Bush's Brain in the superbar?

[ChicosBailBonds]

SHocked...Shocked the NY Times would run that.  I'll bet if I posted a number of blogs, articles, etc from military men and women that say the fight it worth it, the NY Times would publish it immediately.

 

[tower912]

So, because there opinion is contrary to yours (but consistent with that of my co-workers who have been there) it is immediately discounted.   Pretty pathetic that you can't allow for difference of opinion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, because there opinion is contrary to yours (but consistent with that of my co-workers who have been there) it is immediately discounted.   Pretty pathetic that you can't allow for difference of opinion.

Where did I ever say that Tower?  All I said is that I'm SHOCKED the NY Times would publish a story with their viewpoints.  When's the last time the NY Times published a similar story with a group of military men and women that said we should be there....he asked rhetorically.

[ChicosBailBonds]

congress is always rated very low - republican or democrat. Its how you feel about the individual

Sigh, another statement wrong.  Another softball knocked deep out of the park.

[mviale]

look at the spreads slugger - from 84 to 20 is not a good thing. Who caused that discontent?

[77ncaachamps]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing.  All this hinges on the following questions for you.

That's bull. Don't pin the faults of a military - who had to cope with changing missions - on the public and the soldiers because of the unclear direction of the White House. There was no clear plan from day one as to how to deal with Al Queda and then Iraq's instability.

-Do you believe that war is always winnable? A single war may be won and even at high costs and the fallout from that war may lead to more. The term "Pyhrric victory" and "WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, Filipino-American Wars" comes to mind.

-Do you believe that a war ends when one side decides that the price they are paying is not worth it anymore? Sure, it can. But see above answer. War begets war in some cases.

-What would be a victory in Iraq for you?Iraqis happily shaking hands with American soldiers, driving Fords (and NOT shooting their guns in the air), sipping Coca-Colas in their Old Navy jeans while waving the U.S. Flag saying, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" as Lee Greenwood plays in the background.

Think that's possible?

[Murffieus]

Well the 85% was a knee jerk reaction right after 9/11----the approval base was about 40% both before 9/11 an after once the patriotism reaction died down. Then about mid 2004 when the Dems started talking surrender and the bipartisan effort came apart the congress approval rating dropped to 25%----now with the Dems in charge and obsessed with surrender and investigations it's dropped down to a record low of 18%.

[ChicosBailBonds]

look at the spreads slugger - from 84 to 20 is not a good thing. Who caused that discontent?

You said Congress is ALWAYS LOW in ratings...you were wrong.  I'd argue at 84% was when Congress worked with the President and everyone in this country was on the same page....now it's just sniping back and forth.  No wonder the Democrat led Congress is at historic lows.

Now, for once can you use some real facts.

[mu03eng]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing.  All this hinges on the following questions for you.

That's bull. Don't pin the faults of a military - who had to cope with changing missions - on the public and the soldiers because of the unclear direction of the White House. There was no clear plan from day one as to how to deal with Al Queda and then Iraq's instability.


[/b]

I am specifically NOT blaming the troops.  I AM blaming the US public, because from the president to every member of congress we elected people that arm chair quarterback this war, fight each other, and compromise the military's ability to do anything.  Bush is to blame for not saying listen the generals tell me what they need, want to do and I will make sure they get it.  Congress is to blame by playing politics with funding and not letting the military do what it knows to do.

I don't disagree that the Bush administration has screwed up the war effort.  I also blame Bush for not knowing how much tolerance the American people would have for the length of the war in Iraq.  But in the end we the public need to say to the military, what do you need to do to complete your missions, we'll give it to you.  The troops I know just want to be able to finish the job, but as is the case since the start of Vietnam, the government has to get all over the place.

[mu03eng]

-Do you believe that war is always winnable? A single war may be won and even at high costs and the fallout from that war may lead to more. The term "Pyhrric victory" and "WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, Filipino-American Wars" comes to mind.

-Do you believe that a war ends when one side decides that the price they are paying is not worth it anymore? Sure, it can. But see above answer. War begets war in some cases.

-What would be a victory in Iraq for you?Iraqis happily shaking hands with American soldiers, driving Fords (and NOT shooting their guns in the air), sipping Coca-Colas in their Old Navy jeans while waving the U.S. Flag saying, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" as Lee Greenwood plays in the background.

Think that's possible?

Your last response is I think what Bush hasn't defined well at all and neither has congress.  The Dems want out because "we can't win", the GOP wants to "finish the job".  No one has defined what victory is.  I think victory is Iraq has a stable government that is respectful of its own citizens.  Does it have to be democracy as we know it?  Not at all for me.  Unfortunately, the benchmarks that Bush has created for report in September are probably exactly what we need.  However, he burned his credibility before that so the "I have a plan and I have metrics, trust me" line doesn't work.  Congress doesn't help with their whole, well we helped start the war but now we decided four years later we don't think its such a good idea.


Returning to my original point, if Congress throws behind the war for even one more year, we would be light years ahead of where we are now.

Also, you point out that war begets war?  We are already in a war and haven't beget another war, so then why not just finish this one as quickly and best as we can?

[77ncaachamps]

Good points. Politicians will do what they always will do: look out for themselves and perhaps, once and awhile, look out for the interests of the US citizenry. The Democrats were elected on a platform to pull out and that is their charge. Is it the smartest thing to do? Who knows? It feels right but there is trepidation about what is left behind. Since Vietnam was evoked by Bush, did we leave a stable government there? Where are they now? I cannot even begin to fathom what Iraq will be like after we pull out (much can be said about Vietnam at this similar point).

I'd love to say to the troops, "What do you need? Will get it for you" but I feel this carte blanche attitude towards funding war is so hypocritical when it comes to funding education or other social programs.

On to the government set up in Iraq, I don't think it's possible for a democratic government to be established in Iraq. Like I said earlier, this is not a government that was started by the people to overthrow a dictator; we did it for them. Therefore, the tremendous work that is usually done by a grassroot socio-political movement is absent. Adding to the complexity is our presence in Iraq, seen by some as agents of change and others as occupiers who only attract death. If the wheels of government move slowly here, how do you think we'll be able to get out of there "as quickly and best as we can"? I can hear the criticism of an Iraqi timeline falling into a deep, dark pit.

[ChicosBailBonds]

[mviale]

Is bush a Malicki supporter today or not?

[Murffieus]

mvaile----why are you so negative?----seems to me you're a Bush hater and really want us to lose in Iraq even though it reflects badly on America. Shame on you----I question your patriotism!

If Hillary were the president and taking it to the enemy in Iraq she'd have my complete support eventhough i dsagree with her on most issues. In fact if she wins in Nov 2008 that's exactly what she will be doing----"taking it to the enemy"----she will have no other choice!

[77ncaachamps]

I may not like Bush, but I want to win in Iraq...regardless of the U.S. casualties.
 

[Murffieus]

What do casualties have to do with this----if the cause is right and correct victory has to be pursued in any event. We wouldn't be here today, if that hadn't been the case in prior wars!

Please keep in mind that unlike Vietnam, these troops are volunteers that know full well that their lives are on the line when they enlisted----the threat of death is secondary to most of them----what's paramount is victory!

NCAA----in most months there are more shooting deaths in a handful of American cities than there are in Iraq----and these people who gave their lives were not volunteers!

Or how about the 4,000 non-volunteers who get killed on the nations highways every month? Should we close down all roads because too many people die on them?

[tower912]

And here we have a historian quoted by President Bush lambasting him for getting the quote right but moving it 180 degrees from proper context.....I am stunned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5499.html

[77ncaachamps]

What do casualties have to do with this----if the cause is right and correct victory has to be pursued in any event. We wouldn't be here today, if that hadn't been the case in prior wars!

Please keep in mind that unlike Vietnam, these troops are volunteers that know full well that their lives are on the line when they enlisted----the threat of death is secondary to most of them----what's paramount is victory!

NCAA----in most months there are more shooting deaths in a handful of American cities than there are in Iraq----and these people who gave their lives were not volunteers!

Or how about the 4,000 non-volunteers who get killed on the nations highways every month? Should we close down all roads because too many people die on them?

That was originally created as a tongue-in-cheek comment, but now I realize that it is not.

Let's make it clear that not all of the soldiers are volunteers: they did it for the money (bonus); they did it because of they had to though they originally volunteered to serve their country domestically. And now with the DREAM Promotion Act of 2007, many illegal immigrants can qualify for citizenship by doing two years of military service. Also, I know a close family who has told their soon-to-be 18 year old son that he either gets federal aid for college (because they're not paying for it) or join the military. Not all are volunteers...there are many who do it for other reasons.

Nonetheless, they ARE U.S. soldiers and we do have to support them. But with dwindling or vacillating recruitment numbers, are we going to use up all of the soldiers we have until we achieve victory?

I say, "No."

[ChicosBailBonds]

And here we have a historian quoted by President Bush lambasting him for getting the quote right but moving it 180 degrees from proper context.....I am stunned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5499.html

Maybe you should read your article....all the way to the very end

[Murffieus]

NCAA----all soldiers are volunteers----any way you look at it they are ALL volunteers----now they may differ as to their reasons for doing so----but they are all volunteers----as opposed to the draft of years gone by.

Something is wrong with your example of the 18 year old who volunteered because he supposedly couldn't get federal aid for college -----I mean EVERY student qualifies for a federal backed loan so joining the armed forces wasn't his only alternative as you make it out to be.

When one volunteers for the military they are aware of the negatives----the money is an incentive to look past that-----alos you talk like the military is falling apart (not being able to replenish)----the truth is that one short time span (month or quarter) they came in under quota by a little bit and the liberal news media jumps all over that----as if to say, "see what Iraq is doing to the military"!

Most of the soldiers i hear quoted after being wounded say they want to go back----that "they can't wait to get back"-----that shows me that (unlike the Dems) they are in it to win!!!!

[tower912]

I did.  A statement from the White House is supposed to make it all better?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I did.  A statement from the White House is supposed to make it all better?

Nope, a statement from the White House is their opinion just as Mr. Dower stated his opinion.

Then you read some of of the other comments by Mr. Dower and he's talking about "other expert opinions"...that's all this is....interpretations of various degrees.

[mviale]

Where does Bush stand with Malicki Today?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Where does Bush stand with Malicki Today?

No idea where he stands with Maliki (where does Hillary stand...oh, she wants him out...last I checked Maliki was freely elected by the people of Iraq.  It's their gov't, their leader or are you guys into impeachment abroad now too?)

....care to share with us the 80% statement you made the other day...we're still waiting...as usual.

[mviale]

Oh - as a representative of the 80% - we think Maliki is a putz that only wants to advance his shia power base.  We also think there have been no political gains as a result of the surge and a new strategy is needed immediately or we need to leave.