Someone explain to me how this 'troop surge' is supposed to work.

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Disagree Conjur--its the duty of the CIA and other agencies of the Federal government to make sure they are not misused as a source of information in Presidential speeches.
Not sure if its mere tradition or actual law---but they see the text of the speech in advance--and have a line item veto in the vetting process concerning their agencies.

Mr. Hadley may have put the line in the speech---it was the CIA's job to edit it out---they had in the past--but screwed up big time once.

The CIA *did* edit it out. Tenet told Hadley to remove it in a speech Bush gave in Oct. 2002 in Cincinnati and it was taken out.

That it made it back in for the SotU was solely on the backs of Hadley/Rice but there certainly were fingerprints on it from other neocons, notably the most batsh*t insane of them all, Michael Ledeen.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wasn't it Clintons guy, Tennet in the CIA, that told GWB that WMDs were a "slam dunk"?

The best way to figure out why Tenet sold out is to watch the PBS Frontline documentary, Dark Side, or at least check this transcript portion:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And you still did not answer the main question.
Was Bill Clinton lying when he said ?the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists??

He had no clue, just as George W had no clue. Yet, the decision to go to war and put boots on the ground over an uncertainty was W's to make. End of story.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wasn't it Clintons guy, Tennet in the CIA, that told GWB that WMDs were a "slam dunk"?

The best way to figure out why Tenet sold out is to watch the PBS Frontline documentary, Dark Side, or at least check this transcript portion:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html

Well...I read through that, and it sounds like the man either was ignorant of the truth, afraid to tell the President the truth, or just wanted to tell the President what he wanted to hear.

In any account, the man had NO BUSINESS being the head of the CIA.

We need someone who is willing and able to give the President the TRUTH and the FACTS.

Bush being wrong and Bush lying are still two different things but that really doesn't matter anymore does it. The truth is that its been nearly four years since we went into Iraq and we can't change that.

So what do we do? Do we just leave. Do we make one last effort?

Is a civil war in Iraq the worst thing in the world?

The biggest problem I have with Iraq is now the Dems want to tie it to Iran.

Iran may be a real threat, then again they may not. If they are a real threat then it has to be handled some way.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wasn't it Clintons guy, Tennet in the CIA, that told GWB that WMDs were a "slam dunk"?

The best way to figure out why Tenet sold out is to watch the PBS Frontline documentary, Dark Side, or at least check this transcript portion:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html

Well...I read through that, and it sounds like the man either was ignorant of the truth, afraid to tell the President the truth, or just wanted to tell the President what he wanted to hear.

In any account, the man had NO BUSINESS being the head of the CIA.

I get the feeling that Tennet, like Rumsfeld, must be one hell of a smart man and one hell of a person to deal with personally.

How else do explain the fact that despite all the calls to replace Tennet as CIA director Bush left him there. The guy must have some personal skills from hell, how else do you explain him not losing his job post 9-11?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wasn't it Clintons guy, Tennet in the CIA, that told GWB that WMDs were a "slam dunk"?

The best way to figure out why Tenet sold out is to watch the PBS Frontline documentary, Dark Side, or at least check this transcript portion:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html

Well...I read through that, and it sounds like the man either was ignorant of the truth, afraid to tell the President the truth, or just wanted to tell the President what he wanted to hear.

In any account, the man had NO BUSINESS being the head of the CIA.

We need someone who is willing and able to give the President the TRUTH and the FACTS.

Bush being wrong and Bush lying are still two different things but that really doesn't matter anymore does it. The truth is that its been nearly four years since we went into Iraq and we can't change that.

So what do we do? Do we just leave. Do we make one last effort?

Is a civil war in Iraq the worst thing in the world?

The biggest problem I have with Iraq is now the Dems want to tie it to Iran.

Iran may be a real threat, then again they may not. If they are a real threat then it has to be handled some way.

That's just it, you can't give Bush the truth. He only accepts what he wants to hear which is why he's surrounded himself with a bunch of back-slapping yes-men. It's why Tenet sold himself out in order to be able to stick around and feel like one of the gang. Just look at the opportunities he's had to end or greatly lessen our involvement in Iraq and force Iraq to take care of itself. He's even told Poppy's group (the ISG) to f*ck off. He's only listening to the last (iow, the most batsh*t insane) of the neocons.

As for Iran, uh, the Dems have very little choice but to start putting up roadblocks to attacking them considering the intensity with which this admin is beating the drums to attack them.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How else do explain the fact that despite all the calls to replace Tennet as CIA director Bush left him there. The guy must have some personal skills from hell, how else do you explain him not losing his job post 9-11?

Tenet probably uttered the words "tell-all book deal" and W's head went all woozy with the idea of him and Condi asleep at the wheel as the system blinked red. :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: bamacre
In defense of our officials (and that's not something I normally do ), has anyone considered for a second that they cannot just come out publically with the details of this new plan without the enemy finding out and evolving to its details? I hate to say it, but I think we just need to wait and see how things pan out before we complain.

Interesting, so you're saying we need to trust the President's war plan this time...
Well, it's unheard of, but I'm willing to give it a go!

I didn't say that.

I am just saying that it seems illogical that all these men and all this time set aside to "regroup" could not have only led to ~22,000 more troops in Iraq.

And it seems logical to think that most of what this "new plan" consists of is not being told to the public, for fear the enemy would obviously acknowledge it, as well as adapt to it.

There has GOT to be more to this "new plan" other than just sending in additional troops.

So, I am not saying that we should trust the current administration's new plan, but I will say that, in reality, and for the time being, we have no other choice in the matter. We should, in all fairness, play the waiting game. Because, like I said, we have little to no knowledge of exactly what all this "new plan" consists.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: bamacre
In defense of our officials (and that's not something I normally do ), has anyone considered for a second that they cannot just come out publically with the details of this new plan without the enemy finding out and evolving to its details? I hate to say it, but I think we just need to wait and see how things pan out before we complain.

Interesting, so you're saying we need to trust the President's war plan this time...
Well, it's unheard of, but I'm willing to give it a go!

I didn't say that.

I am just saying that it seems illogical that all these men and all this time set aside to "regroup" could not have only led to ~22,000 more troops in Iraq.

And it seems logical to think that most of what this "new plan" consists of is not being told to the public, for fear the enemy would obviously acknowledge it, as well as adapt to it.

There has GOT to be more to this "new plan" other than just sending in additional troops.

So, I am not saying that we should trust the current administration's new plan, but I will say that, in reality, and for the time being, we have no other choice in the matter. We should, in all fairness, play the waiting game. Because, like I said, we have little to no knowledge of exactly what all this "new plan" consists.

Doesn't change my point that Bush's administration has been leading the battle charge the whole way and has set to come up with a successful strategy. I don't have confidence that this is much more than just more troops, and even if it is, I don't have confidence that whatever new strategy they have is at all effective.

 

[Lemon law]

To Fox5--who sez---Doesn't change my point that Bush's administration has been leading the battle charge the whole way and has set to come up with a successful strategy. I don't have confidence that this is much more than just more troops, and even if it is, I don't have confidence that whatever new strategy they have is at all effective.

What you are saying in effect is that a even a blind sow is bound to chance upon an acorn once in a while.

Get a clue---it will never happen---GWB&co. is trying to solve a political problem they are clueless about by military means.

We already know that GWB&co. can hatch new slogans and new plans faster than the speed of light---and we are supposed to grant each new new plan six months or better to flop?

Been there done that--many times---at what point do we realize that GWB&co. is the problem---and if we want to solve the problem---we get rid of the roadblock which is GWB&co.

 

[db]

How do you make sense of something that is a lie?
Even the Republicans are finding it hard to go along with GW.

 

[db]

America threatens to 'deal with' Iran over its support for insurgents
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 15 January 2007

The belief that George Bush's troops "surge" policy in Iraq is also aimed at confronting Iran was strengthened yesterday when the White House declared that it was "going to deal" with the actions of the Tehran regime.

In a series of interviews, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, struck belligerent notes on Iranian activity inside Iraq. Mr Hadley did not rule out the possibility of US forces striking across the border.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2154793.ece

 

[daniel49]

well as I understand it. After years of listening to the other side of the aisle saying we didn't send enough troops in to do the job right.
Bush is now proposing 20,000 troops just to secure Baghdad neighborhoods and the Dems are saying no "Stay the Course!"

 

[nullzero]

I believe we will see a airstrike against Iran soon followed up by some special forces opperations. Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons... I found this interesting article on debka http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3736. Iran purchased some of the most advanced anti air defense made, once this is operational and installed at the nuclear sites it will make it very hard to attack by air.

The Iraq war is a huge blunder that will haunt us for years to come. Iran was the threat that should of been handled. Now with the blunder in Iraq we will basically hand over Iraq and its vast oil reserves to Iran. Iran knows that all they have to do is infiltrate the Iraqi government and keep harassing the US in a guerilla war, and eventually the US will pullout and give the Iranians a proxy state. I just cant imagine what will happen after the US pulls out this wont be anywhere comparable to what happened in Vietnam. I am expecting total chaos with Iranian army units moving in and a civil war with the Sunnis and the Shias. Sunnis being backed up by Saudi Arabia with cash and weapons.

 

[Lemon law]

One can always make a surface case that the next door neighbors will profit by chaos----such a case becomes more difficult to make when neither of the next door neighbors caused the chaos. And its even more difficult to make such a case when we know for sure that the real cause of the chaos came from far away---not next door.

But let me ask all you would be arsonists---if your house is real close to your neighbors---would you set your neighbors house on fire and think you could burn it to the ground.
And still be confident your house will suffer no fire damage?

I will also point out something----Iran does have large stocks of modern antitank weapons they could export and smuggle into Iraq with ease---and once those weapons hit the hands of insurgents----US deaths would skyrocket----the fact that this is not happening means Iran is using a heck of a lot of more restrain than the US is.

But there are a lot of indications that GWB&co. will try to sell the American people on widening the war to include Iran. This poster did not buy GWB &co. WMD crapola long ago.
And I will tell all that we should not buy in now.-------------------would you buy another war from GWB&co?

 

[nullzero]

I dont believe we should goto war with Iran, but the path that Bush is taking it is seeming more likely to happen. The recent movement of a massive amount of ships, subs, aircraft, and troops to the region makes me think that we are setting up for airstrikes on Iran.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: daniel49
well as I understand it. After years of listening to the other side of the aisle saying we didn't send enough troops in to do the job right.
Bush is now proposing 20,000 troops just to secure Baghdad neighborhoods and the Dems are saying no "Stay the Course!"

Does seem like that.
Harry Reid said the following LAST month:
"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that,"

 

[Lemon law]

Harry Reid speaks some common sense---what we have is GWB proposing a surge---which would have to be massive to make a dent--and instead is only 20,000 troops
and therefore puny. So its not a surge and therefore its the status quo--and nothing radical that will widen the war.

But the surge plan now buys GWB&co. another six months or so of time---and is a plan only to buy that amount of time and preserve a set of fall back positions. Even GWB&co., vocabulary not withstanding, is not stupid enough to think this surge plan will work. If they wait until its apparent to all that the surge has flopped, GWB&co. will lose all control and public trust. And will have to sit idly by as more rational people dismantle their dreams of the oil theft of the century.

The radical step is bombing Iran---with the only justifiable target being the nuclear plants---which have been been constructed deep underground out of range of conventional explosive powered bunker busters----so GWB must go nukes or have no more effect than bombing an empty parking lot and really pissing off Iran.---and the rest of the world also.

Its now crunch time for GWB&co.-----------who think they have any caution---or rationality---or any conscience about staging incidents.

I hope I am wrong---but GWB&co may double their bet---and take us to war with Iran. Its not a question of do they have the power---its a question of will they.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wasn't it Clintons guy, Tennet in the CIA, that told GWB that WMDs were a "slam dunk"?

The best way to figure out why Tenet sold out is to watch the PBS Frontline documentary, Dark Side, or at least check this transcript portion:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html

Well...I read through that, and it sounds like the man either was ignorant of the truth, afraid to tell the President the truth, or just wanted to tell the President what he wanted to hear.

In any account, the man had NO BUSINESS being the head of the CIA.

I get the feeling that Tennet, like Rumsfeld, must be one hell of a smart man and one hell of a person to deal with personally.

How else do explain the fact that despite all the calls to replace Tennet as CIA director Bush left him there. The guy must have some personal skills from hell, how else do you explain him not losing his job post 9-11?

Hasn't Bush historically utilized bad people and kept them for way too long, i.e. loyal to a fault? He's certainly not renowned for his ability to surround himself with effective people...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Martin
I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

SMOKE AND MIRRORS!

Future grade school quiz, 2019.
Q; Why were the Dictator Saddam Hussein and President George Walker Bush so much alike?
A; Their toadies only told them what THEY wanted to hear.
B; They were both responsible for illegal wars of aggression.
C; They were both tried for similar crimes and executed by their own countrymen.
D; All of the above.

 

[jjzelinski]

Yeah, as others have already said this is probably just an effort for Bush Inc. to save face before he stands down in the region prior to 08. That way he can tell some of his more ardent consituents (or the consituents of his cohorts) he did everything he could before abandoning this monumental cluster fvck we call Iraq. If the admin was serious about it's effort to truly alter the dynamic in Iraq with an increase in troops, it wouldn't be with a relatively piss-ant amount like 20,000. It could be that they plan to attribute the inevitable lack of results of this charade to McCain to damage his election potential in '08 since their political ideologies are very much at odds against each other (especially when it comes to the future of the Rep party.)

I'm personally not convinced at this point that we're going to do a damn thing about Iran, that's even more preposterous than invading Iraq in the middle of our engagement with the Taliban as retribution for a modest attack on our soil that they had absolutely nothing to do with...