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.....

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]

Originally Posted by Enigma

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

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.

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/wo...hp&oref=slogin

Senator Chuck Hagel, 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.

You are missing my sarcasm, sir. :p

[Skybird]

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

[Enigma]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tchocky]

waste gate, I've missed you

have some love

[turnerg]

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

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by turnerg

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.

[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, over at Villainous Company.