Powell Opposes Surging More U.S. Forces Into Iraq, Says There Are ‘No Additional Troops’ To Send
Powell Opposes Surging More U.S. Forces Into Iraq, Says There Are ‘No Additional Troops’ To Send
Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he did not support surging tens of thousands more troops in Iraq, a plan that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) supports and that President Bush is expected to carry out. “I have not seen a case that persuades me that [Iraqi security] would be better” with more forces, he said.
Powell also pointed out that the military has no more troops to send. “There are really no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops.”
Watch it:
Transcript:
POWELL: Let’s be clear about something else, Bob, that gets a little confusing. There are really no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops.
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you about that because… do we have the troops? You seem to be suggesting that we don’t.
POWELL: I’m suggesting that what general Shoemaker said the other day before a committee looking at the reserve and national guard, That the active army is about broken. General Shoemaker is absolutely right. All of my contacts within the army suggest that the army has a serious problem in the active force.
[Snip]
SCHIEFFER: Let’s… you’ve talked about… I take it you think that the 160,000 troops are not going to be any more successful than 140,000.
POWELL: Nobody has made the case to me that 140,000… I have not seen a case that persuades me that it would be better at 150 and 160. Frankly, that would take a surge that you have to pay for later by not having troops that can come in and replace some of the 140,000 there.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
64 Responses to “Powell Opposes Surging More U.S. Forces Into Iraq, Says There Are ‘No Additional Troops’ To Send”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Powell is correct about the troops, but he needs to demand that the Iraq occupation is ended, and not try to say it can be fixed in some way!
December 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pmHe still frickin’ waffles.
Gen Powell, stop worrying about your legacy. Some of us will hate you, and some of us will love you. But more of us will have respect for you if you stop this waffly wabblye crap, and fall on your sword.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:10 pmBe honest — for once.
And if the election had gone the other way, he’d be saying something else. Powell still dreams of the presidency, and he’s a very astute political player; he sees that Bush’s cowboy diplomacy has worn thin with the American people, and so he’s doing the Clinton triangulation strategy, to angle his way into a nomination bid. If he hews to the left of McCain, he’ll be in a position to claim the “centrist” mantle; he’ll be like a republican Obama, but with the military experience Obama lacks.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pm…he’ll be like a republican Obama, but with the military experience Obama lacks.
Comment by barfly
At this point, all I have to say is — save us from Powell’s kind of military experience…or advice.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmGen Powell, stop worrying about your legacy.
Comment by Zooey — December 17, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
Nail on the head…
I’m convinced that that is what drives them to get into positions of authority and power to begin with - and it is, ironically, the thing that makes them fall short of their original ideals…
December 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmAt the moment you have three choices:
1) Bring in the draft and quadruple troop levels in Iraq.
2) Keep things as they are.
3) Cut your losses and get out.
1 is the only way you can win in Iraq. It is the only real path to victory there. Unfortunately, it fails on the grounds of requiring Americans to make a real sacrifice in the form of their children, and victory would still be far from guaranteed. It is very easy to support a war, when it isn’t one of your kids on the front lines.
2 Ensures that you will lose, and what is worse, you will lose big and over a long period. Iraq will gradually get worse, and the forces needed to bring 1 about will increase. Adding 20 000 troops counts as keeping things the way they are, 20 000 is not a large enough number to significantly change anything.
3 Is probably the best option for the American people, as in the end the main force keeping America in Iraq right now is saving face, and that has got to be the dumbest reason I have ever heard for killing someone. Common, but dumb.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmRead our military is broke financialy from some sources of late and are asking for 27 billion more right now just to finish up the present budget….Then Kuchenich said all the money was in place to finance a complete withdrawel….Guess all the pigeon holes are pluged except one and no one want’s to spend the money allocated to end this madness..Mean while the emperor fiddles and diddles while thousand’s of Iraq and our troop’s die…We may not be able to stop the Iraqi death toll’s but atleast we could stop the senceles killing of all our troop’s….Impeach.Blessings
December 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pmThe problem I see with everybody caring what Colin Powell says is the myth of him being a moderate. If you look at his career and record as far back as Viet Nam you can see he is nothing of the sort.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pmCommon, but dumb.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — December 17, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
I’m finding, the longer I live, that dumb is common. Especially in countries where funding education is a lower priority than funding bombs, bullets and big wars…
I’ve been reading ‘Propaganda and the American Mind’ (Chomsky) and it’s pretty much nailed the American Military Complex’s ideology as one of violence, domination and destruction. He even nails Clinton - so it’s not just a partisan smear.
I vote for your option 3. Declare a victory and get out.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pmI would give my right arm up to see a Gore/Powell Independent ticket in 2008.
December 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI would give my right arm up to see a Gore/Powell Independent ticket in 2008.
Comment by JerryTheAngel — December 17, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
I agree with everything except the Powell part…
December 17th, 2006 at 12:53 pmColin, STFU.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pmWhere is the genius Gen.Tommie Franks who went in with too far troops and received the medal of Freedom for his irresponsibility ?
December 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm***Now another neo-con Gen.Keene now wants to go with more troops:Where was this Gen Keene all along ?If he was so smart why did he not suggest this new strategy 1year ago ?Folks, it just another way of avoiding the inevitable.Just Bush’s way of passing the buck as he always does ?
The next candidate needs to have two things going for him or her:
Non-religious: Americans are just starting to figure out what most people with common sense have known for a long time: If it isn’t talking about religion, and it feels the need to tell you what religion it belongs to before you even know its name - it isn’t to be trusted.*
Pleasant: Bush was supremely unpleasant. So are most Republican leaders if you look at them. They are rude thugs whose most polite moments can be summed up in a fart. They also happen to be totally dishonest. Maybe it is time to get the guys in who won’t go over to France and accuse them of being unsympathetic when it comes to national tragedies.
* Note that PLC actually meets the requirements for being trustworthy, as he is making a point about Christianity and Patriotism not being concepts that exclude liberalism.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmHow to stop this nonsense? The new Congress pulls funding. We are wwaayyy too much in the red already with this expensive fiasco. If Bush accuses the Democrats of being against the troops, they respond that they were elected into office to bring the troops home, not send more in. Of course, that will mean our duly elected Democratic majority will boldy act in accordance with our wishes, instead of buckling under when someone raises their voice.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI’m still seeing helicopters taking off from green zone buildings - as in Hanoi.
This is nightmare we predicted while the likes of Powell were telling us we were stupid, not fully informed, cowards, even terrorists.
The tragedy is: There is noone but the Iraqis who can sort this mess. And in the process of getting over a war, they never wanted, let alone started, it is going to be Iraqi civilians who suffer the most. The U.S.troops can only leave asap and let the Iraqis start the process. Dragging it out means to postpone this process and thus even more victims. Whatever happens to Iraq after your troops leave will cost many lives. Their blood is on the hands of people like Powell who used all their intelligence and power to make this war happen.
And now they are planning to add 40′000 more of your children into that maelstrom to be killed and maimed? Just to find out in a year or so, that its no good. We again are saying this and they again are denying it, because we’re stupid, not fully informed and, of course, cowards and terrorists.
Disgusting really
December 17th, 2006 at 1:38 pmI’d like to see them institute the draft to supply this group of “mystery troops” Dubya’s talking about. Then the people will all be in the streets demonstrating.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmOh I forgot
Gore/Powell NO!
December 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmGore/Feingold or
Gore/Obama
Non-religious: Americans are just starting to figure out what most people with common sense have known for a long time:
Comment by Bruce Gorton — December 17, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Sometimes you just gotta sit back and enjoy the panic on the Christian right since November. They’re flailing around now, their leaders descending into madness because of their suppressed libidos and weakening grip on power, their minions running away, their politicians disappearing into the dark limbo of the loser’s graveyard, their cause now nothing more than what it always was: steps backward, steps backward, when the unstoppable urge is forward.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
December 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI’m still seeing helicopters taking off from green zone buildings - as in Hanoi.
Comment by doro
I’m with you, doro, but I don’t see it going as smoothly.
FUBAR
December 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmHi Zooey, I don’t now about smoothly, but they’ll have to bring the troops out double quick.
December 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pmTodays News
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms burst into Red Crescent offices on Sunday and kidnapped more than two dozen people at the humanitarian organization in the latest sign of the country’s growing lawlessness.
Yesterdays Reporting ( Suspicious yes?)
Iraqi Red Crescent cites U.S. forces as ‘main problem’ for its work
GENEVA (AP) — Harassment from U.S. forces is a greater threat to the work of the Iraqi Red Crescent than insurgent attacks, a senior official of the Red Cross-linked humanitarian organization said Friday.
Dr. Jamal Al-Karbouli, vice president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, said some U.S. forces appeared not to realize that the society, which uses as its symbol the Muslim red crescent instead of the red cross, was part of the international humanitarian movement.
“The main problem we are facing is the American forces more than the other forces,” Al-Karbouli told reporters in Geneva. “We are spending a lot of time to explain about the Red Crescent.”
Al-Karbouli said insurgent groups in Iraq did not pose as great a problem for the organization.
“The insurgents, they are Iraqis, a lot of them are Iraqis, and they respect the Iraqis. And they respect our (the Red Crescent’s) identity, which is neutrality.”
He also complained that Red Crescent offices in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf provinces had been repeatedly “attacked” by U.S.-led multi-national forces searching for insurgents.
“We have flags, we have everything, we have (the) logo, so they (U.S. forces) know everything, but unfortunately they come again and attack us many times,” Al-Karbouli said. He complained that U.S. forces broke doors and windows at the Red Crescent headquarters “and they didn’t find anything, and they left.”
December 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#6 BG says “At the moment you have three choices:”
December 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pmAnd he is right.
Even if we were to draft everyone between 18 and 42, it would be months before a significant number would be ready to deploy, and there would be NO GUARANTEE that we would still win - BTW, I am not sure what “winning in Iraq” actually is — everyone speaks in generalities — and who decides who wins.
There is no good choice to end this fiasco. This is Bush’s legacy, Powell’s legacy, Rummy’s legacy - a pre-emtpive war upon a sovereign nation that has gone as badly as it could have gone thanks to Bush&Co.
We will have to cut our losses and leave. It will be chaos, but it is chaos now. It will mean 3000 have died in vain, but hundreds or thousands more won’t change that. It would mean a loss of US prestige around the world, but we have already lost credibility and respect. There is no “face saving” any more because no matter what we do, the facts are all too obvious.
Some this morning are still talking “six more months” — haven’t we had about enough of “six more months?”
December 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmThank you for using Congress.org Mail System
Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Deal
Senator Chambliss
Senator Isakson
Mr. President
Message text follows:
December 17, 2006
I think the US should set a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Your way is has become insane, so let’s try something different. Let’s declare victory and leave. Whatever happens after the fact won’t be our fault because we aren’t there to screw it up (further that is). And I know that with you guys in positions of authority, it’s all about your legacy and never the people you’ve killed or maimed. Never about the countries you’ve destroyed. Never about anything honest or real. Just your egos. So save face by declaring we’ve won and leaving. It’ll be the first thoughtful thing you’ve done in 6 years.
Enough is enough. Get OUT of Iraq NOW.
December 17th, 2006 at 2:59 pmHi Zooey, I don’t now about smoothly, but they’ll have to bring the troops out double quick.
Comment by doro
Sorry doro, I was being sarcastic. :}
My dad was one of those sailors shoving the helicopters into the ocean after they landed on the aircraft carriers. What a nightmare…
December 17th, 2006 at 3:00 pmhi, marie,
recall that ’six months’ is equal to one ‘friedman unit’… i think you might get a kick out of this link to wikipedia on the ’six month’ figure…
peace.
December 17th, 2006 at 3:01 pmMight I suggest:
Boxer/Obama or Obama/Boxer.
December 17th, 2006 at 3:44 pmBoxer/Obama or Obama/Boxer.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Totally awesome. I’d vote for that one, either way.
December 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pmBack on topic: something of interest to active duty military personnel, supported by active duty military personnel:
http://www.appealforredress.org/index.php
December 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pmSays There Are ‘No Additional Troops’
this shit happens when bush uses his toes to add.
December 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pmBnF:
i would much rather see a mass desertion of troops. just get in a humvee and drive away into the sunset…
December 17th, 2006 at 4:14 pmAs Allied forces closed in on Hitler hidden away in his buker, he too, insanely ordered his Generals to deploy men and machines which no longer existed but had been destroyed in previous battles, to be thrust into the hopeless fight.
Who do you think has a better sense of reality, Hitler then or Bush now ?
December 17th, 2006 at 4:18 pmSOMEONE in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office has gotten everybody on this city’s holiday party circuit talking, simply by floating an unlikely Iraq proposal that is worthy of a certain mid-19th century British naturalist with a fascination for natural selection.
We shall call it the Darwin Principle.
The Darwin Principle, Beltway version, basically says that Washington should stop trying to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along and instead just back the Shiites, since there are more of them anyway and they’re likely to win in a fight to the death. After all, the proposal goes, Iraq is 65 percent Shiite and only 20 percent Sunni.
Sorry, Sunnis.
December 17th, 2006 at 4:53 pmDarwin? Try Machiavelli. An even more far-fetched offshoot of the Darwin Principle is floating around, which some hawks have tossed out in meetings, although not seriously, one administration official said. It holds that America could actually hurt Iran by backing Iraq’s Shiites; that could deepen the Shiite-Sunni split and eventually lead to a regional Shiite-Sunni war. And in that, the Shiites — and Iran — lose because, while there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq and Iran, there are more Sunnis than Shiites almost everywhere else.
Wow.
December 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pmHelp me!
December 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pmIsn’t that the guy who was lying against better knowledge to the UN General Assembly about the threat Saddam Hussein poses for the US and the world?
Boycott republicans! ©Don’t Buy Republican! ©Republicans: Go Extinct Yourself!
One shall not use the name of one’s Lord in vane, but I am tempted to do exactly that!
Loser! You should do time in Jail for no less than life!
And what’s up with the ‘Bush-Divorce’?
December 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pmAnd who is going to do the ‘Citizen’s Arrest’ on bush and the dick? We just need to release all those victims of ‘war on drugs’ and lock the whole criminal gang up.
Here’s one:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/node/933
December 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmThere You Go!
http://virtualmatter.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 12/ bush-divorce-scandal-explodes.html
Merry New Year!!!
December 17th, 2006 at 5:19 pmSoccer moms who voted this maniac into office had better now be worried…very worried about their high school children. Where were your empty brains when you voted this sociopath into office? Perhaps you will now have to pony up your kids as sacrifices for this demented and illegal war of his? I guess it’s “just desserts” and a hellova a lesson in life to learn. One vote = sacrificing your child to the altar of violence, aggression and imperialism.
December 17th, 2006 at 6:33 pmperhaps other readers will join me in writing ms pelosi a note about what you think about the war, impeachment, and investigations into the bush administration for violations of the war crimes act?
she can be reached here:
http://democraticleader.house.gov/contact.cfm
peace.
December 17th, 2006 at 6:58 pmWhere the hell were some of you so-called “antiwar” democrats in 2002/2003 when we needed you??? The best solution to the Iraq fiasco was to not have gone in there in the first place. But, but, but, 79% of Americans supported this war in May 2003. Do some Democrats have foggy memories about their war support????
Heres the Gallup poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1155-2003May16
So here we sit in a catch 22. We can’t stay. If we leave, the entire middle east might have into major war. The Saudis have already said they would support the Iraq Sunnis if we leave. Iran already supports the Shia. That might result in millions of American troops going right back to stop it. It would be the largest US army since WW2. You thought Vietnam was bad, just wait. Why would we go back you say? Three letters: o-i-l.
But again, 79% of Americans supported this bloody war in May 2003. That’s a lot of potential enlistees. Lots of suburbanite soccer moms and hockey dads will be dropping off their kids at U.S. Army induction centers.
You war supporters wanted war in 2003, you got your war. Stop your whining. Join up if you thought fighting a war is a solution. Go. What part of that don’t you understand?
December 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pmtoo bad no one gives a shit what powell has to say anymore. when he had his chance to be relevant, he sold his soul to the devil instead, putting his good-war-approval seal on the bushliar-criminal regime’s big lie. now, he’s just another bush regime war criminal that no one gives a shit about what he has to say.
December 17th, 2006 at 8:23 pm.
You war supporters wanted war in 2003, you got your war. Stop your whining. Join up if you thought fighting a war is a solution. Go. What part of that don’t you understand?
December 17th, 2006 at 8:24 pmAll people who support Bush should suit up, cowboy up, and fall-in Marine, NOW!
December 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pmBush–What would “success” and “winning” look like? I can’t even fathom what the *%&* we are doing there now, all I can see coming is more death and destruction.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:47 pmMight I suggest:
Boxer/Obama or Obama/Boxer.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire —
For some of us, including myself, that is a dream team. But has Barbara Boxer ever expressed interest in running? Also, I’m not sure if America is ready for such a combination.
December 17th, 2006 at 10:01 pmNearly four years into this mess. There aren’t any MORE troops to send.
December 17th, 2006 at 11:47 pmThe NeoCon Asshat warwhores should have thought about this before they bit off more than we could choke on.
Out Now, not after another SURGE - (Note the last part of surge is urge, which is what George (GeOgre) Bush is trying to scratch again)
give bill orally a rusty old pistol and a box of bullets…oh, and send over his little ho, michelle…they’ll take care of it…
December 18th, 2006 at 12:35 amMy dad was one of those sailors shoving the helicopters into the ocean after they landed on the aircraft carriers. What a nightmare…
Comment by Zooey — December 17, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Sorry Zooey if I touched painful family memories there. My dad was a soldier, too. In WWII. His health was broken and he died much too soon at the age of 65. I still miss him, that’s what makes me so furious about wars in general. It brings only sadness.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:24 amBruce Gorton #6
1 is the only way you can win in Iraq. It is the only real path to victory there.
Can anyone explain to me what exactly constitutes “victory” or “winning” or “losing”? I keep hearing these words. They are empty and meaningless without an agreed benchmark of measurement.
The original stated mission was to ensure Iraq would have no WMDs. Since WMDs did not exist, by that benchmark we were victorious three years ago.
The original UNstated mission was to topple Saddam. By that measure, we were victorious about a week after the invasion started, and closed the deal when Saddam was dragged from his spider hole.
So, if there is now a new definition of “victory”, what is it? Are we supposed to ensure that civil war will not happen in Iraq once we leave? How is it possible to ensure that, short of genocide?
If the goal is to “defeat the terr-rists”, even genocide won’t do that, unless the genocide continues throughout the Middle East, and if that’s really the goal, we have more pressing battlefronts outside Iraq.
I expect the neocons to talk about “victory” and “winning”, but we ought to do better on this side than to fall for that false dichotomy. We should avoid using these carefully selected loaded terms. We should be focusing on measurables, not intangibles, otherwise this hell will never come to a conclusion.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:42 amI’m reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. I have to say that I’m very impressed with his ability to articulate the aspirations of Americans, the political landscape and the steps needed to take us forward. He also has experience that goes well beyond that which Bush had coming into his first term.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:07 amWe have had so few politicians that can deliver a message as Obama. Yes, he is “star”; but, that’s because he resonates with so many Americans.
A ticket which includes Obama should be considered.
gorn
Peace, a stable, pro-US puppet goverment, and uncontested control over the oil fields.
Like I also said though, even with a massive upping of troop levels victory would be far from guaranteed, and chances are that victory would cost more then losing would.
It would actually be a lot better for the American people if America just cut its losses and left.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:28 am[…] read more | digg story Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: . […]
December 18th, 2006 at 12:05 pmPowell comments are accurate and true. He is more qualified to assess a military situation better than the average person or leadership. For any enlisted personnel the idea of commenting on any military topic is practically asking for court martial, but when it comes to the officer section it is a different game. Thus, you have comments that are coming out of the current high ranks. As any reader fully knows military is not a democracy as well as the leadership of any government (including the US when it comes to National security). Sometimes one had to scarify his/her personal stance and follow orders in order to keep good to remain good (make your definition of good). Powell took his information to the UN having a “gut†feeling that it may not be as reliable. At the time, our situation of security was heightened to a level of insanity due to the horror of 911. The UN was, and still is, in bad shape to handle any global issues other than throw a resolution at any thing. Therefore, for any reader who has no military experience to make comments of “lacking leadership qualities†to Powell is really not smart at all and irrelevant. If any reader is/was a military personnel in the higher ranking some assessment of any leadership would be acceptable to Powell. Beyond that, the public is welcomed for any comment but it is only based on hearsay or other news agency or writer’s comments. Regardless please support our troops who are in the war and have gone through it.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#64 Bruce
Peace, a stable, pro-US puppet goverment, and uncontested control over the oil fields.
We cannot possibly ensure peace (in the Middle East? Hah!), so that’s not a usable measure of victory.
As for pro-US puppet government and uncontested control of the oil fields, if these are the end goals of continued military operations, I don’t believe anything close to a majority of Americans would find it compelling, if even moral.
Therefore, I conclude that “victory” is a meaningless, vacuous premise regarding the situation in Iraq, and as I said, we should stop using this propaganda term.
Not to say I fully agree that we just cut our losses and leave. There are humanitarian considerations. We can’t necessarily solve them, but we should try to mitigate.
The strategy should be to broker a compromise, diplomatic solution with Iraq’s neighbors to contain the situation and ensure that the conflict remains internal to Iraq, and provide a means of humanitarian assistance and sanctuary for the inevitable civilian refugees of protracted civil war. We also maintain a state of readiness in the Gulf, and retain the right to re-engage militarily to prevent any traction being gained by radical terrorist organizations in using Iraq as a base of operations for exporting terror.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:37 pmWhy doesn’t the media remind Powell that he got up in front of the UN and said that we must invade Iraq b/c they had WMDs?
I mean, the man doesn’t have an ounce of credibility left in his body.
The “good soldier” my ass.
If he disagreed, he should have resigned in protest.
Whoever above said he still has political aspirations is correct… Why else would he tout a bunch of lies that help start this debacle of a quagmire?!
I’m outraged.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#33 & #34 - If Boxer decides to run for President (unlikely), she leaves her seat open for Ahnold. He’s probably going to run for it in 2010 anyway.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:08 pmLotta background noise in here. Those of you wanting to impeach the emperor because he has not clothes (or brain). Consider if he goes who is gonna replace him. Remember that man shot one of his own friends in the face, What’s he gonna do to you and me? and our children.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:21 pm[…] Yesterday, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he could support a brief increase in troop levels but only as part of a plan for phased withdrawal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a member of the Armed Services Committee, have said they do not favor troop increases. […]
December 18th, 2006 at 5:03 pmWhat the people who think we should send in more troop will not say is what they are supposed to do! What is winning? Is winning refusing to acknowledge that you never had any goals, and failed to accomplish the goals you made up along the way to pretend you had goals to begin with?
December 19th, 2006 at 7:38 amWe knew it was going to be catastrophic. It is. It will continue to be. We must rise up and stop them. Stand in the streets. Have a hunger strink. Make congress stop him. Impeach, fine, but in the meantime, many more may die. This must stop now. We didn’t run amok when they stole the election in 2000. Shame on us. We need to do it now.
[…] story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> […]
December 19th, 2006 at 2:01 pm[…] Yes, she thinks it’s a bad idea to kill more Americans. I don’t know why Eric is so fond of dead Americans. Presumably because he won’t be one of them (You can prove me wrong). There is no good reason to support the “surge.” The Joint Chiefs seem to be opposed. Colin Powell is opposed. There doesn’t seem to be any plan associated with it. The troops don’t even seem to be coming from anywhere. But that Molly is opposed, well that’s just the height of irrationality. Read, enjoy, and have a happy holidays (including a Merry Christmas!). Next year should be fascinating since this grumpiness is emerging even before Democrats formally take power. […]
December 20th, 2006 at 11:41 pm[…] Powell has previously stated his opposition to Bush’s escalation strategy. On Dec. 17, he said on CBS’s Face the Nation that there “are really no additional troops” to send to Iraq. […]
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am