Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II - Page 3

Excellent personal attack. Have fun with the infraction you get.

Back to topic:

Now the report is being called "The Bush Report."


http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...109060064/1001

Obviously the article is slanted to the right, but it still rings true. The preemptive attack continues. It's a transparent strategy, and the best evidence thus far that the surge is working. The Dems need a political strategy to deal with the situation. They fought the surge tooth and nail, investing themselves in its supposed inevitable failure.

But the most disgusting comment at all was Schumer's:


(emphasis added)

Wow. That is a direct attack on the US military if I've ever heard one. So basically the troops fighting on the ground are incompetent. I see.

In my opinion the Dems are setting themselves up for a colossal political disaster here. Because they invested so heavily in defeat in Iraq and against the surge itself, they must now try to justify that position in the face of military success. We've heard that there is no "political solution" despite the military progress. Of course, prior to that a political solutuon wasn't possible due to security situation. Gotcha, folks. And finally..the Petraeus report, which has yet to be given, is now written by Bush....correction..that lying scumbag...all to better his party's political fortunes.

It's sickening. And I don't think that it's going to fly for them this time.

And what applies to me should apply to him, no?

Stop right there. The "surge" was not what we were doing at all. First, there were more troops in the field. Secondly, the rules of engagement and types of missions undertaken changed considerably. More focus was put on direct population protection and hunting down insurgents. So claiming things are the same in patently false.


It didn't look like it wasn't working unless you evaluated it before it actually got going. It wasn't up to strength until later June. Within a month or so things were improving. The problem is congressional dems and people like yourself started assailing the strategy as failed before it even took effect.


The surge has only been operating for about 3 months. It was announced last winter, but it didn't really start until June. That's when the changes were truly implemented. Us casualties did result from direct confrontations with the enemy, but the number was not dramatically increased. In any case, they were never portrayed as "good." They were to be expected in battle. Duh.


Well, there have been fewer casualties and far fewer attacks. That IS good news.


Now that I agree with. I don't like the War Czar idea.


Bullshit. It will be his report. The recommendations will come from the military. Shit...you're worse than Schumer.


Well, I know this. If we give up and pull out, that's a sure as hell way to have it be a lost cause. The problem with your logic here though is the assumption that the new troops levels and tactics really haven't worked. But they have. Clearly, they have. As I've said, despite high hopes I was not so sure the surge was going to work at all. But it has.


Is it finished yet? And why will you not take the word of the unanimously confirmed commander?


You can't justify his behavior based on any of my past comments. If I get infractions and bannings, so should he. That's all I'm saying.


I didn't question it's credibility. I said it had an anti-war Point of View. That's fine, but such a POV must be acknowledged when reading something. You're trying to pass it off as a totally neutral timeline of events. It's not. I'm not saying anything is directly fabricated. It's just the POV and your ignoring of it. I already demonstrated how easy it is to come up with something that says the exact opposite it does...using quotes from that site itself. POV is everything.


Pot to Kettle: You're Black!


I honestly have no idea what the statement means from beginning to end. Specifically:

1. What's coming?
2. Why is it coming?
3. What are "the glory days"
4. Are the "glory days" in Iraq, the US, Vietnam?


Do you just have a hat full of rhetorical points that you pick out of?

1. The point of weapons inspections is not to catch a country in a lie. They are there to verify the disarming of the nation, [i]with that nation's cooperation.

2. The inspectors were not given access to sites, making such a statement of "he didn't have anything not credible."

3. Resolution 1441 was not about finding hidden weapons. It was about full compliance. There is not a person on this Earth that can claim Saddam fully complied.



I suppose Russia knew nothing of this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064644/posts

Russia also provided the Iraqis with intel on our troop movements. Look it up yourself. the point? Russia and Iraq were allies.

And again...what about the Israelis? Oh...now THEY...they're politically motivated! At BARE minimum, the US, UK and Israel thought Saddam had weapons. Those are three major world powers. Oh wait, here's another:

From Globalsecurity.org:



Hmm. That's four countries. Oh, and back to Russia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5247350.stm


Seems we're selling lots of stuff to Iran. Of course, Iraq was different right? I mean, it's not like Russia was giving WMD materials and military equipment to Iraq, right?

From Newsmax:


But yeah..you're right. No "agreement."

Alright, let's assume we agreed that the administration doesn't know how to fix the problem. My question is, if they are so incompetent, where are the alternatives proposed by the "super smarty pants" Democrats? I've heard "the war is lost, the admin is incompetent, Bush lied, get out" etc. No solutions from the people who supposedly foreign policy geniuses. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, the administration has altered tactics considerably and gotten at least decent results lately. Sure, they made some HUGE mistakes. I agree there. For me the biggest ones were not having enough troops to begin with, and disbanding the Iraqi Army. I also thought Bremer was a moron. But clearly there is change happening. Petraeus for example? Unanimously confirmed. Gates? He's not Rumsfeld. So if you consider it that way, it's not really the same people at all.

Is this really all you have to go on? I know that there have been more troops at times and less at others. No shit. I never claimed otherwise.



#1 is proved by your own graph. About 20,000 additional troops were added. I never said it was 20,000 on top of the highest level. These 20,000 were also used, according to the military, for security operations directly.

#2 was discussed quite a bit during press conferences, both by the military and the administration. Are you saying they're lying?


Funny, because that's what I thought when this all happened. Apparently their main role was not engaging the enemy directly and directly providing civilian security. A lot of it was related to supporting and training Iraqi units, going on join raids, patrolling, etc. We were also not engaging in the "clear and hold" strategy, according to the military. Overall, one could say it was less aggressive. Therefore, progress was not being made.


The "evidence" is not hard to find. Your own graph shows troop numbers, and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to go find the statements I'm referencing.


You're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest on this point. The number of attacks went down dramatically. From Reuters:


From the AP:


from wiki/NYT:


Now, those are the good points, or some of them. There are certainly plenty of problems...plenty. But claiming there has been no progress is simply false.


The think like that you really have to believe that the surge has not worked at all. I don't see how anyone looking objectively at the situation can conclude that. I really don't. There has been measurable progress on the security front. If we were doing that same exact thing, how did that happen? I guess it was blind luck?

As for waiting a few more months: I for one said that if the surge didn't help matters I would call for us to pull out. I don't know as I thought about it in these terms before it started, but my feeling was actually that it wouldn't work, or stood less chance of working than it did failing. In percentage terms, I'd say I was about 60/40 against thinking it would work. Honestly. So yes, I am willing to wait a few more months and see what can be done. After mid-2008, enough is enough.



True.


You know, that's really offensive in so many ways. But whatever. I don't think "Bush is Teh Awesome" at all. I've listed time and time again where I disagree with him. The surge is not one of those points.


Credit for humor, mid. I for one will not support another surge. I'm telling you...mid 2008 and that's it. Time to start drawing down. Mark my words.


[quote]
Great. How long until I know it's worked? When do we get to see Teh Working™? [quote]

It's working now. But it can't go on forever, even if it is. We need to leave at some point. Given that we will hit a deployment crunch withe military next spring, we're going to have to start bringing the troops home around then.


It looks like what we're doing now for the most part. I don't really know what President HRC will do, but I do know she won't just pull the troops. She's said as much.


That's grossly misinterpreted. All that was said was the more troops tend to get killed and injured as the enemy is engaged more directly. It was to be expected. I heard NO ONE claim it was good. Anyone who did so was wrong.

[quote]
And before you can even come back with that nonsense about casualties dropping by half, here. Read something good. [quote]

Those numbers still show progress, particularly in August. Remember, your position has been that nothing has been accomplished.



WTF? Must...resist....urge to call midwinter...a......

I don't support the position. It's a dumb move. It's not needed. Not sure what else to say.


OK, that's technically true. But two points:

1)
2) Do you notice how the Dems only started pointing this out and making it a rhetorical point AFTER they learned the surge was having some positive effects? Hmmm..

Also, what's important is what Petraeus says, and how much of his opinion (and Crocker's) is in the report. Calling it all "The Bush Report" is just political wrangling.


I don't agree, though I agree that action was a big mistake.


Yes, your assumption which is clearly and demonstrably false.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007...llu.htm?page=0

A good read.


I just want to make sure I have this right: You're still saying there has been no progress? Here's one from Petreaus himself: (Reuters)



Put down the bottle. Save some for later. It's Saturday!

You know, I find it hysterically ironic that after assailing conservatives for years for their supposed black and white, no-nuance thinking, this is what you three and your party come up with: Fail and Pull Out, or Stay and Fail.

But that's a false dilemma. It's also typical liberal pessimism. There are always alternatives, especially when consequence of declaring failure and pulling out could well be genocide. We've already seen the changes we've made have been more positive than negative. There is no reason to think that such improvement won't continue in the next few months, where can begin to draw down the right way...in a slow and deliberate fashion as Iraqi units take over.

It's not arbitrary at all. Setting a deadline for getting out...THAT'S arbitrary. I'm saying that by mid-2008 it would seem we'd be at a point where we can safely start to draw down. And yes, personally, I think 5 years is enough already. But that's just my feeling about it.



Uh, no. We have more troops than we have at any time recently, and their role has changed, as have tactics.


Oh come on. It's ALL bullshit then? Top military personnel are just shoveling shit? There are no new tactics and missions. I mean, there either are or there aren't, If you're saying there aren't, then you're accusing people like Petreaus of lying. Period.


I believe I already answered that. I also don't think it's "did or didn't." It's a question of degrees/amount of engagement.


Speaking of nonsense, you're now just playing semantics. Obviously going on raids is "engaging" the enemy. But how many of those raids were there? What was their size and scope? What was their combat role on these missions? Who was directing the op? Again though, it really comes back to whether or not you think the top brass is lying through their teeth about changing tactics. I'll wait for you to answer that first.


You know, either you're incredibly intellectually dishonest, or you might not be as intelligent as I've assumed. The entire point is that we were raiding various locations, patrolling, etc...but not holding those areas. We'd clear out an area and insurgents would go back in as soon as a few hours later, according to the military at least. We were more on the defensive. There weren't as many engagements. We had a lot of direct civilian security operations turned over to the Iraqis. So now we're taking a more direct role. I think you actually know this...you're just poking at me with a stick at this point.


So I'm supposed to post evidence that is literally common knowledge at this point? You have to be kidding.


Yeah, that's clever. Show me one example of me being intellectually dishonest. One.


Really...that's your explanation? This is what you're going to counter direct statements from the unanimously confirmed commander in Iraq with? Seriously?


And you're telling ME about arbitrary deadlines? Why has the clock run out? I agree the government has had serious problems, but why should we just give up on them now? There has been some political progress recently, although minor (ask me to look that up and I'll brief up my dinner. Really).


You want to talk about MISDIRECTION? Stop! I can't take it! How about we discuss the Democratic fucking party, hmm? You know, the one that complained about the security situation being terrible and how it had to improve for the government to succeed? You know, the same one that once military progress became evident, bitched and moaned about the "lack of a political solution?" That Democratic party?

Misdirection my ASS. It's about people that are so utterly and totally invested in defeat in Iraq and hate of George Bush to the point where they cannot acknowledge any positive development whatsoever. Not a one. Attacks could drop 90% and Al-Queda in Iraq could formally surrender, you and yours would still complain about global warming affecting Baghdad. That's where you live right now.


Uh, no. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I said early on that if the surge didn't work, I would like to see us pull out. But the surge has worked, at least to degree, and I think the military deserves a chance to keep the direction going. At least for a while longer.


Not working would be steadily increasing attacks, US casualties, no political progress, no more Iraqi military/law enforcement progress, etc.

Working would be fewer attacks, more duty-ready Iraqi units, fewer or steady US casualties, more territory cleared and held/freed of insurgents, political settlements, etc.

My hope would be that by mid-2008 we'd be drawing down. If not, I'm going to want to know why, and what we plan to get to the point where we can. We can't just have an endless cycle of "6 months more." We have to leave at some point.


Then you clearly don't read my posts. I've listed it ad nauseam. Immigration/border security. Medicare prescription drug bill. Pork spending beyond belief. Lack of fulfillment on campaign promises such as: additional tax reform, social security reform. How's that for a start?


No. You didn't.


Yes. Apparently you don't, though.


Yeah, they must be, seeing as how there is this disease in Washington that MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PICK UP THE FUCKING TELEPHONE AND TALK TO THE MILITARY COMMANDERS. Also, this disease prevents them from LISTENING TO THE TOP COMMANDER IN IRAQ WHEN HE MAKES STATEMENTS.

Of course, people like Carl Levin are unaffected.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...EWS07/70820030


You should focus on yourself there, champ. You're the one that thinks Dennis Kucinich should be President of United States . \








I'm about to pick that fucker up again. [/QUOTE]