Bush agrees that a Iraq time table is needed.

[Garfield1966]

Now you are using Zawahiri Zawahiri as a source?

What exactly did you expect him to say? He would tell you the sun revolved around the eart if it suited his purpose.

 

[delldude]

Now you are using Zawahiri Zawahiri as a source?

What exactly did you expect him to say? He would tell you the sun revolved around the eart if it suited his purpose.

What right minded person would submit a timeline in an arena with so many damn variables such as a theatre of combat.I think what he said in 2004 ought to just about cover it for a rational person.

 

[delldude]

Looks sticky for Georgey Soros and his munchkin revolutionaries.

“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,†the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.â€

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,†they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.†MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.â€

The National Security Network, a collection of liberal-leaning military and foreign policy experts headed by Rand Beers, former national security adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, has deployed former generals and officials to persuade individual lawmakers.

They know how to use the news cycle.

This why you only see terrible things in the news....you're being fed much like a mushroom.

Uh oh....George is pissed.

 

[KCFlyer]

Old W is pretty shrewd...he uses the redneck in all of us to "Kick some A-rab a$$"...not realizing that when you kick the arse of someone who did nothing to you, it tends to inflame the other members of that particular race against you. So good old George starts a war that will never be won, while he is in a postition to insure that HIS kids, like himself, will not have to get anywhere CLOSE to a battlefield. Leave that up to the "volunteers" who are the only ones being asked to sacrifice ANYTHING is his war that should never have been fought. Bush was an idiot...alienate your friends...then start a war that can't be won, and your former friends won't want to help you out of the mess you got yourself into. Ready...FIRE...Aim. The Bush "War Plan".

 

[Garfield1966]

What right minded person would submit a timeline in an arena with so many damn variables such as a theatre of combat.I think what he said in 2004 ought to just about cover it for a rational person.

Perhaps you should ask Bush that. He seemed to think Clinton should have given one in 1999.

Perhaps he was just doing what ever it took to win regardless of the truth? Just like what he did to McCain in the primary and just like what he did to get into the war in the first place. He lies with no regard for the consequences.
As long as he does not have to get his silver spoon hands dirty, he is not worried.

 

[delldude]

He lies with no regard for the consequences.(he won't get impeached)
As long as he does not have to get his silver spoon hands dirty, he is not worried.

Sounds like he may have learned from the Clintstones?

So good old George starts a war that will never be won, while he is in a postition to insure that HIS kids, like himself, will not have to get anywhere CLOSE to a battlefield.

When your crowd gets their way...the war will be right here in America and the blood will be on the Pelosi's and Murtha's and you guys hands because you leveraged a retreat from Iraq.Most any soldier will tell you they'd rather fight and die over there so we don't have to deal with terrorist attacks here.
Mark my word pussies.......

 

[Garfield1966]

Sounds like he may have learned from the Clintstones?
When your crowd gets their way...the war will be right here in America and the blood will be on the Pelosi's and Murtha's and you guys hands because you leveraged a retreat from Iraq.Most any soldier will tell you they'd rather fight and die over there so we don't have to deal with terrorist attacks here.
Mark my word pussies.......

There is something I do not understand. You continually criticize all that Clinton did as POTUS or does afterward yet you use him as a benchmark for Bush. You seem to be so happy every time you can say “well Clinton did it tooâ€￾ as if that makes it OK. I thought Bush was supposed to be better than Clinton?

I cannot help that the soldiers believe the lies that Cheney etal have fed them. Thing is there are plenty of high ranking soldiers who have retired and are speaking out against Cheney and his cohorts. I do not ever recall that happening to previous administrations. Leads me to believe that there are far more soldiers on active duty who are far from pleased with Cheney’s planning of this war.

As for attacks on US soil, as far as I am concerned it is not a matter of “ifâ€￾ but “whenâ€￾ they will happen. Who is in office is immaterial IMO.

 

[KCFlyer]

When your crowd gets their way...the war will be right here in America and the blood will be on the Pelosi's and Murtha's and you guys hands because you leveraged a retreat from Iraq.Most any soldier will tell you they'd rather fight and die over there so we don't have to deal with terrorist attacks here.
Mark my word pussies.......

YOu know something...the war will STILL be right here in America. One thing about those terrorists...they are far more calculating than our dear GW Bush. They failed in their 1993 attempt at taking down the WTC...and under Clintons "do nothing" policies, it took them 8 years to undertake a second attack. Now I know that you all like to point to the "fact" that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since Bush decided that Saddam was a huge threat to us all. But...there wasn't another terrorist attack on US soil for the remainder of Clintons two terms either. Let's give the enemy another two years to compare how well "git 'em over there" worked over "doing nothing".

Of course, it doesn't matter...the left points out that we were attacked on "Bush's watch"...and you folks on the right love to point out that might not have happened had Clinton "done something" during his 8 years. But...lets say my 8 year scenario plays out...and we have a democrat in the white house...and 9 months after they take office, we are attacked...will you be as understanding that what happens that soon into an administration reflects on the actions of the previous administration...or will it be an attack on "their watch" and their policy of "cutting and running"?

You all seem to think that those of us who questioned why Iraq was attacked in the first place, and who continue to question why it was necessary, must want to "give up" on the terrorists. Not true at all. Still wondering why we "cut and ran" when pursueing the group and leader of the group that actually attacked us to go b!tch slap the dicatator next door.

 

[delldude]

You continually criticize all that Clinton did as POTUS or does afterward yet you use him as a benchmark for Bush.

No...in your seething hatred towards Bush,I point out your boy did the same things and usually trumped 'W'.

I thought Bush was supposed to be better than Clinton?

Wow...you're on record as a Bushie now?

I cannot help that the soldiers believe the lies that Cheney etal have fed them.

Funny...little Katie did a spot friday nite about a soldier and he had video of his Humvee getting hit with an IED...it was riveting video....figure this dude can't wait to come home?...well his tour is up and guess what? He re-upped.Guess Dick told him to huh...with your logic.

Thing is there are plenty of high ranking soldiers who have retired and are speaking out against Cheney and his cohorts. I do not ever recall that happening to previous administrations.

Wow,wonder what would have happened if this were under Saddam or Putin or China? Thank GOD for constitutional protections...Damned good document if I do say so.

Cheney and his co-horts? How about the Generals themselves-

These guys are active Mr.Kitty
Major Philip McIntire is a highly decorated US Army officer, and warmly regarded as a can-do leader by fellow officers and soldiers on the ground in Iraq. He has served our country since 1981, and has always been a 'Soldier's, Soldier,' who is very much in-tune with the heartbeat of fighting men and women, and action in the field.

McIntire has decided to make a bold move and speak out about what he sees as the real problems in Iraq. As a frontline soldier and administrator with the local governments in some of the most volatile areas of Iraq he offers the American people a unique perspective into the war on the ground, and how our military leadership may be to blame for delays in bringing an end to the war, and sending our soldiers home.
Major McIntire says, "Our leading Generals are out of touch with the realities on the ground, while generous giving to the Iraqi people is being abused through massive corruption.
McIntire goes on to say, "leading generals in Iraq are much influenced by the media and politics, and play to the politics rather than listen to their field officers and soldiers on the ground.

Of course you'll come back with they are doing Cheneys bidding....but I thought the last time your kind did the public waa-waa,it was the generals saying they weren't running the show and 'W' said "ok,you got it"?

Kudos to Army Lt. Col. Paul Yingling ["Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures,' " news story, April 27] for having the courage to speak out in criticism of his uniformed superiors, who failed to speak up when it counted and have demonstrated an almost total lack of acumen in prosecuting the "long war" against terrorism.

Lt. Col. Yingling has taken on his superiors of the moment for their moral, strategic and operational shortcomings in real time, while he is on active duty. He thus stands in contrast to the generals who were mute while on active duty and called for then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation only after they had their pensions securely in hand.

So in short-during the 'Rummy did it debacle' last fall the generals wanted control,well now it looks like they got what they wanted but watch too much CBS news dude.(They have a career to think about).

Leads me to believe that there are far more soldiers on active duty who are far from pleased with Cheney’s planning of this war.

Looks like the generals are screwing up as good as Rummy and Cheney ever did,dude.

 

[Garfield1966]

I do not see where my distrust of Bush has any bearing on you using Clinton as a benchmark.

Ah, so not it’s the military incompetence? While I agree that they are in part responsible for the Iraq blunder, just as Carter was blamed for the rescue failure, so I Cheney responsible for the Iraq blunder.

The thing that stands out most to for me is the fact that never before have so many retired military personnel come out against their CIC. Never before has a POTUS lost support from his own party to the degree that Bush has. Out of all the candidates, McCain is the only one who hitched his wagon to Bush and we see how well that is working out of him.

As for the generals who were “muteâ€￾. We do not really know that. From all that I have read and heard both from military personnel and annalists, active duty military do not criticize their leaders for the most part. It is a sure fire way to end your career. Yingling has more than likely sealed his fate and that is unfortunate. What goes on behind the scenes is a different story. Grievances go up the chain of command. Depending on how much fortitude the high ranking officials have will depend at what level the grievance gets squashed. Just as in corporate America, people tend to rise to the level of their in competency and people tend to higher/promote those who do not pose a threat.

When you say the generals screwed up just as bad as Rumsfeld did are you implying that the Generals did things on their own with out the expressed consent of their CIC?

 

[delldude]

I remember all the whining last year and there was some diatribe about Bush not listening to the generals and such....and he listened...it was in the news if you must check....so now they have the ball....you must remember also,he has JCS as his advisers and he listens to their recommendations.
Bush doesn't sit down and do battle strategy dude....

Looks like Soros' boys got the Dems by the 'nads....will be interesting to see if they dis' Soros funded lackeys and try to keep the White House in the parties sights rather than get into a pissing match with the Grand Old Party over an Iraq budget and possibly hurt their chances for Pennsyvania Avenue.

 

[Garfield1966]

As I recall, the issue was that he did not listen to them at the out set of the war and that is why we are in the situation we are in now. Regardless of who listened to whom, Cheney and Bush were the elected officials. They are the ones responsible for the success or failure of missions undertaken during their tenure in office.

Indications seem to be that Cheney et all surround them selves with people who will give them the answers they want to hear. When you surround your self with yes men (women) you tend to end up with substandard advice. Gen Powell learned that lesson the hard way. While he is abiding my military protocol (and I guess his own personal standards) by not speaking out against Cheney et al, I think his silence speaks volumes about his confidence in the current administrations ability to conduct foreign affairs.

Hell, W had to bring in dad’s good ol boys to try and bail him out. How pathetic.

No Cheney and Bush do not set battle strats, that's what you have a DefSec for and who hired him?

 

[delldude]

Its SecDef....

Surround with yes men....much like commercial aviation?

I recall Powell made a few comments before and after leaving State...what they are I don't remember but I was suprised.Powell isn't the class act everyone thinks hhe is,he has an agenda too.
You are right, George and Dickie are responsible as CIC and #2....but theres a whole lot of other boobs under them.Some career boobs that 'W' left on in the spirit of partisanship...you do know he did do that...in fact most at State were Clinton era...same with CIA...makes one wonder why all the hoopla over WMD's?? Maybe someone in those departments have/had an axe to grind??(Tenet)Maybe some of Bush's problems????
Yeah,I know...

 

[Garfield1966]

I guess it is possible someone had an ax to grind. The problem I see with that are

1. To many people involved. It’s hard to get a conspiracy going when you have who knows how many people involved in the analysis of all the intel. I doubt you could get everyone who knew better to shut up. IMO, the evidence was presented but Cheney cherry picked the stuff that suited his agenda.
2. My understanding is that the aside from the DI, DDI and a few just below them are all career folks. I doubt they would jeopardize their career and give bad intel. I would think that would come back and bite you in the ass.
3. You and I both know nothing in politics is done merely for the sake of doing it. If W left people in place it was done for a reason and I doubt bi-partisanship was the reason.

I have no idea what the numbers are for the leftovers ion State and CIA. If you have the numbers I’ll take your word for it.

As for Powell, I don’t have the time right now to look but I don’t recall him saying much of anything except to clear his name. If he had an agenda, all it seemed to be was to fade into the limelight. I have not hears a peep from him. I certainly do not remember any statements from him similar to the statements by other retired personnel.

 

[TWAnr]

Well, it appears as if the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates is not quite in tune with the surge policy:

[Highlights]

Gates' recent comments seem to run counter to the message from the White House. During a recent trip to the Middle East, Gates told the Iraqi government that time was running out and praised Democratic efforts in the U.S. Congress to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying it would help prod the Iraqis. He reiterated that point during a meeting with reporters last week.

"I believe Gates is on a completely different page than President Bush and Gen. Petraeus," said a former senior Defense official who has supported the buildup. "He wants to see some results by summer, and if he doesn't see those results, he seems willing to throw the towel in."

Gates was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended in its report last year that most combat troops withdraw by early 2008. Gates did not sign the report; he has said that formal deliberations did not start until after he left for the Pentagon. But several people who worked on the report said Gates was closely involved in early drafts and would have supported its eventual conclusions.

"Knowing how that group got along and how we shared our views, there remains no question in my mind that Bob Gates, had he not become secretary of Defense, would have supported those recommendations," said Leon E. Panetta, a former Clinton White House chief of staff and a member of the Iraq panel.

Gates came to the Pentagon last year vowing unvarnished assessments of progress in Iraq, and established a reputation on Capitol Hill for speaking frankly. As a result, he has become a trusted administration voice on Iraq policy, unencumbered by the baggage of the war's initial planning and execution.

But ever since taking over from the divisive Donald H. Rumsfeld in December, Gates largely has kept his views on the president's troop increase to himself. At Bush's direction, Gates spent his first weeks at the Pentagon gathering information to recommend a new course.

[H]e has refrained from praising the strategy and is exploring backup plans in case it fails. He hopes to begin troop reductions this year and has ordered planners to keep funding for the buildup out of next year's budget, an indication he wants the increase to end in 2007.

Gates' sharpest public difference with supporters of Bush's strategy has been over the question of how long the buildup should last before undergoing a thorough assessment.

Gates insisted for much of the year that the current Baghdad security plan be evaluated this summer — just two months after all five of the "surge" brigades are in place. And Gates occasionally scolded senior officers who have suggested otherwise.

When Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the chief military spokesman in Baghdad, suggested in recent weeks that a progress report may have to wait until the fall, Gates responded harshly.

"I was a little disturbed, frankly, to hear that one of our military officers — and I don't know who it was — saying it will be fall before we have some good idea," Gates told a congressional hearing, unprompted by any question about timing.

Nonetheless, Gates' views worry military officials who support the troop increase. One senior military officer argued that rather than talking about time running out, Gates and the Pentagon ought to be trying to buy more time for the strategy.

"If we cannot practice a little strategic patience right now," said the officer, "we might as well pull out."

Added a military analyst who has consulted for the Pentagon: Gates "seems to be off message, and I do not know why. I don't know if Gates thinks the war can be won. He has said it can, but I am not 100% sold that he believes it, and that is a real problem."

But many who discussed Iraq policy with Gates before he became Defense secretary said that though he had worked to implement the new security plan since arriving at the Pentagon, his views were closer to the Iraq Study Group than previously known.

Gates has publicly praised the study group, telling a recent congressional hearing: "My copy of the report's pretty dog-eared." But people who worked on the report said Gates' involvement was much more direct.

"He wrote so much of the original draft," said one person close to Gates, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to embarrass the Defense secretary. "He's deliberately [distanced himself], because the president has elected not to adopt it. He's trying to execute the challenge he's given, I think is the best way to say it."

Some who worked on the report said Gates voraciously read early papers written by the panel's staff, something not all commission members did, and could frequently quote parts back to their authors. One agreed that Gates would have signed on to the final version, and said he believed Gates sees a much shorter window of opportunity in Iraq than Petraeus does.

Gates has agitated buildup supporters by praising the debate in Washington over timetables in Iraq, reiterating last week that it has had a "useful" role in convincing Iraqis that U.S. patience is wearing thin. Supporters of the surge believe that any discussion of timetables, explicitly by Democrats or implicitly by Gates, is harmful.

Gates' comments have led some surge supporters to conclude that he is trying to devise a compromise between the Iraq Study Group recommendation, favored by Democrats, and Bush's new strategy. And critics of such compromises predict failure.

"It almost looks like there is an effort by Gates to amalgamate the Iraq Study Group with the current strategy," said the military analyst. "I am concerned about that."

Los Angeles Times - On Iraq, Gates may not be following Bush's playbook