Democrats & Liberals Archives

Marines Want Deadline In Iraq

General Conway, the outspoken Marine General who slammed President Bush for micromanaging and fouling up the first Battle of Fallujah, told Senators last week that the administration ignored the need for more troops in Iraq and says we must withdraw troops this year so Iraqis understand we’re serious about making them assume responsibility for their own security.

Gen. Conway told Senators that the biggest mistake made in Iraq was disbanding the Iraqi army. He had “sufficient forces to win (Operation Iraqi Freedom) quickly,”

But, he continued, the military had planned on having the Iraqi army to help control the country after the collapse of Hussein's regime. “When the Iraqi army was not returned to duty, I was obligated to spread my forces,” Conway said. “I didn't have enough troops to cover the area assigned.”

According to recent studies, more security forces after the fall of Baghdad would have quashed the insurgency before it even started and saved the lives of hundreds of US soldiers. The Iraqi army was disbanded by Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer who made the fatal decision without President Bush's knowledge or consent.

President Bush later awarded Bremer the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Gen. Conway, like Democrats and the few sane Republicans left in Congress, also wants to start withdrawing troops from Iraq this year.

Conway, currently serving as operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he believed it still was possible to begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, despite the upsurge in sectarian violence. He said it was essential the Iraqis know they have to assume responsibility for their security and that U.S. troops would leave.

Gen. Conway went on to tell the Senate committee that Marine units outside Iraq were critically short of equipment and sharply criticized the Bush administration for proposing cuts to the total number of Marine Corps personnel, leaving US troops on the ground in Iraq spread even thinner.

I wish more ranking officers were willing to speak candidly, but as one combat veteran put it, "The officer corps is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but not their careers." I applaud Gen. Conway for his courage and I hope his appointment as Marine Corps Commandant will convince more of his colleagues to lay their careers, as well as their lives, on the line for their country.

Posted by American Pundit at July 31, 2006 3:41 AM
Comments
Comment #172207

If General Conway is speaking like that then he should be relieved of his command.

My boss had an employee once who had a complaint. The boss disagreed with him and the matter was dropped until a couple of weeks later when the employee called the boss a son of a bitch to another person. Although he was a top engineer and the company really needed his expertise, he was fired on the spot and rightly so.

The same should happen to Gen Conway.

Posted by: tomd at July 31, 2006 4:50 AM
Comment #172213

“Gen. Conway went on to tell the Senate committee that Marine units outside Iraq were critically short of equipment and sharply criticized the Bush administration for proposing cuts to the total number of Marine Corps personnel, leaving US troops on the ground in Iraq spread even thinner.”

————————————————————————-

Because of poor oversight we’re running kinda low on cash, General…

“Audit Finds U.S. Hid Actual Cost of Iraq Projects”

“The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns.”

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 5:48 AM
Comment #172219

tomd -

“If General Conway is speaking like that then he should be relieved of his command.”

So, he should just shut the hell up and collect his paycheck?

It’s his job to manage these Marines and he is telling the Congress and Bush what he beleives should happen. I know you hate the idea that even the military disagrees with Bush, but your desire for to Bush to “right” or “agreed” with at all costs seems extremely at odds with supporting the military.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 7:06 AM
Comment #172220

tomd

You should apply for a job with Bush & Co., you would fit right in with all the yes men and women he likes to surround himself with.

What he and this country really need are more people like General Conway who have the courage to speak the truth even if it is not what GWB wants to hear.

Posted by: mark at July 31, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #172221

It is and has always been the Bush policy to withdraw troops when it is practical and appropriate to do so.

BTW - He did not slam Bush for micromanaging anything. You link to your own article which extrapolates statements he made about political considerations in a war. This is alwasy a military complaint and it is sometimes justified. But you must also recall that the military complaint was the politics prevented them from really finishing the job.

It is the same complaint the Israelis would have today in Lebanon and not something that makes peace activists particularly comfortable.

Posted by: Jack at July 31, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #172225

The blind loyalty of the Bushites is clearest on this issue.
Censuring a top military leader, simply for speaking out in contradiction to a failed plan, is Un-American and un-patriotic.
George Washington had far more dissent; but he accepted and understood that value of his commanders opinions.
Apparently, this is no longer a value of the GOP and the conservative ideology. Blind loyalty is what costs more lives than needed, in any conflict.
Using your military leaders instead of fighting them is the sign of a honorable President, something this one should have done, instead of accepting only Rummy & Cheney’s assessments.

Posted by: Joe at July 31, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #172227

Jack

check out this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16309-2004Sep12.html

What do we lose, in your opinion, if we pull from Iraq?

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #172231

Should the headlines of this post read
“General Conway wants a deadline in Irag”?

Why do the democrats feel the need to spin the facts. I live near 2 very large bases and the military is completely behind this effort. The many contacts I have in the military also completely share this belief. I DO believe we need to have a time table in place for Iraq….and I feel certain we do.

However, such a timetable SHOULD NOT be published to the general public. Wake up Bush haters, this is a war and you are not priviliged to all the information. I believe 14 out of 18 providences of Iraq are very secure. Focus on those type of messages for once and not only what the media shares.

No one wants to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary and to think the president thinks otherwise uis simply playing politics.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #172233

“Wake up Bush haters, this is a war and you are not priviliged to all the information. “

Curm -

Wake up - neither are you. Both sides love to state things as if they truly knew what was really going on in Iraq. However, wasn’t the BushLOVERS who kept calling us (people who wanted a strategic exit from Iraq) “Cut-and-Run”? Maybe we could start calling your side something like “Mired-and-dying”… but really, all does is confuse the issue.


“I believe 14 out of 18 providences of Iraq are very secure.”

Again, you know no more than anyone else here - but I’m also thinking that 14 of the 18 provinces have very few people living there.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #172236

Curmudgeon

“I believe 14 out of 18 providences of Iraq are very secure.”

This is irrelevent since 1/3 of the Iraqi people live in Baghdad.

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #172237

SAND IS SECURE, SIR!!!!

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #172238

Sand and oil, yes.

Iraqi people and government, no.

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #172239

No other president — Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War — faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president’s own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies — including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill — suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president’s supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security. The wise men who counseled Bush’s father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, “There is a higher Father that I appeal to.”
And that’s really the problem right there. Not just the higher Father thing, but the arrogance of dismissing opposing viewpoints when faced with such complex and critical issues. Lincoln filled his cabinet with people who HATED him, Bush fires anyone who even slightly disagrees. And his supporters are the same way, arrogant to the point of lunacy. Pride, I might remind all of them, the president especially, is not something to be proud of.

Posted by: Tim at July 31, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #172240

“According to the Ministry of Health, from January to June 2006 there were 6,826 civilians killed and 13,256 wounded. Including the figures of the MLI in Baghdad for the period, the total of civilians killed in Iraq from January-June 2006 was 14,338.”

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20May%20Jun%202006%20EN.pdf

———————————————————————-
Never mind the number of provinces. Or can anyone with a sane mind call this “an Iraq under control”? Anyone’s control?

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #172241

boss a son of a bitch to another person
Posted by: tomd at July 31, 2006 04:50 AM

Responding to questions, Conway, who commanded the Camp Pendleton-based 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the initial assault of Operation Iraqi Freedom…
I didn’t hear the General call Bush anything. He gave a candid assesment as part of a confirmation hearing. Would you rather he lie, like the rest of BushCo, simply so you could feel better?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #172242

Both sides love to state things as if they truly knew what was really going on in Iraq.

Tony,

I agree with that statement 100%. What I do know is this particular thread is titled “Marines Want Deadline In Iraq” when in reality it is only a scattered few. This is also true, I trust my own sources over the media. Media only reports the tragedies, never the victories.

Bush is also constantly criticized that he does not have an exit plan. These people do not know. If it is true, it would be a fool-hearted but the fact we do not know does not mean there is not one.
I may be wrong, but cut-n-run refers to those who just want to pack up and leave before the job is finished. Not those who want an exit plan. Leaving before the job is complete is just as fool-hearted as not having an exit strategy.


“Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats.”

Tim,

such a political homer statement. The demonizing has come from the democrats….by far. Hitler, Nazi, warmonger ring a bell?

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #172245

“Media only reports the tragedies, never the victories.”

Does this include such way out liberal as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glen Beck etc etc. Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor? Why are these people not reporting all the great news from Iraq?

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #172246

Oh…so sorry!! Let me make myself a little clearer (and for the record..I am an Independent): George Bush is a raving idiot..a fool..stupid..an embarrassment….AND.. after all the he has said an done to UTTERLY DESTROY the credibility and good standing of this country….anyone who still supports him has serious mental problems themselves!! And yes (if it isn’t obvious by now) I am a BUSH HATER!!! I almost become physically ill every time I see his clown like face on TV!!! I dare say that there isn’t even ONE positive accomplishemnt that Bush can lay claim to as a President.

Posted by: Tim at July 31, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #172247

What would you expect when every bit of (constructive) criticism from anyone (Dems, Indeps, etc.) is immediately dubbed “unpatriotic”, “anti-American”, “pro-terror”, etc?

Had half of the criticism been taken into account instead of wiped of the table and the messenger smeared, we would not be stuck where we are now.

I can only have respect for those Generals, Dems, Indeps and sane Conservatives who have dared to stand up to this Administration.

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #172248

“If General Conway is speaking like that then he should be relieved of his command.”
For answering honestly questions put to him by a senate committee?

That speaks volumes of the republican mentality.

Haven’t we had ENOUGH lying by our military leaders to congress?

“However, such a timetable SHOULD NOT be published to the general public.”

It isn’t neccessary to convince Americans that we have a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq… it’s IMPERITIVE to convince the Iraqis that we have a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. There is no motivation for the Iraqi government to get their shit together if they KNOW that big brother is always going to be there to bail them out. And it’s IMPERITIVE that congress convince the president that we have a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Without it, he has no motivation to actually WIN this war for his legacy.

The senators who voted against the resolution to have the troops withdrawn by July 1, 2007… INCLUDING THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS… ESPECIALLY THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS… were wrong to have done so.

It was a mistake to get into this war.
It was a mistake assume that we’d be greeted as liberators.
It was a mistake to assume “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” two months into the war.
It has been a mistake for three years to fail to pursue victory with adequate troops and equipment to get the job done in a timely manner.


“No one wants to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary and to think the president thinks otherwise is simply playing politics.”

Either these ‘mistakes’ were gross errors in judgement, in which case the president is an idiot and undeserving of the respect and loyalty of his military leaders, undeserving of the support of his constituency, and undeserving of the job he holds…
OR these ‘mistakes’ were part of a grand design in which case the president is a murderous bastard and undeserving of the respect and loyalty of his military leaders, undeserving of the support of his constituency, and undeserving of the job he holds.

Anyone who puts forth a third option is simply playing politics


Posted by: Thom Houts at July 31, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #172249

George W. Bush is a pathological liar. He shows his contempt for the American people whenever he says anything in public. Why do you think he smirks so often? It’s because he knows he’s lying and he’s amused that everyone else (so he thinks) is a fool for believing him.

In particular Bush lied to the people of the United States and to the entire world when he declared in late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had developed and deployed “weapons of mass destruction” and was an imminent threat to its neighbors and to the U.S. itself.

Bush’s lies were used as a justification for launching an invasion and occupation of Iraq which has killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis and which has and will cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars (far better spent on health, education and unemployment benefits for the workers whose jobs Bush has shipped overseas). The long-term damage to America is incalculable.

Posted by: Tim at July 31, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #172250

Tim:

When you take such a defined position, then its of no used discussing anything with you. If you cannot see any good in any Bush policy, then no one here will ever convince you. For example, I can show how the economy has gotten better over the past few years—you can deny it, you can attribute it to things outside Bush’s control, you can simply ignore it. The fact remains the same—Bush inherited a falling economy, the economy lagged for a couple years (remember this time frame included 9-11, bankruptcies etc), and then has improved since then. Facts is facts. It would be acceptable to take a stance that Bush is mortgaging the future, along with Congress etc. But to not see, for instance, that the economy has improved due in part to Bush’s policies, would be insipid.

But opinions don’t necessarily need facts. You can hate Bush for any reason you choose, factual or not.

But when you define out such an extreme position, that’s really all you are doing—defining an extreme position. It serves little other purpose.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 31, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #172252

joebagodonuts wrote:

“But to not see, for instance, that the economy has improved due in part to Bush’s policies, would be insipid.”

———————————————————————-

I’m sorry Joe but the only reason the economy has somewhat held up (and NOT improved from the moment GWB took office, please check your statistics again) is that Alan Greenspan has artificially inflated stock markets and created a housing bubble by printing free cash, putting “equity” into peoples pockets.

You can’t mortgage the future any more than by doing that, as what comes up must come down eventually. Booms and busts have always happened in history and will always happen. The worse the artificial boom, the worse the bust. The Administration and the Federal Reserve have put us right at the edge of the abyss.

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #172253

For example, I can show how the economy has gotten better over the past few years—you can deny it, you can attribute it to things outside Bush’s control, you can simply ignore it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 31, 2006 09:58 AM

This is a bit like saying, “Yes the house in on fire, but isn’t the yard pretty”, Or demanding that if a jury passes a guilty verdict on a criminal they must also compliment the criminal on his tie.

Posted by: DOC at July 31, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #172256

“Bush inherited a falling economy”

Really? He inherited a budget surplus. And it wasn’t until his good friends at ENRON & Tyco (among several others) committed serious fraud that the economy tanked. These companies were at the heart of the first Wall Street implosion. Then came 9/11. It was a one two punch that took out investor confidence. Two parts - Bush’s largest contributors committing crimes
- A major terrorist attack that happened on Bush’s watch

To suggest that Bush had nothing to do with the economy that tanked on his watch is truly being blind to reality.

Bush also knocked taxes down at a time of war, and we have a deficit of $8.7 trillion. This “blossoming” economy is built on credit that is about to hit it’s spending limit, and has to be paid back one day. 1/4 of our government’s budget goes to pay the maintenance on the this debt.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #172257
But opinions don’t necessarily need facts. You can hate Bush for any reason you choose, factual or not. Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 31, 2006 09:58 AM
Very cute, joe. One blanket statement and you call Tim an ignorant liar, without having to use the actual words. The facts are exactly what Tim, et. al., stated. It would be “insipid” to ignore the fact that it’s easy to make the numbers look better when you borrow $8,000,000,000,000 (that’s trillion, lots of zeros, eh?) from our childrens future. Bush is a proven liar “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me” I wasn’t fooled the second time. Were you? And don’t give me that “in court” nonsense, he owns the judge and jury. Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #172266

American Pundit,

When will libs get off the tired argument that we somehow disbanded the Iraqi army? We didn’t disband it, it melted; it disappeared into the landscape. The leadership was Ba’athist and the grunts were Shi’ites. Of course it disbanded itself under the onslaught of a superior force.

Posted by: Charlie at July 31, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #172268

Tim, Seek help. Hate only hurts you, not Bush. Hey, and I voted for Carter….the great shame of my life. I have recovered.

I voted Bush…Why? Because dems offered no candidate worth voting for. They have yet to learn that we don’t want a far left flip-flopping president. Blame you party for never putting up a viable candidate.

As a swing voter, I have become quite frustrated with the lack of leadership coming out of these parties. Bush is a leader, but a poor manager and communicator. Times are becoming desparate not because of Bush but because of ALL of Washington. Dem approval ratings are no better than Bushs. Thats says a lot.

Americans are FRUSTRATED and desparate which is how Lincoln was able to become the first Republican president after Buchanan left the nation a mess. A prime opportunity for a third party.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #172272

“When will libs get off the tired argument that we somehow disbanded the Iraqi army?”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6815732

“Updated: 2:11 a.m. CT Jan 12, 2005
NEW YORK - The decisions by U.S.-led forces in Iraq to disband Saddam Hussein’s army and bar senior Baathists from government jobs after “we liberated Iraq” were the “right decisions,” Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in Iraq, wrote in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday.”

ummm…. what the heck are you talking about? When will you CONs actually start reading the newpaper?

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #172273

Tony

Chronology is what kills your argument. I don’t have to do anything but remind you when things happened.

The DOW began to decline in January 2000. NASDAQ followed in March of that same year. ENRON built its empire in the late 1990s. They were detected and stopped in 2001.

A few other chorological things you may have overlooked. Bush took office in January 2001 (which year did the market decline? Was that before or after?)

The Federal fiscal year starts in OCTOBER. Who was president in October 2000? Whose priorities were more or less in force until at least October 2001?

There is a lag time in any policy. It is not like a light you turn on and off. You can usually say it is at around two years. What year did the economy begin to grow at more than 3% a year and still does? In case you don’t recall, that is 2003.

Presidents get too much credit and blame for economies. But even if you believe that presidents make the economy, you cannot legitimately blame Bush for the economy of 2001 & 2002. If you want to start blaming him, start in 2003, but by then I don’t think you want to talk about it.

You guys can hate Bush for many things, but you are wrong about the economic argument and those who can count past 2 will see that clearly.

Posted by: Jack at July 31, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #172279

Jack,

I can see that the holy hand grenade went off a little too close. The (antiquated) Dow began it’s decline after the Microsoft suit settlement put the brakes on. At that time, it was a “market correction.” Rather than address it in a sane matter, debt and deficit skyrocketed after
(1) Bushie’s and the GOPs tax cuts dropped tax receipts and
(2) The Iraq war increased debt and
(3) The big pharma gift with prescription benefits, and
the list goes on…
You can stop counting at 2 if you wish, but once you look at ALL the numbers, you’ll know we’re right. Otherwise, the rabbit will get ‘ya every time.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #172284

“You guys can hate Bush for many things, but you are wrong about the economic argument and those who can count past 2 will see that clearly. “

Again, I didn’t mention a single thing about Bush - yet you automatically assume (ASSUME) I hate Bush. Why?

I also never said that Bush was solely responsible for the economy… which he is not. I simply stated that people who wish to think that Bush had NOTHING to do with the recession, yet can take credit for the recent upturn in the economy are being politically blind to reality.

Same goes with the attacks on 9/11. Bush was not solely responsible, yet he was in charge and did nothing to vindicate his involvement in keeping this country safe.

“Who would’ve thought…” that they would use planes and fly them into building… OR that the levies would collapse?

Bush clearly knew both were both possible, but his immediate response was plausible deniability. Why do you think that was?

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #172291

“The Administration and the Federal Reserve have put us right at the edge of the abyss.”

Good to know Dems & liberals have kept up their doomsday vitriol. Change is hard.

“Same goes with the attacks on 9/11. Bush was not solely responsible, yet he was in charge and did nothing to vindicate his involvement in keeping this country safe.”

He did nothing to vindicate his involvement in keeping this country safe?? Uhh, what??? Are you saying Bush should’ve attacked us too? Are you on the Michael Moore conspiracy bandwagon? Is this one of those debating team tactics of stumping the opposing view with a confounded question?

“Who would’ve thought…” that they would use planes and fly them into building… OR that the levies would collapse?

Every possible attack on this country has been surmised … if anything different would’ve happened then that would’ve been obvious to GWB too in your opinion. And talk to Ted Kennedy about the levies, he championed the cause not to reinforce them.


Posted by: Ken Strong at July 31, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #172297


Jack:

Enron built its empire in the late 1990s. They were detected and stopped in 2001.
-NO, THEY WENT BANKRUPT THEN INVESTIGATED

“There is a lag time in any policy.”

-SO IS REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR BUSH SR.’S RECESSION? AND NIXON/FORD FOR CARTERS?

Crumudgeon:

“Blame you party for never putting up a viable candidate”.
- the unviable candidate won the popular vote. If you recall it came down to a Supreme court decision.

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #172303

I was always told in the Military, that you can always tell the boss your opinions and options, but it is his call on what to do.
Congress asked for the General opinions on what is right and what is wrong in Iraq. The General still works for Congress and the People of the US, therefore he was correct in voicing his opinions and what the options should be.


Posted by: KT at July 31, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #172304

Ken -

Bush was in charge before and during 9/11, yet he never has discussed his shortcomings with this event. He has blamed everyone but himself, and that is a pathetic leader.

ummmm… the flying the planes into buildings AND the fact that Bin Laden/Al Queda was to attack within the US were both discussed within 30 days of this event. How does shift the blame from Bush to ??? Kennedy? (That’s your answer… WOW! I had no idea a single Senator had such control over the White House…???)

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #172321

“the unviable candidate won the popular vote. If you recall it came down to a Supreme court decision.”

As I learned in my many years of baseball… hits allowed is immaterial….runs count, that still equates to a big L 037. Case closed.

How did you guys get back on 911? It started under Clinton and ended under Bush. They both must take responsibility. Not to mention the many intelligence agencies.

I will give Bush credit for this…….going on five years, not a single attack in the US and many have been thwarted. Dems, come on, give the man his due when he has earned it.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #172327

Curmudgeon:
I think most reasonable people would agree that an unviable candidate has no chance at winning.

we had 7 years between the first world trade center attack (93) and the second. From what the right has expressed Clinton did nothing during that period. What makes you think its not just a matter of time?

Cheney thinks so:

“Another terrist attack is a matter of when, not if..” -Dick Cheney

http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans55.html

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #172329

curm “give the man his due” udgeon;

OK, Bush has managed to spend and borrow more money than anyone else in history, ever. Way to go Bushie!

Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #172330

“When will libs get off the tired argument that we somehow disbanded the Iraqi army? We didn’t disband it, it melted; it disappeared into the landscape. The leadership was Ba’athist and the grunts were Shi’ites. Of course it disbanded itself under the onslaught of a superior force.”

that’s it Charlie? Your sole argument is one of semantics? Get a hold of your senator, Charlie and demand he vote against General Conway for Commandant of the Marine Corps, because HE testified in front of the senate committee: “When the Iraqi army was not returned to duty, I was obligated to spread my forces,” Conway said. “I didn’t have enough troops to cover the area assigned.” But hell, he was only the commander of “the Camp Pendleton-based 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the initial assault of Operation Iraqi Freedom and in the later attempt to pacify volatile Anbar province.”… there’s no way in hell he could know as much about it as you do, eh Charlie?

Posted by: Thom Houts at July 31, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #172334

tomd-
No telling the President the opposite of what he wants to hear, right?

It angers me that you folks tell us to support the troops, yet you folks treat people who ask for more help like Pariahs. Supporting the troops seems to equate in Republican politics with not admitting to things that might make the war look bad. You folks obsess so much about the damage that could be done to morale by all the complaints, yet when it comes time to actually deal concretely with the problems of the war, politics takes precedence.

I’ve got news for you: it is the moral and ethic imperative of any professional to tell their boss when things are going wrong, especially when lives are at stake. People have died, and will continue to die in the future when people keep their mouths shut about critical facts and problems.

Jack-
Conway’s complaints should not be minimized. He told his superiors in the chain of command to hold off, let things calm down. Instead, the administration pushed in early, inflaming the situation. Then having lost control of the situation, again against Conway’s advice, this administration did not persist in the attack, and subsequently left Fallujah in the hands of Insurgents for the better part of that year.

Brash, foolhardy moves, followed by vacillation and second guessing when things don’t go as planned.

Now, once again, the Bush Administration is being told, we must set a date for withdrawal, and we should have had more troops.

Conway is not the first to have asked for more troops, nor the last; he is not the first to ask for a timetable for withdrawal, nor will he be the last. But he is telling us something: we can win this thing if we can make it clear to the Iraqis that they have to get their act together. Isn’t this what they ultimately have to do, and what we ultimately have to bring to pass to get out of Iraq victorious in even a limited way?

Curmudgeon-
This is not the kind of thing you can keep secret. Not only will it get out, the whole point is that it gets out.

We can’t keep our departure a secret. It’s the kind of thing folks notice. Fact is, if the terrorists are actually capable of disrupting our timetable, then any vaunted success is non-existent. We only win this if the removal of our presence does not cause the Iraqi state’s collapse.

If we set a time table, we do it openly, and we devote the resources necessary to making it happen. We don’t beat around the Bush, George W. or otherwise, about getting things done.

Does Bush have an exit strategy? From all appearances, it seems like he has the same strategy as before, which is a problem because that has lead to our current situation of simmering civil war. Whe Bush can say with confidence, despite the hatred and fanaticism of the insurgents, when we can leave, with Iraq in one piece and functioning, then I will believe Bush has a plan until then, I’m still looking for the proof in the pudding.

As for who you voted for, it puzzles me that you don’t believe in Bush enough to vote for him on his merits, and yet you accept his propaganda and charges without question. Why are independents accepting the Republican talking points as defaults when they don’t accept their political points so uncritically?

How can Bush be a good leader if he can’t manage and can’t communicate? What’s left?

Ken-
He has not come out and said that his lack of focus on terrorism, well documented, was a mistaken position to take. Pity, too. Part of Bush’s problem is that his stonewalling delivers the implicit point that he thinks himself above reproach, even while his actions convince people otherwise. If he could admit to errors in a timely manner, and provide more context for his decisions, both good and bad, he could go a long way to clearing the air.

I would say that Bush’s biggest problem is that he wants people to agree with him, even if they do not understand the reasons why. It’s better, in my view, to have people understand you, even if people still disagree afterwards.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #172340

“What makes you think its not just a matter of time?”

037,

I agree with that as well. Any time a man or group is willing to give their life to kill and destroy they will be eventually be successful. Frankly, I’m quite surprised it has not happened here since.

The problems here is you have groups who want to criticize one party and do nothing but praise their own party and refuse to look at things reasonably. They both have done postive things and they both have done negative things. They are not the answer. We just happen to see it more with dems since they are not in power. Dave1 is a great example.

If I did not know any better, I would think we live in a monarchy.

Political reform (Huge) is the only thing that will save our nation. I have lived through Democratic administration. They are no different.
Many Americans do not know this, but when I was serving during the Bush years, Clinton was a HUGE joke overseas. Bush 1, a lot of indifference. Under the Reagan years, Reagan was respected overseas as much as an American could be. Any Reagans left in our nation? Unfortunately, I don’t see any.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #172342

Republican denial of any American wrongdoing has reached preposterous heights. Republican with a straight face assert that $300 billion in arms killed no Iraqis, at least no children, that the report on the casualties and autrocities is a left wing conspiracy and completely false, that the bombs they saw on CNN leveling Baghdad killed no one, that there is no torture in Iraq, even though there have been criminal convictions, that Saddam masterminded 9/11 even though Bush admitted he had no connection.

Sometimes they will claim that every photo of the destruction and victims in Iraq are clever forgeries put out by the Iraqis. Sometimes they will even claim the Iraqis maim and kill their own children simply to take photos of them that will make the Americans look bad.

I wondered what could motivate people to lie so outrageously. Why were they supporting torture children? Surely 50% of American are not all sadistic monsters.

This is how Republicans see the Iraq war: “Sure, bad things happen in war but this war is very noble. Besides, that picture you’re shoving in my face is an isolated incident according to the administration and I’ll believe them before I believe you.

Moreover, these isolated incidents you’re pointing out, while tragic and regrettable, are out weighed by all the wonderful things we’re doing in Iraq. Haven’t you read about the wonderful new schools and hospitals we’re building for our friends the Iraqis?”

You have to keep in mind that the Republicans want (desperately) to believe it. Plus, they’re inundated every day with the rosy picture that FOX and Rush are paid to tell them. If a guy in a nice suit on TV tells them what they already want to believe, it’s pretty easy for them to fall in line.

Posted by: Tim at July 31, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #172347
Many Americans do not know this, but when I was serving during the Bush years, Clinton was a HUGE joke overseas. Bush 1, a lot of indifference. Under the Reagan years, Reagan was respected overseas as much as an American could be. Any Reagans left in our nation? Unfortunately, I don’t see any. Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 02:59 PM
When I was overseas in the 90’s it was Congress who was the joke. No one in Asia could understand why anyone gave a damn about a blow job to a politician. They generally liked Willie, and even Bush 1. Unfortunately, there are Ronnie-wannabes all over the place in Repug land. They’re all just as dangerous as the original. Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #172349

So much hate when there is so little time to stop the madness. Wild Willy Billy, Hillmeister, Bleeding Heart Teddy, and the little Bush kid; they sure do invoke the emotions and passions in people. In some cases, those four can drive people to the point of distraction and sometimes, can even cause serious gastro-intestinal distress in the masses! In my case, it is that little Bush kid. I have a visceral reaction to his voice, his image, and even just the thought of him.

Now, I can offer and debate my opinion of him here in this thread, or I can enter the fray and debate the subject of this thread, Marines Want Deadline in Iraq. In my opinion, lets start with Marine thing first. Let us attempt to keep the little Bush kid, and the unpatriotic liberals out of it, at least for now. We will not accomplish anything if we start the discussion with each of us standing within the walls of Castle Liberal or Fort Conservative. Let’s all just agree to stipulate that each of us are willing to defend and die for our own Lords and Masters of the Universe, thus freeing our minds to examine the subject at hand.

I will try if you will try

Posted by: Duke at July 31, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #172361

Ok..I agree…but one last rant:

Bush’s line of thinking is that the ends justify the means, no matter who has to be tortured; no matter who has to die. No matter who has to be invaded, bombed, killed or have their property taken from them, or their houses raided by federal agents. No matter what has to happen, in George Bush’s mind, it’s worth it to “get the terrorists.” He can invoke the terror scare to insist on just about any transgression against the civil liberties of the American people. That is the most frightening thing of all.

The actions of President Bush and his administration are far more terrifying than any actions taken by the terrorists, because a group of terrorists can destroy one building, but a group of power-hungry national leaders — who are willing to do anything to justify their personal political agenda — can destroy an entire nation, and that’s what I see this administration doing right now.

It’s tearing the foundation of this nation apart, one Constitutional amendment at a time, and if this does not end now, it is soon going to be too late to reverse it. We’re going to end up as a fascist police state, a war-mongering global aggressor and a nation that is hated by all and feared by many. It will be a nation that will inevitably find itself in military conflicts with other nations of the world. We’ve got to reverse this trend. We have to learn how to make peace with ourselves and our global neighbors, and stop fanning the flames and trampling on our citizens’ rights in order to achieve some geopolitical or military goal.

Posted by: Tim at July 31, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #172363

Good article, AP.
It seems that Conway isn’t the only general who is upset about more troops being sent to Iraq.

From ThinkProgress: Hagel: The Iraq War Is ‘An Absolute Replay Of Vietnam’

Four months ago, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) described the conditions in Iraq as a “low grade civil war.” Today, his view is much more bleak. In an interview with the Omaha World Herald, the Vietnam War veteran said that the country had descended into “absolute anarchy” and the war was “an absolute replay of Vietnam.” Hagel also blasted the Pentagon’s plan to send 5,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, saying the move was opposed by several four-star generals: [Hagel] said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were “beside themselves” over the Pentagon’s reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall. Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000. “That isn’t going to do any good. It’s going to have a worse effect,” Hagel said. “They’re destroying the United States Army.“
Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #172394

Congratulations liberals,

conservatives, you just as well give up. you can’t win this arguement. they have beaten you again. you can’t win an arguement by playing by the other person’s rules. and you have let them determine the rules.

so, again I say, “congratulations, liberals you know and play this game well.”

Posted by: TheGriper at July 31, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #172405

“You have to keep in mind that the Republicans want (desperately) to believe it. Plus, they’re inundated every day with the rosy picture that FOX and Rush are paid to tell them.”

Tim, yes….and then we must listen to democratic loyalist tell us what a good man Sadaam was and that Bush is Hitler, a liar and a Nazi….did I miss anything? I suppose CNN is giving you the REAL scoop huh? If the news source doesn’t match your preconception you just label it a Bushie…right? So open minded of you.

Best news source I know is our soldiers and their talking points matches closer to what reps are saying as opposed to desperate dems who realize if the war is going well, they have no chance in November. War is not rosy Tim, keep that in mind and consider this….the war may be going better than you think. BTW, when has FOX painted the war as rosy???

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #172412

“and then we must listen to democratic loyalist tell us what a good man Sadaam was”

Wow, that must’ve hurt coming out! Please, show me a single (ONE!) person, much less a liberal who thought Saddam H was a good guy. ONE!

“keep that in mind and consider this….the war may be going better than you think.”

Of course, the possibility of the war going worse than you think in not possible? Why not?

From my perspective (and reading of quite a bit of news from numerous sources) - Iraq is one big shit sandwich, and just because you find one kernel of corn - it’s no reason to get that excited. I will agree - the war might be going better than I expect - but that’s not a reason to get excited either.

Let’s face it - the only movement with Iraq has been the President’s definition of success there.

Posted by: tony at July 31, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #172413

“The Marine commander, Lt. General James Conway, recently let reporters know how disgusted he was with the whole operation.”

I wasn’t talking about Gen. Conway addressing congress. I stand by my comment that he should have been relieved of duty because of his comments to the press.

Posted by: tomd at July 31, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #172438

curmudgeon

Don’t suppose those soldiers are just repeating the company line do ya.

Do they even see the big picture of what is happening throughout Iraq and not just their little slice of it. If they are in the green zone it’s not even the same world.

Posted by: mark at July 31, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #172445

Crumudgeon, I have to call you on this

“and then we must listen to democratic loyalist tell us what a good man Sadaam was”

give one example, any example will do

then I’ll e-mail my picture of Rummy and Sadamm Shakin’ hands

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #172446

“give one example, any example will do”

037,

I admit my bad, as close as I can come is “invading a sovereign nation”. I’ve heard this from numerous democrats.
The silence on the issue can only lead one to believe Sadaam was an acceptable leader. By the way dems speak of Bush, you would believe he is the evil leader in this scenario.
The monster needed to be removed, the UN failed, once again America had to pay the price. Becoming an old song.

I suppose even a patch of land controlled by a murdering tyrant can qualify as a sovereign nation.


“Don’t suppose those soldiers are just repeating the company line do ya.”

I would say no more than FOX news and CNN or the DNC and the GOP. The difference…. I know many of the soldiers personally.


Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #172458

curmudgeon

“I suppose even a patch of land controlled by a murdering tyrant can qualify as a sovereign nation.”

yes thats true. And I think what pisses people off is we back the one that it is in our interest to back and try to over throw the ones who don’t play ball. Unfortunately we don’t have much of a consistant policy on the issue. That leads many to belive, true or not, that its not about the murdering tyrant. And they ask so what is it really about? Many suspect oil. Look at Africa it is full of murdering tyrants and terrorist, when do we go in? We could actually do some good there and we might actually be greeted as liberators. At any rate time for bed, good night.

Posted by: 037 at July 31, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #172485

Jane, you ignorant slut:

I mean really people, geez.

Posted by: Rene at August 1, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #172543

OK - so who’s being reasonable and who is trying for political exploitation?

——— DEMOCRAT’s PROPOSAL ———-

“… House Democrats joined with their counterparts in the Senate to back a proposal put forward in June by Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan to begin a phased troop withdrawal this year. The proposal failed in the Senate but garnered 38 Democratic votes.

“Despite the latest evidence that your administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort,” the Democrats wrote.”

—— REPUBLICAN’s RESPONSE ——-

“A spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, said Monday that the Democrats were again calling for the United States to “wave the white flag of surrender.”

“The Democratic leadership has failed to understand the sacrifices made by our troops on foreign shores [that] are keeping the battle against the terrorists out of our cities and neighborhoods,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said. “Our soldiers know that by going into harm’s way, they are keeping American freedoms safe.”

—————

Reasonable argument met by ??? pure horseshit ??? This is the exact concept launched by REPs and Bush, yet because the DEMs continue to push it, DEMs are somehow cowards and waving “white flags”?

I think I remember something about the “last stand of tyranny”….???

Posted by: tony at August 1, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #172545

“they are keeping American freedoms safe”

… and exactly what “Americans freedoms” are our soldiers dying for? I thought they were dying for Iraqi freedoms…??? Wait - I thought Saddam’s regiem represented a proven, imminent threat of a “mushroom cloud”?

Or maybe this is the “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” argument… but I thought that was the reason for spying on Americans and putting soldiers on the Mexican border?

Think about our American soldiers is the Middle East - on 2 fronts trying to prevent a civil war in one country and the regaining of power ffrom the Taliban who we kicked out 4 years ago… as the Middle East slides towards “WW III” (Newt.) Aside from moving targets, what exactly is their presence for (other than a catalyst for breading more terrorists…???

Posted by: tony at August 1, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #172603
“The Democratic leadership has failed to understand the sacrifices made by our troops on foreign shores [that] are keeping the battle against the terrorists out of our cities and neighborhoods,”

And yet — even though Spanish and British troops were fighting alongside us in Iraq — it didn’t keep the terrorists out of their cities and neighborhoods. Weird, huh.

…and exactly what “Americans freedoms” are our soldiers dying for?

I don’t know about American freedoms, but the way President Bush and the rubber-stamp Republicans played this out it’s sure benefitting Iran.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 1, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #172604

This all seems like a really bad bar fight that is heading towards riot status. Either side you look at, the stupid ones are calling the shots… and most of the people seem to be chearing them on.

Tyranny and Terrorsim seem to have a lot in common.

Posted by: tony at August 1, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #172724

I have viewed the Republican’s manner of dealing with this war with frustration for quite some time now.

Keeping up appearances seems to be the right-wing recipe for ending the war. Unfortunately, as many comic farces alone could tell you, keeping up appearances in the absence of reality is a juggling act that only gets more complex the more you try to depart from reality.

This war, if it is lost, will not be lost because of the media, or strictly because of the politics. It will be lost because in the effort to redefine the rules of fighting war, the Bush adminstration has failed to learn that some rules are simply the emergent result of all the things any military power has to do to win. One example is troop levels. An enemy strategizing in Asymmetric warfare is going to look at any and all safe havens they can, and any place where there is an absence of force can be so arranged as one. If you arrange things right, you can duck in an out of cities as each is occupied, then left by U.S. power. Set up your infrastructure right, and you can force your enemy into an expensive game of whack-a-mile. The key, utlimately, is to whack all moles at the same time, and keep on whacking them. But that, unfortunately, takes more people than a light/mobile invastion, which was politically out of the equation.

The time has come to stop trying to tell people what to think. The time has come just to do things and do them right, so people have no choice but to see a success.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2006 1:02 AM
Post a comment