This just in -- Sec supports troop surge

[GameTheory]

John McCain sez those who support anti-surge resolution are intellectually dishonest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070204/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq


Sec has been quoting McCain lately as a guy we ought to listen to. So I can only assume he also condemns this resolution...

[Snag]

John McCain sez those who support anti-surge resolution are intellectually dishonest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070204/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq


Sec has been quoting McCain lately as a guy we ought to listen to. So I can only assume he also condemns this resolution...

You be right! I'll be interested in his spin now. Sec?

[Tom]

I don't like MCCmain for much, but he is dead on here.
Passign that stupid resolution serves no purpose and actually will hurt our troops.

What this chicken-shit army is saying - your mission is worthless. Your buddies have died in vain. No one supports what you are doing, and not a one of us has the ball to sdo anything abut it- we are just going to leave you there to die in vain too.

Anyone who votes for this resolution is a traitor and a coward.

Chris Dodd - whjo I liken to a cockraoch, at least has the balls to refuse tovote for it because he wants to bring the troops home period. While I do not agee at all wtih that, I respect he has the guts to stand up for his beliefs.
This other bunch of pansies are whores looking for votes next time.
Disgusting.

Why oh why did they stop that plane heading for DC?

[lsbets]

John McCain sez those who support anti-surge resolution are intellectually dishonest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070204/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq


Sec has been quoting McCain lately as a guy we ought to listen to. So I can only assume he also condemns this resolution...

He'll quote Hagel instead because the quote would fit him better here. He sure as hell won't be quoting Gen Petraeus. For some reason, listen to the generals only applied to the guys who he agreed with, not the best general our military has had in a long, long time.

[Secretariat]

I don't like MCCmain for much, but he is dead on here.


As Tom often cuts to the core, he represents something important here - how right a poltician can be about one thing ,and how wrong about another. Only God (although Lefty tries) is right a 100% of the time.

McCain is spot on on global warming and spot off here. Even the current NIE from the CIA claims the surge is pretty much a bad idea. But McCain has been all over on this. Earlier he said many, many mroe troops woudl be needed, but now 21K is all that's needed.

btw...this is a question I've not seen answered. Does this mean 21K new combat troops, or does this include support and staffing troops? Or is that extra. Are any of these troops being pulled out of Afganistan? Will any of these replace the 3000 British troops pulling our? What is the number of National Guard troops being added, and the training for these troops? What deployment are they on? What will be the fiscal cost of this escalation and what are the casualty estimates? Just a few questions I've not heard addressed. More like rah-rah cheerleader bullcrap. No real answers to the NIE that just came out. Typical stuff.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

- Tennyson

...

As to Petraeus...this is from Salon...

"But while the U.S. troops would report to American officers, their Iraqi counterparts, in an apparent sop to national sovereignty, would report to Iraqi officers. The potentially disastrous result: two separate and independent command structures within the same military operation.

"I know of no successful military operation where you have dual command," McCain told Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Tuesday. Petraeus, heralded by the Bush White House as the man who would make the surge work, signaled his agreement, telling McCain, "Sir, I share your concern."


....

Casey stated to Congress we need two brigades not five, but is going along with George. Yeah, he listens to his generals. He doesn't even listen to the ones he puts in charge let along multiple retired generals.

[Secretariat]

Isbets always likes to ignore other generals as well who don't have to cowtow to GW.

"For military experts, who have long questioned the Bush strategy in Iraq, the dual command structure is just the latest in a long chain of avoidable errors. "It just shows you how flawed the whole scheme is," said retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, who was once the Army's senior intelligence officer, in an interview. Odom lamented that Iraq has been "just a bad nightmare" from the start. He said this White House continues to make mistakes that are "so painfully clear that sometimes I think I might be crazy"

[lsbets]

Isbets always likes to ignore other generals as well who don't have to cowtow to GW.

I don't ignore anyone, unlike you who sees everything through partisan glasses. GW means nothing to me. But when the guy who is our top expert on counter insurgency says this is what he needs to get it done, and also says that the BS resolutions demoralize our soldiers and embolden our enemy, I'm smart enough to take notice. Not all of us root for failure as you do.

[Secretariat]

Who's rooting for failure? I'm recognizing current reality. If Petraeus and Casey can pull it off more pwoer to them despite Odom's warning. To date I've still not seen defined the parameters on what defines "victory" by this administration (the "mission" keeps changing). I've seen no casualty estimates, no exit strategy, no long term fiscal costs. It's easy to be a cheerleader when other people's lives are on the line. We've heard a lot of that over the last four years. In fact, the problem is that Dem's have gone along with the Prez and Rumsfeld on every single dollar he's wanted for this fiasco without due dillgence oversight. You don't hear much of Rumsfeld's "we don't need more troops" anymore.

But "rooting for failure"? It seems anytime someone disagrees with this President, they are "rooting" for failure. But it seems our agreeing with this President from past experience has lead to mostly "failure". So logically, it would seem if you want "success", you disagee with the guy who seems to embrace "failure" regularly. I dont' agree with Biden about a lot of things, but when he say "failed policy" emboldens terrorists, not signing non-binding resolutions, he is spot on.

[PaceAdvantage]

Spot on? Either you've been watching too much American Idol and Simon Cowell, or you've migrated to England....lol

Keeping an enemy on its toes is one of the keys to victory. A detailed exit strategy would give too much away, as would any detailed "roadmap" to victory, IMO.

[lsbets]

Sec's on a roll - he has no clue what he's talking about, but if he can put a lot of words out there, maybe someone will thnk he knows something. Sec, I never realized that before we undertake military operations you needed to be briefed on the details of the mission and the contingency plans. All this time I thought you didn'thave the proper clearances. :lol: :lol:

[GameTheory]

Sec,

So when John McCain agrees with you, he's spot on; and when he doesn't he's all wrong. So your agreement with McCain is essentially random, and when McCain says something it is of no special interest. And yet when he does agree with you, you quote him and present him like some authority we all should listen to?

How do you live with your total and utter dishonesty? You are such a fraud. I'm not sure I've ever seen you make a truly honest statement. Not one.

Yes, yes, I know, you're already working up your reply: "You wanna talk dishonest? How about George Bush...blah blah blah"

[Secretariat]

Sec,

So when John McCain agrees with you, he's spot on; and when he doesn't he's all wrong. So your agreement with McCain is essentially random, and when McCain says something it is of no special interest. And yet when he does agree with you, you quote him and present him like some authority we all should listen to?

How do you live with your total and utter dishonesty? You are such a fraud. I'm not sure I've ever seen you make a truly honest statement. Not one.

Yes, yes, I know, you're already working up your reply: "You wanna talk dishonest? How about George Bush...blah blah blah"

Do you mean to tell me you don't find disagreement with a politician's point of view on one issue and find agreement with him on a different issue? If not, I think you're the one not being honest, or else you're Lefty who belevies everything a certain poltician ever said as gospel.

For example, I liked aspects of Clinton's policies, yet I have gone on record here that I was totally appalled by others of his such as NAFTA. Does this mean I'm a fraud because I see postives and negatives in each politician's stands.

I've even gone on record here applauding things Bush has done, but when I asked for positives of Clinton from other posters here some could not even come up with one of his.

Are you really that black and white in your thinking that you can't see that a politican can't be right on one issue and wrong on another? If so, I feel sorry for you.

[Secretariat]

A detailed exit strategy would give too much away, as would any detailed "roadmap" to victory, IMO.

That's interesting because a different tune was being sung by your hero during the Bosnia conflict as well as many GOPers.

GW Bush: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Reporter: What about "stay the course"?

GW Bush: "No way, Victory means exit strategy,"and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Houston Chronicle, April 9, 1999,

This from our Commander in Chief.

A few others on Bosnia?

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it," - Sean Hannity

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." - Tony Snow

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy." - Tom DeLay.

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber." - Tom Delay

"There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." - Tom Delay

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." - Trent Lott

[JPinMaryland]

"I know of no successful military operation where you have dual command," [/B] McCain told Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq....

Waterloo for one. The Dutch/Belgian forces reported directly to Prince of Orange and Wellington was not allowed to give them orders. Granted it was a pretty odd situation this army found itself in, and the command structure didnt help.

Still to overlook one of the most famous battles in history does not say much for our leaders grasp of history.

Also in the Pacific in WW II, I think the allied fleets were under different commands with the Brit/Dutch ships commanded by different admirals alongside american ships w/ different commanders.

Marlborough had some sort of divided command structure during the War of Spanish Succession, but arguably that war was a draw. Still he is considered something of a success and he had terrible command structure with the Dutch allies.

I am pretty sure the Allies in WW I had a divided command structure after the US entered. I dont think the US armies took orders from Foche or Joffre, I think Pershing had the final say on anything they did. The US forces were generally no smaller than division size in order that they could operate independently even when alongside the French.

Not sure about the Allies in the europe in WW II. Did Eisenhower give all the orders or did that have to get approved by the Brits?

SO divided commands have happened all through history, it's no tell tale warning sign of anything. Still would be leery of anything involving the Iraqi army.

[Secretariat]

Interesting JP that our military leaders Petraeus, Casey and McCain were all unaware of your examples.

[GameTheory]

Do you mean to tell me you don't find disagreement with a politician's point of view on one issue and find agreement with him on a different issue? If not, I think you're the one not being honest, or else you're Lefty who belevies everything a certain poltician ever said as gospel.

For example, I liked aspects of Clinton's policies, yet I have gone on record here that I was totally appalled by others of his such as NAFTA. Does this mean I'm a fraud because I see postives and negatives in each politician's stands.

I've even gone on record here applauding things Bush has done, but when I asked for positives of Clinton from other posters here some could not even come up with one of his.

Are you really that black and white in your thinking that you can't see that a politican can't be right on one issue and wrong on another? If so, I feel sorry for you.Are you really so stupid that you misunderstand every challenge and direct question put to you just enough so you never really have to answer such challenges? You are a lying fraud, or you are mind-numbingly stupid. Those are the only possibilities...

[lsbets]

Are you really so stupid that you misunderstand every challenge and direct question put to you just enough so you never really have to answer such challenges? You are a lying fraud, or you are mind-numbingly stupid. Those are the only possibilities...

I vote for both!

[Secretariat]

Are you really so stupid that you misunderstand every challenge and direct question put to you just enough so you never really have to answer such challenges? You are a lying fraud, or you are mind-numbingly stupid. Those are the only possibilities...

So instead of answering my question you resort to typical GOP name calling as expected. :bang:


....

Here's the history of your posts and mine related to your posts:

Your post:

“Sec has been quoting McCain lately as a guy we ought to listen to. So I can only assume he also condemns this resolution...”

Your next post:

“So when John McCain agrees with you, he's spot on; and when he doesn't he's all wrong. So your agreement with McCain is essentially random, and when McCain says something it is of no special interest. And yet when he does agree with you, you quote him and present him like some authority we all should listen to?

How do you live with your total and utter dishonesty? You are such a fraud. I'm not sure I've ever seen you make a truly honest statement. Not one.

Yes, yes, I know, you're already working up your reply: "You wanna talk dishonest? How about George Bush...blah blah blah"”

My post:

“Do you mean to tell me you don't find disagreement with a politician's point of view on one issue and find agreement with him on a different issue? If not, I think you're the one not being honest, or else you're Lefty who belevies everything a certain poltician ever said as gospel.

For example, I liked aspects of Clinton's policies, yet I have gone on record here that I was totally appalled by others of his such as NAFTA. Does this mean I'm a fraud because I see postives and negatives in each politician's stands.

I've even gone on record here applauding things Bush has done, but when I asked for positives of Clinton from other posters here some could not even come up with one of his.

Are you really that black and white in your thinking that you can't see that a politican can't be right on one issue and wrong on another? If so, I feel sorry for you.”

Your post:

Are you really so stupid that you misunderstand every challenge and direct question put to you just enough so you never really have to answer such challenges? You are a lying fraud, or you are mind-numbingly stupid. Those are the only possibilities...


....

I think it is pretty obvious what you are saying. You're saying because I quoted McCain on global warming, that then I cannot disagee with him on his position on a troop escalation, or I'm somehow a fraud....

I think my previous post addressed the fact that sometimes we can disagree with a politician on one point and agree to another - regardless of party. It's a little baffling to me that an intelligent guy like yourself is having difficulty understanding that.

[GameTheory]

I think my previous post addressed the fact that sometimes we can disagree with a politician on one point and agree to another - regardless of party. It's a little baffling to me that an intelligent guy like yourself is having difficulty understanding that.Thank you for proving my point that you will never answer a direct question put to you or respond to evidence that challenges your view, but instead answer questions with questions, pretend the question was a different one and answer that (your favorite), try to change the subject by saying "The real issue is...blah blah blah", or ignore it altogether.

As far as the GOP, I am not a registered Republican or associated with them in any way, so any name-calling I do is isolated to "GameTheory name-calling", thank you. And GameTheory says you are completely and utterly dishonest in nearly 100% of the posts that you write. I don't think you even know what honesty is at this point -- your evasions & misrepresentations are probably so automatic by now that you couldn't answer a question directly if you wanted to.

[Tom]

You nee dto loosen up, Sec - you are WAY to tight! :lol:

[Secretariat]

GT,

And thank you for not answering my question. I will avoid the name calling.

I didn't even start this thread but was baited to respond "Sec supports troop surge"

[PaceAdvantage]

That's interesting because a different tune was being sung by your hero during the Bosnia conflict as well as many GOPers.

a) he's not my hero
b) are you comparing Iraq to Bosnia? I thought Iraq = Vietnam.

Make up your mind.

[Tom]

GT,

I didn't even start this thread but was baited to respond "Sec supports troop surge"

So, like Hillary, you too are taken in by strong, assertive men. :eek:

[Tom]

As Tom often cuts to the core, he represents something important here - how right a poltician can be about one thing ,and how wrong about another. Only God (although Lefty tries) is right a 100% of the time.

McCain is spot on on global warming and spot off here. Even the current NIE from the CIA claims the surge is pretty much a bad idea. But McCain has been all over on this. Earlier he said many, many mroe troops woudl be needed, but now 21K is all that's needed.

btw...this is a question I've not seen answered. Does this mean 21K new combat troops, or does this include support and staffing troops? Or is that extra. Are any of these troops being pulled out of Afganistan? Will any of these replace the 3000 British troops pulling our? What is the number of National Guard troops being added, and the training for these troops? What deployment are they on? What will be the fiscal cost of this escalation and what are the casualty estimates? Just a few questions I've not heard addressed. More like rah-rah cheerleader bullcrap. No real answers to the NIE that just came out. Typical stuff.




Dejas vous!
Obama send 21K troops to Afghanistan and I guess we can ask pretty much the same questions that Sec posed here.

:D