Has the Bush cut and run begun...

headscratcher4

Philosopher
headscratcher4
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...
 
headscratcher4 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...
Click to expand...

Well, whatever happens, you know they aren't going to admit any mistakes. They will, without question put some sort of positive spin on it. "Iraqiazation," maybe?
 
Interesting how Murtha was hurting troop morale by suggesting the troops start coming home, but when Rummy says it, they try to make us believe it's a great idea because it was their idea.
 
headscratcher4 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...
Click to expand...

Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion. But you can't have your political cake and eat it too. If Bush et al are bad for bending to political realities...then are not people such as yourself to blame for applying those political pressures in the first place?

It's illogical for the lumberjack to find fault with the tree for falling to his axe.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion. But you can't have your political cake and eat it too. If Bush et al are bad for bending to political realities...then are not people such as yourself to blame for applying those political pressures in the first place?

It's illogical for the lumberjack to find fault with the tree for falling to his axe.

-z
Click to expand...

But what about Mephisto's comment? Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?

Double standard?

(Trick question: of course it's a double standard.)
 
rikzilla said:
Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion. But you can't have your political cake and eat it too. If Bush et al are bad for bending to political realities...then are not people such as yourself to blame for applying those political pressures in the first place?

It's illogical for the lumberjack to find fault with the tree for falling to his axe.

-z
Click to expand...


I actually have no problem when anyone bends to political, economic, military relaties, etc.

It's when they can't bend -- as has been demonstrated by the conduct of the war thus far -- to reality that should concern us all. IMO.

Of course, anti-war advocates -- whether made by the conduct of the war, the fact that the basis of the war was so badly mis-represented or those who have always protested the necessity of the war -- will be blamed for any failures by Bush and his political allies. No one has yet taken real responsiblity -- save for the awarding of Medals of Freedom -- for the failures of intelligence, the failures of planning, the equipment failures, the failures of propoganda and allience building...in short whatever the Bush strategy for victory now is, it certainly seems to have lacked all of the elements that one usually thinks go along with obtaining "victory."
 
Mark said:
But what about Mephisto's comment? Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?

Double standard?

(Trick question: of course it's a double standard.)
Click to expand...

Because Mr. Rumsfeld happens to be the SecDef. Deployment numbers are properly arrived at by military commanders on the ground who know their mission requirements. This information would properly move up the chain to the SecDef; not the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld being behind a possible 2006 drawdown; I'm hoping that it's a militarily informed decision not a politically expedient one. The one sure way to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is to allow politicians to play general.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Because Mr. Rumsfeld happens to be the SecDef. Deployment numbers are properly arrived at by military commanders on the ground who know their mission requirements. This information would properly move up the chain to the SecDef; not the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld being behind a possible 2006 drawdown; I'm hoping that it's a militarily informed decision not a politically expedient one. The one sure way to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is to allow politicians to play general.

-z
Click to expand...

And...all that makes a difference to the soldiers, does it? Not to mention that we have been told over and over again even mentioing withdrawal gives encouragement to the enemy.

Squirm all you want, it's just the usual double standard from this administration.
 
Mark said:
And...all that makes a difference to the soldiers, does it? Not to mention that we have been told over and over again even mentioing withdrawal gives encouragement to the enemy.

Squirm all you want, it's just the usual double standard from this administration.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it makes a difference to anyone. You asked:
"Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?"
Click to expand...

I merely clarified that it is the SecDef who is in a more proper position to make informed pronouncements on troop deployments than the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

You asked an ignorant and emotionally charged rhetorical question. I took the logical root of that to be: Why is it proper for Mr. Rumsfeld to offer a proposal for troop strength reduction and improper for Mr. Murtha to propose the same?

I then answered the question in a factual and logical way...(since that's kind of what we're supposed to be doing here...) Besides, the second implied premise of your argument is that Murtha and Rumsfeld are making equivalent proposals. They are not. Murtha called for troops to be brought home right away:
On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq,[2] saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld is quoted by WaPo as saying the following:
Rumsfeld told reporters that if next week's elections in Iraq go well he expects U.S. troops levels, which were boosted to nearly 160,000 in advance of the election, to return to the 137,000 level.

"If conditions permit, we could go below that," he said.

Later he stressed that a decision to go below 137,000 would depend on conditions after the election and the recommendation of senior U.S. commanders.
Click to expand...

So we see that the facts and your emotional rhetoric are once again at odds. Please forgive me for my adherence to the former and disdain for the latter, but you see I'm a skeptic. It's what I do.

-z
 
[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.
 
rikzilla said:
You asked an ignorant and emotionally charged rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

Up yours, Rik. I asked a logical question...for months I have been hearing the Right say that we cannot give any clue as to when we might leave; to do so would endanger our troops and our mission. Now all of a sudden it is OK because Rumsfeld said it.

Could you be any more hypocritical?

No.
 
Read in the Daily News today that Sec. Rumsfeld is eyeing resignation next year. And the top name to step in? Dem. Sen. Joe Lieberman.
 
Mark said:
Up yours, Rik. I asked a logical question...for months I have been hearing the Right say that we cannot give any clue as to when we might leave; to do so would endanger our troops and our mission. Now all of a sudden it is OK because Rumsfeld said it.

Could you be any more hypocritical?

No.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you bother posting here Mark. You ask irrational questions in a hysterical manner and then answer them yourself. Since masturbation is an act best performed in private; it would be more appropriate for you to find a quite corner in your home and do your mental version of onanism without making involuntary voyeurs of the rest of us.

-z
 
GroundStrength said:
[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.
Click to expand...

Love it when a real right-wing whackjob shows up! (Being as Mark thinks I r one) See Mark? There's a live one...go git 'im!!
-z

Note to GroundStrength; HS4 is not one of those people. We have them here...but he is not one of them. Pick your targets more carefully and make your point without resorting to mindless demonization and there will be hope for you to become something other than a "right-wing whackjob".
 
rikzilla said:
I don't understand why you bother posting here Mark. You ask irrational questions in a hysterical manner and then answer them yourself. Since masturbation is an act best performed in private; it would be more appropriate for you to find a quite corner in your home and do your mental version of onanism without making involuntary voyeurs of the rest of us.

-z
Click to expand...

Evasion noted, Sparky.
 
Mark said:
But what about Mephisto's comment? Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?
Click to expand...
Do you really not understand the difference between "immediately" and 'perhaps, if conditions improve, maybe later'?
 
Wasn't there some governors elections a month back or so and the Republicans all lost? They were saying it was an omen of 2006 if something in Iraq didn't change radically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom