that was never the issue. We need a political solution.

Prime Minister Maliki is implementing a political solution: for the first time, he is allowing us into the Shiite areas, into Sadr city. He has made a firm commitment to go after Shia and Sunni alike if they break the law so that there will be equal justice for all Iraqis.

They said the Iraqis needed to step up to the plate.

They are stepping up to the plate. In al Anbar, the Sunni sheiks have come over to our side. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is so hopeful about Anbar, he thinks it has now turned the corner.

The Democrats said we should follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. What was the one thing the ISG said we should NOT DO?

Set arbitrary withdrawal dates. Don't believe me?

Ask Jim Baker:
The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.
Suddenly we don't hear so much about the Iraq Study Group any more. Isn't that odd? Could it be because the surge implements many of the ISG recommendations?
The president announced a " new way forward" on Jan. 10 that supports much of the approach called for by the Iraq Study Group. He has since said that he is moving to embrace our recommendations. The president's plan increases the number of American advisers embedded in Iraqi army units, with the goal that the Iraqi government will assume control of security in all provinces by November. It outlines benchmarks and indicates that the Iraqi government must act to attain them. He has approved ministerial-level meetings of all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran; the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; and other countries.
America's veterans - and her military families - have a right to be angry with a Congress that has relentlessly pummeled this President for not taking their "advice" and then, when he listens to them, does everything in their power to sabotage the war effort and render meaningless the sacrifies of thousands of honorable men and women.

This Marine wife of 28 years does not question the patriotism of the antiwar contingent in Congress.

She questions the fundamental seriousness of people who are constantly shifting the goalposts. And she wants an end to the game playing. There are lives at stake.

Some of them very precious to her.
The above is just a snippet from Military Families Angry Over Congressional Inaction (http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2007/04/military_famili.html), over at Villainous Company (http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/).

[bradclark1]

I think the general thought as you know or seemed to want to forget is too little too late.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Breaking+the+Army&btnG=Search

Bottom line is expand the army by 20 brigades and we stand a chance but that also means having thousands of untrained inexperienced troops. All I can do is shrug in frustration and anger.

[squigian]

The simple fact is that we went in unprepared. We cannot change that.

[SUBMAN1]

Weeeelll, the most recent demonstration of American political opinion got the Dems into Congressional majority, so.....

EDIT: This looks like I want to argue. Christ no.
THey were voted in because people wanted a change in direction, not a pullout. A pullout is exactly what the American people don't want - they want someone to fix the problem.

Here is the latest poll on the subject. (The point is, please know your facts before you speak.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1606/iraqoy0.gif

[Skybird]

Weeeelll, the most recent demonstration of American political opinion got the Dems into Congressional majority, so.....

EDIT: This looks like I want to argue. Christ no.
THey were voted in because people wanted a change in direction, not a pullout. A pullout is exactly what the American people don't want - they want someone to fix the problem.

Here is the latest poll on the subject. (The point is, please know your facts before you speak.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1606/iraqoy0.gif



http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

the point is, please know your facts, don't try to distort the complete message, do not opportunistically quote out of context and identify your sources for quotes, when you speak.

The complete poll expresses resistance to Bush's course from roughly one half up to two thirds of people who got asked.

One year ago:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm

Four months ago:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/cnn-poll-us-support-for-iraq-war-falls.html

Let's start a poll war, who can show up with more and better links to polls? :-?

[Tchocky]

Weeeelll, the most recent demonstration of American political opinion got the Dems into Congressional majority, so.....

EDIT: This looks like I want to argue. Christ no.
THey were voted in because people wanted a change in direction, not a pullout. A pullout is exactly what the American people don't want - they want someone to fix the problem.

Here is the latest poll on the subject. (The point is, please know your facts before you speak.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1606/iraqoy0.gif

Riiiight. I was making a small assesment of American political representation. Harry Reid has a better claim to represent the American people than GWB, seeing as in the most recent national poll, the Dems were more successful than the GOP. That's it.
It was in response to this
Yesterday Harry Reid said that 'we represent the american people and he doesnt'.

Perhaps some one should give Senator Reid a civics lesson.

Thanks for the assertion that I don't know my facts, it gives me hope and further reason to participate in this thread.
But hope is not a strategy. Oh, look, a balloon.

[August]

Riiiight. I was making a small assesment of American political representation. Harry Reid has a better claim to represent the American people than GWB, seeing as in the most recent national poll, the Dems were more successful than the GOP. That's it.


Maybe what you and Harry Reid ought to understand is that it's not the Democrats or the Republicans or President Bush or Senator Reid alone that represent the American people, but ALL of them together, and we expect these politicos to get along well enough to conduct the nations business in an efficient manner.

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

the point is, please know your facts, don't try to distort the complete message, do not opportunistically quote out of context and identify your sources for quotes, when you speak.

The complete poll expresses resistance to Bush's course from roughly one half up to two thirds of people who got asked.

One year ago:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm

Four months ago:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/cnn-poll-us-support-for-iraq-war-falls.html

Let's start a poll war, who can show up with more and better links to polls? :-?

First off, the poll in question was one I was not able to link directly to, so I re-edited my post with a screenshot of it instead. It has nothing to do with Bush or his direction. It has to do with the comment of one left wing wacko saying he speaks for all of America to pull out of Iraq - which is what the poll reflects is complete BS - which is in direct contrast to what was posted by Tchocky.

So now that we are 'back' on subject of the particular post, what are you saying exactly?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Riiiight. I was making a small assesment of American political representation. Harry Reid has a better claim to represent the American people than GWB, seeing as in the most recent national poll, the Dems were more successful than the GOP. That's it.
It was in response to this

Thanks for the assertion that I don't know my facts, it gives me hope and further reason to participate in this thread.
But hope is not a strategy. Oh, look, a balloon.
For what your original post represents, you didn't know your facts. Harry Reid or the Dem's and their pull out of Iraq bill is 'not' what the people of the US think. Where exactly did we go wrong on that issue? It has nothing to do with GWB.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe what you and Harry Reid ought to understand is that it's not the Democrats or the Republicans or President Bush or Senator Reid alone that represent the American people, but ALL of them together, and we expect these politicos to get along well enough to conduct the nations business in an efficient manner.

About as well said as it can get right there.

-S

[Ishmael]

I'm sorry, you guys. But you just don't get it. Witness this story about the suicide bomber who hit the Parliament cafeteria inside the Green Zone today. Read it on Huffungton Post:

Nationalist Members seem to be targeted

Hours ago an explosion ripped through the cafeteria attached to the Iraq Parliament killing at least two members of Parliament and injuring fifteen others.

One of the members killed is Mohammed Awad, a nationalist who is part of the National Dialogue Front, a group wanting one Iraq with a strong central government, an end of the U.S. occupation and any other foreign intervention. They are for re-instating former Iraqi Army soldiers to secure Iraq. They are against privatizing Iraq's oil and decentralizing the oil revenue distribution.

One of the injured is Osama al-Nujafii who appeared with other members of the Iraq Parliament in a recent live video conference between Members of the U.S. Congress and Members of the Iraq Parliament. A woman member of Parliament was injured and it is feared to be Dr. Nada Ibrahim an active member of the National Salvation Front.

Another injured Dr. Salman Al-Jumaily, Member of Iraq Council of Representatives (Parliament), part of the Iraq Accord Front (Sunni) Twaffk, also a nationalist. Salman was one of the Members of Parliament that met with a U.S. Peace Delegation last August. (Go to this link for more info.)

Salman Al-Jumaily Injured

In a very suspicious coincidence everyone killed or injured is part of the nationalist movement who are against the Maliki Government. The Parliament was about to debate the newly proposed Oil Law which these members planned to oppose.

---
Written in collaboration with Raed Jarrar and Jennifer Hicks

So what is this war about again? WMDs? Saddam Hussein as a bloody-handed dictator? Al-qaeda was being supported by Saddam? He was responsible for 9/11? To spread democracy in the Middle East? We're standing down because they're standing up?
We're staying the course? Things are improving throughout Iraq? We're not seeing chlorine gas car bombs in Tal Afar?

This was, is & always will be about control of oil, pure & simple. Those huge permanent bases there are to ensure that. The privatisation law will certainly pass now. So the fix is going in as we speak. We will be there as long as the oil is there & not one moment longer. We have 160,000+ troops & another 100,000+ hired mercenaries there & it's been six years of incompetence, coverups & downright corruption in the conduct of this war. With a record like that, why do you still trust these people to do anything with any degree of honesty or effectiveness? The only reason I can see for this war was to boost oil prices & that is the one thing they have succeeded in.

[SUBMAN1]

This was, is & always will be about control of oil, pure & simple. Those huge permanent bases there are to ensure that. The privatisation law will certainly pass now. So the fix is going in as we speak. We will be there as long as the oil is there & not one moment longer. We have 160,000+ troops & another 100,000+ hired mercenaries there & it's been six years of incompetence, coverups & downright corruption in the conduct of this war. With a record like that, why do you still trust these people to do anything with any degree of honesty or effectiveness? The only reason I can see for this war was to boost oil prices & that is the one thing they have succeeded in.

Hardly. And to make matters worse, the US didn't even get any oil contracts out of it. All oil contracts went to China and India. Kind of puts a crimp in your theory.

-S

[Skybird]

First off, the poll in question was one I was not able to link directly to, so I re-edited my post with a screenshot of it instead. It has nothing to do with Bush or his direction. It has to do with the comment of one left wing wacko saying he speaks for all of America to pull out of Iraq - which is what the poll reflects is complete BS - which is in direct contrast to what was posted by Tchocky.

So now that we are 'back' on subject of the particular post, what are you saying exactly?

-S
i had the same problem, I thought it was my browser or connection. Here it is, completely. Markings by me, making the relative majority more obvious

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/374/snap0039wg7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This poll suggests that bush no longer has a majority behind him,and that the majority of people is against his course of actions. The other two polls I just linked to are even more drastic in numbers.

Your characterization of Tchocky I find absurd, for what he said about the majority in congress and the voters having created it - simply is the truth.

Your own conclusion on how many americans want no troop withdrawel now, is not exactly formulated, for the poll did not ask if people want a troop reduction, but if they think a troop reduction would influence the risk level of the mission as it is ("does a time table help or hurt troops serving?" = 50% hurts, 27% helps, 15% no effect). That are two very different questions. If you would ask me that poll question, I also would say that it hurts the toops. and I would still demand a timetable and withdrawel. Withdrawel under fire always poses risks.

And even if your interpretation of that polling option would have been right (I don'T think so), then it would colliding with the other options the poll asked for:

a clear majority of 55-65% in 2007 and 2006 disapprove the way Bush is handling the war,

36% think the boost in troops and Bush's attempt of a slightly changed plan during the last months made things worse, 37% think it made no difference (that is almost 3/4 of people thinking that things did not improve, or even turned worse)

a relative majority of 48% (roughly every second person) think that Bush should sign a funding that is linked to a date for withdrawal (43% disagree, 9% said nothing),

And in case that Bush vetoes the democrat's bill, a slight majority of 45% say that congress then should block any funding to force the president to respect the will of majority, while 43% say that funding the troops may be more important then instead of enforcing a release date at all cost (12% unsure).

A president whose course is supported by the people would show different values, I guess.

[SUBMAN1]

i had the same problem, I thought it was my browser or connection. Here it is, completely. Markings by me, making the relative majority more obvious

This poll suggests that bush no longer has a majority behind him,and that tjhe majority of people is agaisnt his course pf actions. The other two polls I just linked to are even more drastic in numbers.

Your characterization of Tchocky I find absurd, for what he said about the majority in congress and the voters having created it - simply is the truth.

Your own conclusion on how many americans want no troop withdrawel now is not exactly formulated, for thi poll did not ask if people nt a troop reduction, but if they think a troop reduction would influence the risk level of the mission as it is ("does a tiome table help or hurt troops serving?" = 50% hurts, 27% helps, 15% no effect).

And even if your interpretation of that polling option would have been right (I don'T think so), then it would collideng with the other options the poll asked for: 55-65% in 2007 and 2006 disapproive the way Bush is handling the war,

36% think the boost in troops and Bush's attempt of a slightly changed plan during the last months made things worse, 37% think it made no difference (that is almost 3/4 of people thinking that things did not imporve, or turned worse)

a relative majority of 48% think that Bush should sign a funding that is linked to a date for withdrawal (43% disagree, 9% said nothing),

And in case that Bush vetoes the democrat's bill, a slight majority of 45% say that congress then should block any funding, while 43% say that funding the troops may be more important then instead of enforcing a release date at all cost (12% unsure).

A president whose course is supported by the people would show different values, I guess.

Again - you missed the point. It is not about GWB that I am talking about.

Also - don't use leftist news medias for your polls. I hate those things. Same people said Gore would win and Kerry would win for president. Conservatives are very unlikely to ever use one from CNN for example. You need a national poll to take the numbers from where they call randomly. I avoid ever posting poll information from one of the news websites.

ANyway, my poll shows (Or should I say - suggests) how this pullout is not what people want. It is a Nationwide survey - not a website go there and show your opinion type place. A Nationwide survey is the only way to get any accurate numbers.

-S

[Skybird]

However, one could debate endlessly about sense and nonsense of polls, and could analyse the statistical background, and rate reliability and validity, and so on.

Point is the poll you picked simply does not back the attempt by which you tried to counter a statement made by somebody else. It did not fulfill the use you intended for it.

I leave it here.

[SUBMAN1]

However, one could debate endlessly about sense and nonsense of polls, and could analyse the statistical background, and rate reliability and validity, and so on.

Point is the poll you picked simply does not back the attempt by which you tried to counter a statement made by somebody else. It did not fulfill the use you intended for it.

I leave it here.

I disagree. I think it speaks for itself.

-S

[Tchocky]

Riiiight. I was making a small assesment of American political representation. Harry Reid has a better claim to represent the American people than GWB, seeing as in the most recent national poll, the Dems were more successful than the GOP. That's it.
It was in response to this

Thanks for the assertion that I don't know my facts, it gives me hope and further reason to participate in this thread.
But hope is not a strategy. Oh, look, a balloon.
For what your original post represents, you didn't know your facts. Harry Reid or the Dem's and their pull out of Iraq bill is 'not' what the people of the US think. Where exactly did we go wrong on that issue? It has nothing to do with GWB.

-S

Waaaaargghghh. I wasn't even going near Iraq, I was countering waste_gates post. He contestes Harry Reid's claim to represent the American people more so thaz the President. I think that Novembers election results invalidate waste_gates objection. You know, what with the Dems taking the House and all that.
Nothing to do with Iraq.
I wish I'd said nothing
jeez

[AVGWarhawk]

It just seems to me as if Bush's sense of urgency on this thing is utterly false.
I don't think so. It has many parallels to the Vietnam era, so if I were Bush, I'd be worried too.

-S

You nailed it on the head and this war has A LOT of paralles to Vietnam. What is currently happening is a sort of cloak and dagger....the is a troop build up going on and then a withdrawl....Vietnam again. 13000 troops are preparing to go. Here is our build up. Soon after we pull the plug.

[August]

Waaaaargghghh. I wasn't even going near Iraq, I was countering waste_gates post. He contestes Harry Reid's claim to represent the American people more so thaz the President. I think that Novembers election results invalidate waste_gates objection. You know, what with the Dems taking the House and all that.
Nothing to do with Iraq.
I wish I'd said nothing
jeez

As I said earlier (and was conveniently ignored) this argument of who represents the American people more is inaccurate, divisive and stupid. None of them represent the American people more or less than any other. For Senator Reid to suggest otherwise is shameful.