Shumer: Anbar improved despite the Surge

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but your logic sucks, your "wait and see what the puppet says" sucks and your facts are inconsistant.

The fact that you consider the top General on the ground a "puppet" means any serious, logical discussion is out of the question. Please come back when you can have a real debate.

When you can't seriously consider the fact that you are being fed what they want and not what they should calls into question your ability to reason with anything other than Gerber food.

Look at the generals in the past, they speak out after they are retired. If they speak out before (Shinseki) they are retired. Why? Because overbearing bureaucracies are self-centered and naturally mean-seeking in opinions. It's group-think at it's finest and the group leader is the President. He sets the tone and it is up to the drones to follow that tone.

Patraeus will not say much out of line with what Bush has already said. If he says something counter, it'll always be prefaced with a mitigant that, most likely, will not be wholly truthful.

This is the way it works these days. It's been a long time since a cabinet wasn't filled with "Yes Men". Many historians agree that one of the things that made Lincoln such a strong leader is that he had a somewhat adversarial cabinet. If he could convince even the most disagreeing person, he had mastered his point.

You fail to realize that that is a fundamental change in this country in the last couple decades.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
I agree with Shumer, I wouldn't trust a Republican about anything having to do with Iraq. They are too politically invested in it to tell the truth. They lied to get us into that war, and keep lying to keep us in it.

I'll take a Republican invested in Victory over a Democrat invested in defeat any fvcking day.

I'll take a Democrat invested in reality over a Republican invested in insanity any fvcking day. But that is just me as I don't feel the need to keep doing the same shit over and over and expecting different results at the cost of thousands of more lives. I don't think you get how much the majority of Americans despise people who WANT to see more people die as long as it isn't their own life that is on the line.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...4f21-9cb3-ce190f316648

Seems Shumer's comments somehow got by the vigilant MSM so I have to link to Townhall.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

And there you have it. The Dems are trying to figure out deperately how to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq yet remove any and all credit from the US military. And the very same group that claimed we didn't understand the social fabric of Iraq and weren't willing to work with the Iraqi tribes are suddenly complaining becase WE ARE DOING THAT VERY THING. Can you guys make up your mind? Despite the numerous reports of how our military working with and supporting the tribal shieks fighting against al Qaeda, and winning hearts and minds in the process, Shumer tries to deny it.

Shumer's attempted spin to downplay any accomplishments in Iraq are typical of him and his base today. Twist, distort, conflate; he's got it all going on. He's employing all the tricks. It's quite a display of, what's that term the progessives love to use? Oh, yeah - "cognitive dissonance."

But don't forget that they support the troops.

Right pocket, left pocket. It doesn't matter where the casualties occur, or where they don't. All that matters is that they are reducing, are they? Not even close, they are accelerating.

Nice spin though.

So you agree with Chucky? The US had nothing to do with the improvement in Anbar?

America had nothing to do with the success in Anbar. That's been common knowledge since last fall when the sunnis turned against Al Qaeda. The surge started in January.

I see. So you know for a fact they could have easily accomplished battling AQI without the US military support that was provided? Can you provide some substantiation of exactly how they would have gone about that?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but your logic sucks, your "wait and see what the puppet says" sucks and your facts are inconsistant.

The fact that you consider the top General on the ground a "puppet" means any serious, logical discussion is out of the question. Please come back when you can have a real debate.

The General works directly for the President. Look at Harvey's thread, the Petreaus report will be produced by the White House.

Quit confusing him, he only listens to generals..... not the retired generals, no, no, only the ones that answer to Bush.

I just saw this on PBS and it rang a bell:


Panel Finds Progress, Problems with Iraqi Security

JIM LEHRER: General, first, some overall conclusions, that the Iraqi security forces -- army and police together -- are not going to be able to secure Iraq independently, at least until another 18 months, or 12 to 18 months. What caused you to draw that conclusion?

GEN. JAMES JONES: Well, I think the commission came to the conclusion that the progress has been measured but uneven across the spectrum of the Iraqi security forces. We specifically evaluated the progress made by the Iraqi armed forces and the police forces and the two ministries that oversee these two elements, specifically the ministry of defense and the ministry of security.

We found that the army is moving in a positive direction and the police, generally speaking, is not. And so, as a result of that, we came to the conclusion the likely pattern of progress over the next 12 to 18 months will be for a more capable army able to take on the internal security threats facing the country, but a police force that needs a lot more work, a lot more training, and a lot more focus.

With a lttile googling I found this article from Oct. of 2006:

Iraqis May Control Security in 12-18 Mos

"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces. It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security that's still coupled with some level of support from us," Gen. George Casey said.

Lies, lies, and more lies. It seems they've lied so much they have began to repeat themselves.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but your logic sucks, your "wait and see what the puppet says" sucks and your facts are inconsistant.

The fact that you consider the top General on the ground a "puppet" means any serious, logical discussion is out of the question. Please come back when you can have a real debate.

The General works directly for the President. Look at Harvey's thread, the Petreaus report will be produced by the White House.

Quit confusing him, he only listens to generals..... not the retired generals, no, no, only the ones that answer to Bush.

I just saw this on PBS and it rang a bell:


Panel Finds Progress, Problems with Iraqi Security

JIM LEHRER: General, first, some overall conclusions, that the Iraqi security forces -- army and police together -- are not going to be able to secure Iraq independently, at least until another 18 months, or 12 to 18 months. What caused you to draw that conclusion?

GEN. JAMES JONES: Well, I think the commission came to the conclusion that the progress has been measured but uneven across the spectrum of the Iraqi security forces. We specifically evaluated the progress made by the Iraqi armed forces and the police forces and the two ministries that oversee these two elements, specifically the ministry of defense and the ministry of security.

We found that the army is moving in a positive direction and the police, generally speaking, is not. And so, as a result of that, we came to the conclusion the likely pattern of progress over the next 12 to 18 months will be for a more capable army able to take on the internal security threats facing the country, but a police force that needs a lot more work, a lot more training, and a lot more focus.

With a lttile googling I found this article from Oct. of 2006:

Iraqis May Control Security in 12-18 Mos

"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces. It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security that's still coupled with some level of support from us," Gen. George Casey said.

Lies, lies, and more lies. It seems they've lied so much they have began to repeat themselves.

Oct 2006? What does October 2006 plus 12 to 18 months equal? Did you even bother to do the math?

 

[1EZduzit]

Do you have reading problems, math problems, or both?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...4f21-9cb3-ce190f316648

Seems Shumer's comments somehow got by the vigilant MSM so I have to link to Townhall.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

And there you have it. The Dems are trying to figure out deperately how to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq yet remove any and all credit from the US military. And the very same group that claimed we didn't understand the social fabric of Iraq and weren't willing to work with the Iraqi tribes are suddenly complaining becase WE ARE DOING THAT VERY THING. Can you guys make up your mind? Despite the numerous reports of how our military working with and supporting the tribal shieks fighting against al Qaeda, and winning hearts and minds in the process, Shumer tries to deny it.

Shumer's attempted spin to downplay any accomplishments in Iraq are typical of him and his base today. Twist, distort, conflate; he's got it all going on. He's employing all the tricks. It's quite a display of, what's that term the progessives love to use? Oh, yeah - "cognitive dissonance."

But don't forget that they support the troops.

Right pocket, left pocket. It doesn't matter where the casualties occur, or where they don't. All that matters is that they are reducing, are they? Not even close, they are accelerating.

Nice spin though.

So you agree with Chucky? The US had nothing to do with the improvement in Anbar?

America had nothing to do with the success in Anbar. That's been common knowledge since last fall when the sunnis turned against Al Qaeda. The surge started in January.

I see. So you know for a fact they could have easily accomplished battling AQI without the US military support that was provided? Can you provide some substantiation of exactly how they would have gone about that?

It's common sense. Al Qaeda has guns. The sunni extremists had guns. The only difference is that the Sunni extremists were local boys that rised up (with their community) against Al Qaeda, which was very brutal. In other words, the locals had the logistics and understood the lay of the land, which are critical in any conflict.

Notice how the US Military just came in and put Iraqi uniforms on these extremists, calling them police officers. These sunnis are not loyal to Baghdad at all, which means their alliance against Al Qaeda is a short term fix, not long term. They can easily rise against us and the central government at any moment.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Do you have reading problems, math problems, or both?

lol. This is called a Friedman Unit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_unit

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oct 2006? What does October 2006 plus 12 to 18 months equal? Did you even bother to do the math?

Iraq math: October 2006 + "12 to 18 months" = September 2007 + "12 to 18 months".

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oct 2006? What does October 2006 plus 12 to 18 months equal? Did you even bother to do the math?

Iraq math: October 2006 + "12 to 18 months" = September 2007 + "12 to 18 months".

Iraq math: October 2006 + "12 to 18 months" = September 2007 + "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"+ "12 to 18 months"

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This is the way it works these days. It's been a long time since a cabinet wasn't filled with "Yes Men". Many historians agree that one of the things that made Lincoln such a strong leader is that he had a somewhat adversarial cabinet. If he could convince even the most disagreeing person, he had mastered his point.

Interesting reference to Lincoln. I highly recommend "Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It's a fantastic insight in to Lincoln's political inner circle. Indeed he did have an adversarial cabinet, something we haven't seen for a long, long time. And not strictly behind the scenes, either. We're talking elbows and fists right over the table.

I'm not disputing that GWB's Cabinet is full of "Yes" men; They almost always are, and have been for a long, long time. I agree it is an unfortunate characteristic of modern politics.

You fail to realize that that is a fundamental change in this country in the last couple decades.

As noted above, I'm fully cognizant that the inner circle is comprised of nearly all "Yes" men. Just as it has been for MANY decades now.

I still prefer to at least have Petraeus' Report before debating the next steps.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yes. It will take until somewhere between October 2007 to April 2008.

It is neither October 2007 or April 2008 yet unless you built that time machine and are posting from the future. If you DID build that time machine then please go back and fix everything as you see fit, then return and see if you didn't fvck it all up too.

Thanks.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Palehorse74 said:

For the record, very few of you, on either side, have any real understanding of the situation, past and present, in Anbar and Baghdad. While some of you hit on an accurate point from time to time, the majority of your theories and summaries are entirely inaccurate. The scary thing is that you base your entire position on those inaccuracies, and then it snowballs across the net and the world as you compound one falsehood with another... and another... and another. (and no, I wont even attempt to start listing each of your mistakes and false beliefs... it would overwhelm (read: bore) me too quickly).

Some times, it drives me nuts that some of you sound so damn sure of yourselves while having no real clue what you're talking about... other times, it cracks me up. So I guess it's all good, eh?

I wish there was a way to accurately describe the details and realities; but, alas, it will take a much better author than I to do so. Maybe some of you will go there and see for yourselves.... but I highly doubt it.

Well, by all means...fill us in. You sound like a smart, articulate, well read guy. I'm sure you can put it into words here that we can understand.

The typical punter, or even the most hardened political maven, will not travel to Iraq to find out for him or herself what the real situation is.

If you know the truth, wouldn't it be your patriotic duty to spread that truth. Shouldn't that be the reason you post here?, to educate, dispel myths, help people understand your goals & world view.

Cmon, give it a shot. American & Iraqi lives, along with billions in tax payer $$ daily are counting on this truth you hold so dear.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Dari said:

The General works directly for the President. Look at Harvey's thread, the Petreaus report will be produced by the White House.

It's hard not to be cynical isn't it. So many generals, so many press release's, so little time.

Let's say Tiger Woods shoots 98 in a professional tournament. For you non-golfers, that would be by far the worst competitive round he has ever played.

If Bush/Cheney were Tiger's press agent, the spin the next day would be: Tiger sinks 10 foot putt on 15; sticks approach shot on 11; says "wait until next week, my swing needs a little work but things are improving."

Throw in a few insults for any reporters cheeky enough to say that Tiger plain sucked on the course and there you have the Bush/Cheney plan for success in Iraq.

Press releases. Spin. Fire generals who tell the truth and replace them with willing propagandists.

We'll just have to wait and see..

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes. It will take until somewhere between October 2007 to April 2008.

It is neither October 2007 or April 2008 yet unless you built that time machine and are posting from the future. If you DID build that time machine then please go back and fix everything as you see fit, then return and see if you didn't fvck it all up too.

Thanks.

I have taken TLC's advice, gotten into that time machine and come back to report that the GWB surge plan, as originally outlined in 1/2007, was based on Iraqi police units operating on a "precinct by precinct" level co ordinating with both US troops and Iraqi army units.

By 3/2007 it was quite apparent that Iraqi police were worse than useless because they had already been co-opted by insurgent groups. Meanwhile we are still all wondering when the real surge will start and get down to that needed police precinct level.

In unrelated news, the slogan of surge is doing a bang up job of replacing the slogan of stay the course. And among proponents of GWB political spin, the slogan of surge still out polls I had a dream and a scheme nearly two to one.

But the good news is we are working on a new slogan with Senator Warner. And now GWB has climbed aboard and now hints we may, generals be willing, be able to make some token troop reductions by X-Mas. And while Warner hints the reductions should be the whole hog, he also signals he might settle for a token 5000. Under the GWB version it might end up something like a troop reduction of a whole five people, but the trend line is clear.

The slogan of surge will soon be replaced by the wave. The seasons go round and round and the painted pony goes up and down, as we are captive on the carousel of time. Everyone will just die and die and GWB will just lie and lie, we are captive on the carousel of time.

Damn that time machine jutebox, it just kept playing the same song and would not shut up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Do you have reading problems, math problems, or both?

lol. This is called a Friedman Unit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_unit

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes. It will take until somewhere between October 2007 to April 2008.

It is neither October 2007 or April 2008 yet unless you built that time machine and are posting from the future. If you DID build that time machine then please go back and fix everything as you see fit, then return and see if you didn't fvck it all up too.

Thanks.

I have taken TLC's advice, gotten into that time machine and come back to report that the GWB surge plan, as originally outlined in 1/2007, was based on Iraqi police units operating on a "precinct by precinct" level co ordinating with both US troops and Iraqi army units.

By 3/2007 it was quite apparent that Iraqi police were worse than useless because they had already been co-opted by insurgent groups. Meanwhile we are still all wondering when the real surge will start and get down to that needed police precinct level.

In unrelated news, the slogan of surge is doing a bang up job of replacing the slogan of stay the course. And among proponents of GWB political spin, the slogan of surge still out polls I had a dream and a scheme nearly two to one.

But the good news is we are working on a new slogan with Senator Warner. And now GWB has climbed aboard and now hints we may, generals be willing, be able to make some token troop reductions by X-Mas. And while Warner hints the reductions should be the whole hog, he also signals he might settle for a token 5000. Under the GWB version it might end up something like a troop reduction of a whole five people, but the trend line is clear.

The slogan of surge will soon be replaced by the wave. The seasons go round and round and the painted pony goes up and down, as we are captive on the carousel of time. Everyone will just die and die and GWB will just lie and lie, we are captive on the carousel of time.

Damn that time machine jutebox, it just kept playing the same song and would not shut up.

lol. Lemme guess. One Toke Over the Line is playing?

 

[Lemon law]

To TLC who sez---lol. Lemme guess. One Toke Over the Line is playing?

To better define the question, I told you what song your time machine jutebox is playing and why. You are telling us in six months the tune will change and things will turn around.

Sorry, been there done that, and major changes are always just six months away. And this just six months away lie has happened on a six month basis each and every time a six month increment has gone over the dam.

The American people have lost their gullibility. GWB&co. had better deliver the real deal results soon or else is the bottom line. Political spin is no longer a currency.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes. It will take until somewhere between October 2007 to April 2008.

It is neither October 2007 or April 2008 yet unless you built that time machine and are posting from the future. If you DID build that time machine then please go back and fix everything as you see fit, then return and see if you didn't fvck it all up too.

Thanks.

What a classic troll response.

Well, you might want to inform General James Jones that he only has until April because this is what he had to say YESTERDAY.

GEN. JAMES JONES: Well, I think the commission came to the conclusion that the progress has been measured but uneven across the spectrum of the Iraqi security forces. We specifically evaluated the progress made by the Iraqi armed forces and the police forces and the two ministries that oversee these two elements, specifically the ministry of defense and the ministry of security.

We found that the army is moving in a positive direction and the police, generally speaking, is not. And so, as a result of that, we came to the conclusion the likely pattern of progress over the next 12 to 18 months will be for a more capable army able to take on the internal security threats facing the country, but a police force that needs a lot more work, a lot more training, and a lot more focus.

Hell, before the last presidential election Rumsfield and Bush were telling us the administration had 206,000 army and police trained. Biden called them out on it and then they backed down to 95,000 "trained and equipped". Funny that, maybe now we know where those 200,000 missing guns disapperared?

Iraqis now constitute largest single security force in the country

Speaking at a press conference in Baghdad on December 6, (2003) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld extolled the dedication and growing professionalism of the Iraqi police, army, border guards, and civil-defense forces that are increasingly taking responsibility for the security of the nation.

"They are out in front serving their country, helping to put this nation on a path towards stability and prosperity," he said.

Rumsfeld noted that the Iraqi forces, which now exceed 140,000, constitute the largest single security force operating in the country --- larger than all U.S. military forces and almost as large as all coalition forces combined.

Rumsfeld Praises Professionalism, Dedication of Iraqi Security Forces

------------------------------------

September 12, 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee challenged the Bush administration Sunday over its assertions about the size and capability of the Iraqi security forces.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday that 95,000 trained Iraqi forces were taking part in security operations -- less than half the number the administration had been publicizing.

"In fact, to the best of my knowledge -- in my trips there recently, my staff trips there just a couple weeks ago, talking with General Petraeus -- not one single, solitary Iraqi policeman has completed the 24-week training course on the ground," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

-------------------------------------

Talking with who? General Patraeus?? Yep, from April of 2004 until Sept. of 2005 Patraeus was in charge of training the Iraqi army/police.

By Tom Brokaw
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:51 p.m. CT June 28, 2004
Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the 101st Air Assault division was brought back to organize a 200,000 man strong Iraqi security force ? almost from scratch ? because until that happens the U.S. military will still have to do almost all the fighting against the insurgency.
.
.
.
This general may have the toughest job in the Army right now; he?s being asked to put back together the army he helped defeat while a new war is underway and the country still is in chaos. Petraeus says it?s like putting the airplane together while you?re flying it, and even though this energetic general is a seasoned paratrooper, this time there?s no parachute.

When asked how he could be sure bad guys from the old Saddam regime were not going to infiltrate the army, he said they had the old Saddam records -- and besides, he was counting on men in the various outfits to weed out the bad guys.

Can the Iraqis protect their own country? Getting them ready is Gen. David Petraeus' enormous challenge
------------------------------------


So why don't the Iraqi's have a trained Army and Police Force that can take over? Why do we need to send our troops over for a surge and why do we need to use Sunni's in Anbar that DON"T have any allegiance to us or the Iraqi goverment? I realize doing so is saving lives (both US and Iraqi) but at the same time supporting people that don't support the goverment we're supporting, people that used to shoot at us, seems to me to be a sign that the surge ISN"T working, never really had a chance to work. It's just more spin.

:music:
What goes up
must come down
spinning wheel
got to go around
talkin' 'bout your troubles
it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel spin:music:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This is the way it works these days. It's been a long time since a cabinet wasn't filled with "Yes Men". Many historians agree that one of the things that made Lincoln such a strong leader is that he had a somewhat adversarial cabinet. If he could convince even the most disagreeing person, he had mastered his point.

Interesting reference to Lincoln. I highly recommend "Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It's a fantastic insight in to Lincoln's political inner circle. Indeed he did have an adversarial cabinet, something we haven't seen for a long, long time. And not strictly behind the scenes, either. We're talking elbows and fists right over the table.

I'm not disputing that GWB's Cabinet is full of "Yes" men; They almost always are, and have been for a long, long time. I agree it is an unfortunate characteristic of modern politics.

You fail to realize that that is a fundamental change in this country in the last couple decades.

As noted above, I'm fully cognizant that the inner circle is comprised of nearly all "Yes" men. Just as it has been for MANY decades now.

I still prefer to at least have Petraeus' Report before debating the next steps.

I have read that and many other books on the subject. It's sad that in this day and age, when diverse opinions are needed, the government supresses those opinions.

It takes men of strong moral and intellectual character to be able to absorb and counter diverse opinions. We don't elect those people anymore, we elect the morons who will push for wedge issues.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
What a classic troll response.

The irony of you calling someone a troll in here is a never ending souce of amusement.

Well, you might want to inform General James Jones that he only has until April because this is what he had to say YESTERDAY.

GEN. JAMES JONES: Well, I think the commission came to the conclusion that the progress has been measured but uneven across the spectrum of the Iraqi security forces. We specifically evaluated the progress made by the Iraqi armed forces and the police forces and the two ministries that oversee these two elements, specifically the ministry of defense and the ministry of security.

We found that the army is moving in a positive direction and the police, generally speaking, is not. And so, as a result of that, we came to the conclusion the likely pattern of progress over the next 12 to 18 months will be for a more capable army able to take on the internal security threats facing the country, but a police force that needs a lot more work, a lot more training, and a lot more focus.

Hell, before the last presidential election Rumsfield and Bush were telling us the administration had 206,000 army and police trained. Biden called them out on it and then they backed down to 95,000 "trained and equipped". Funny that, maybe now we know where those 200,000 missing guns disapperared?

Iraqis now constitute largest single security force in the country

Speaking at a press conference in Baghdad on December 6, (2003) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld extolled the dedication and growing professionalism of the Iraqi police, army, border guards, and civil-defense forces that are increasingly taking responsibility for the security of the nation.

"They are out in front serving their country, helping to put this nation on a path towards stability and prosperity," he said.

Rumsfeld noted that the Iraqi forces, which now exceed 140,000, constitute the largest single security force operating in the country --- larger than all U.S. military forces and almost as large as all coalition forces combined.

Rumsfeld Praises Professionalism, Dedication of Iraqi Security Forces

------------------------------------

September 12, 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee challenged the Bush administration Sunday over its assertions about the size and capability of the Iraqi security forces.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday that 95,000 trained Iraqi forces were taking part in security operations -- less than half the number the administration had been publicizing.

"In fact, to the best of my knowledge -- in my trips there recently, my staff trips there just a couple weeks ago, talking with General Petraeus -- not one single, solitary Iraqi policeman has completed the 24-week training course on the ground," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

-------------------------------------

Talking with who? General Patraeus?? Yep, from April of 2004 until Sept. of 2005 Patraeus was in charge of training the Iraqi army/police.

By Tom Brokaw
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:51 p.m. CT June 28, 2004
Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the 101st Air Assault division was brought back to organize a 200,000 man strong Iraqi security force ? almost from scratch ? because until that happens the U.S. military will still have to do almost all the fighting against the insurgency.
.
.
.
This general may have the toughest job in the Army right now; he?s being asked to put back together the army he helped defeat while a new war is underway and the country still is in chaos. Petraeus says it?s like putting the airplane together while you?re flying it, and even though this energetic general is a seasoned paratrooper, this time there?s no parachute.

When asked how he could be sure bad guys from the old Saddam regime were not going to infiltrate the army, he said they had the old Saddam records -- and besides, he was counting on men in the various outfits to weed out the bad guys.

Can the Iraqis protect their own country? Getting them ready is Gen. David Petraeus' enormous challenge
------------------------------------


So why don't the Iraqi's have a trained Army and Police Force that can take over? Why do we need to send our troops over for a surge and why do we need to use Sunni's in Anbar that DON"T have any allegiance to us or the Iraqi goverment? I realize doing so is saving lives (both US and Iraqi) but at the same time supporting people that don't support the goverment we're supporting, people that used to shoot at us, seems to me to be a sign that the surge ISN"T working, never really had a chance to work. It's just more spin.

:music:
What goes up
must come down
spinning wheel
got to go around
talkin' 'bout your troubles
it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel spin:music:

Ahhh. Now I see why your frilly panties are all in a bunch. You are upset because a plan didn't actually go as planned. While there's little doubt that everything you do in your life goes off without a hitch and perfectly to schedule, that doesn't always apply to others. I can name plenty of instances where plans didn't go as forecast, like Clinton's budget proclamations, the Democrats claims about their first 100 hours in office after the '06 elections, and the list could go on. Unfortunately I can't cite any Democratic failures making things better in Iraq because they don't actually participate in making progress or making things better. However, it can be said that their plans for 100% obstructionism have fallen through quite frequently. So when it comes to Iraq things often don't go as planned for either side, as you can plainly see.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...4f21-9cb3-ce190f316648

Seems Shumer's comments somehow got by the vigilant MSM so I have to link to Townhall.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

And there you have it. The Dems are trying to figure out deperately how to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq yet remove any and all credit from the US military. And the very same group that claimed we didn't understand the social fabric of Iraq and weren't willing to work with the Iraqi tribes are suddenly complaining becase WE ARE DOING THAT VERY THING. Can you guys make up your mind? Despite the numerous reports of how our military working with and supporting the tribal shieks fighting against al Qaeda, and winning hearts and minds in the process, Shumer tries to deny it.

Shumer's attempted spin to downplay any accomplishments in Iraq are typical of him and his base today. Twist, distort, conflate; he's got it all going on. He's employing all the tricks. It's quite a display of, what's that term the progessives love to use? Oh, yeah - "cognitive dissonance."

But don't forget that they support the troops.

Right pocket, left pocket. It doesn't matter where the casualties occur, or where they don't. All that matters is that they are reducing, are they? Not even close, they are accelerating.

Nice spin though.

So you agree with Chucky? The US had nothing to do with the improvement in Anbar?

America had nothing to do with the success in Anbar. That's been common knowledge since last fall when the sunnis turned against Al Qaeda. The surge started in January.

I see. So you know for a fact they could have easily accomplished battling AQI without the US military support that was provided? Can you provide some substantiation of exactly how they would have gone about that?

It's common sense. Al Qaeda has guns. The sunni extremists had guns. The only difference is that the Sunni extremists were local boys that rised up (with their community) against Al Qaeda, which was very brutal. In other words, the locals had the logistics and understood the lay of the land, which are critical in any conflict.

Notice how the US Military just came in and put Iraqi uniforms on these extremists, calling them police officers. These sunnis are not loyal to Baghdad at all, which means their alliance against Al Qaeda is a short term fix, not long term. They can easily rise against us and the central government at any moment.

Can you tell me again why the tribes formed alliances with the US miltary if they really didn't need us? You appear to be dancing around answering that question.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
What a classic troll response.

The irony of you calling someone a troll in here is a never ending souce of amusement.

Well, you might want to inform General James Jones that he only has until April because this is what he had to say YESTERDAY.

GEN. JAMES JONES: Well, I think the commission came to the conclusion that the progress has been measured but uneven across the spectrum of the Iraqi security forces. We specifically evaluated the progress made by the Iraqi armed forces and the police forces and the two ministries that oversee these two elements, specifically the ministry of defense and the ministry of security.

We found that the army is moving in a positive direction and the police, generally speaking, is not. And so, as a result of that, we came to the conclusion the likely pattern of progress over the next 12 to 18 months will be for a more capable army able to take on the internal security threats facing the country, but a police force that needs a lot more work, a lot more training, and a lot more focus.

Hell, before the last presidential election Rumsfield and Bush were telling us the administration had 206,000 army and police trained. Biden called them out on it and then they backed down to 95,000 "trained and equipped". Funny that, maybe now we know where those 200,000 missing guns disapperared?

Iraqis now constitute largest single security force in the country

Speaking at a press conference in Baghdad on December 6, (2003) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld extolled the dedication and growing professionalism of the Iraqi police, army, border guards, and civil-defense forces that are increasingly taking responsibility for the security of the nation.

"They are out in front serving their country, helping to put this nation on a path towards stability and prosperity," he said.

Rumsfeld noted that the Iraqi forces, which now exceed 140,000, constitute the largest single security force operating in the country --- larger than all U.S. military forces and almost as large as all coalition forces combined.

Rumsfeld Praises Professionalism, Dedication of Iraqi Security Forces

------------------------------------

September 12, 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee challenged the Bush administration Sunday over its assertions about the size and capability of the Iraqi security forces.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday that 95,000 trained Iraqi forces were taking part in security operations -- less than half the number the administration had been publicizing.

"In fact, to the best of my knowledge -- in my trips there recently, my staff trips there just a couple weeks ago, talking with General Petraeus -- not one single, solitary Iraqi policeman has completed the 24-week training course on the ground," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

-------------------------------------

Talking with who? General Patraeus?? Yep, from April of 2004 until Sept. of 2005 Patraeus was in charge of training the Iraqi army/police.

By Tom Brokaw
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:51 p.m. CT June 28, 2004
Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the 101st Air Assault division was brought back to organize a 200,000 man strong Iraqi security force ? almost from scratch ? because until that happens the U.S. military will still have to do almost all the fighting against the insurgency.
.
.
.
This general may have the toughest job in the Army right now; he?s being asked to put back together the army he helped defeat while a new war is underway and the country still is in chaos. Petraeus says it?s like putting the airplane together while you?re flying it, and even though this energetic general is a seasoned paratrooper, this time there?s no parachute.

When asked how he could be sure bad guys from the old Saddam regime were not going to infiltrate the army, he said they had the old Saddam records -- and besides, he was counting on men in the various outfits to weed out the bad guys.

Can the Iraqis protect their own country? Getting them ready is Gen. David Petraeus' enormous challenge
------------------------------------


So why don't the Iraqi's have a trained Army and Police Force that can take over? Why do we need to send our troops over for a surge and why do we need to use Sunni's in Anbar that DON"T have any allegiance to us or the Iraqi goverment? I realize doing so is saving lives (both US and Iraqi) but at the same time supporting people that don't support the goverment we're supporting, people that used to shoot at us, seems to me to be a sign that the surge ISN"T working, never really had a chance to work. It's just more spin.

:music:
What goes up
must come down
spinning wheel
got to go around
talkin' 'bout your troubles
it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel spin:music:

Ahhh. Now I see why your frilly panties are all in a bunch. You are upset because a plan didn't actually go as planned. While there's little doubt that everything you do in your life goes off without a hitch and perfectly to schedule, that doesn't always apply to others. I can name plenty of instances where plans didn't go as forecast, like Clinton's budget proclamations, the Democrats claims about their first 100 hours in office after the '06 elections, and the list could go on. Unfortunately I can't cite any Democratic failures making things better in Iraq because they don't actually participate in making progress or making things better. However, it can be said that their plans for 100% obstructionism have fallen through quite frequently. So when it comes to Iraq things often don't go as planned for either side, as you can plainly see.

LMAO, you started the thread and you can't even stay on topic with all your obfuscation.

This is a GOP war. They started it and whatever happens, good or bad, they are responsible for. The question is how long are we going to stay, how much money are we willing to spend, and how many dead and disfigured (US and Iraqi) are we willing to accept as "worth it". When is enough, enough?