Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’
Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’
CNN reports “President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week.” According to the BBC, “The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq.”
Last night on NBC News, Jim Miklaszewski reported that the new strategy will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” Watch it:
Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress “I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.”
Transcript:
WILLIAMS: First, NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has learned that President Bush is prepared to announce a strategy of surge and accelerate in Iraq, which would involve some 20,000 additional American troops being sent to Iraq. Jim is with us from the Pentagon with more on this tonight. Jim. Good evening.
MIKLASZEWSKI: Good evening, Brian. Administration officials told us today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional troops into Baghdad to try to control over the violence there and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is they’re not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today.
WILLIAMS: Jim Miklaszewski on duty for us today. Thanks for that.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
he is a cartoon character, not our president. let us not mistake the fact that this administration used the courts to install them, diebold to seal it up.
but that thing in the white house isn’t a human as far as I can see. It never acts like one. it was never elected
does that help us get rid of it?
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 amAre you sure they hung Saddam? I think Bush is still using him as a advisor.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 amWe need to be flooding our misrepresentatives daily with demands for impeachement. The madness must stop if we have to shut the country down to stop it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 amReid and Pelosi need to take to the podium, THIS WEEK, and beat Bush to the punch. Reid and Pelosi need to announce:
“Citizens of the USA, the Iraq Occupation is OVER. The troops are coming home immediately, starting today. The new Democratic Congress has unanimously decided to discontinue funding for Bush’s war.â€
Imagine how powerful it’d be if the Democrats asserted their authority and took the wind completely out of Bush’s sail. They’d earn the respect of EVERY thinking American.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 am3, Absolutely correct.
Find your rep. here and call him/her every single day. Let them know if they vote to continue funding the Iraq Occupation you’ll do everything possible to drive them out of office next election.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 amDidn’t Bush say he didn’t like politicians making military decisions in Vietnam? Pretty soon we’ll see his approval ratings in the 20s.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 am“President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week.†According to the BBC, “The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq.â€
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a new one. I mean, saying “Bush”, “strategy” and “plan” all in the same paragraph.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 amEverything he does is a political decision. Politics come first with this administration and troop safety comes second.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 amDid anyone else out there watch PBS’s Frontline last night?
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am‘The Dark Side’ was shown.
It clearly shows timelines and details of how Cheney has manipulated this administration from day 1 into invading Iraq.
It was a little like watching the film ‘Groundhog Day’ in the sense that one had to live the last 6 years all over again.
Scary stuff, but well worth watching.
We still have this sack of sh*t sitting in the Senate, ready to twist arms or cast deciding votes on every issue.
Watch closely when he’s called to testify in the Scooter case. He’ll most likely use executive privilege to get around being sworn in, but will still lie his ass off.
At one point in this documentrary, he is sitting in the background, as usual, as Bush does the talking. When Bush mentions the aluminum tubes fiasco, Cheney blushes from his fat neck all the way up his bald head. He knew what he was doing.
Now he must be made accountable.
As one of our TP posters ‘handles’ indicates already, let’s impeach Cheney before Bush. We sure don’t need this piece of crap as President.
Dick, you’re a Dick.
Well good ol’Pat Robertson wanted to give you all a New Flash:
VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia (AP) — Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a “mass killing” late in 2007.
“I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear,” he said during his news-and-talk television show “The 700 Club” on the Christian Broadcasting Network.
“The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”
Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.
God also said, he claims, that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 amAgain Bush is playing politics with people’s lives. Our troops and the Iraqi people will be safer once Bush is impeached.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 amSeeing as how only 11% of our populace thinks this is a good idea, how in the hell does this lameass duck think he’s going to be able to pull this off?
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 amAny congressional vote to allow this is the death knell for said politico.
Let’s make absolutely sure our voices are heard.
Mr Inslee, I’m talking to you. Today. Tomorrow. Friday. Saturday. Sunday. Next week, next month…
He’s been sinking very fast and can’t help but feel the water line
approaching nose level.
Just kick him out and put him on trial already.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 amUniverse knows . . . he deserves it.
Good Morning all, Don’t know if it can be done or not, but, I’m for a “blanket Impeachment”…All of this miserable administration has been in bed together so that seem’s appropiate to me….Bush, Cheney, Rice and those responsable that have left office should then be tried for war crimes and all asset’s seized.. Miserable in charge spouting like a fountain from the rose garden this morning..Nothing good there…Blessings
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 amOne of Bush’s own advisors has said that for all intents and purposes the White House does not have a policy arm, and that all decisions in the White House are political. Frank Rich postulates that Bush started the war simply as a political strategy to win the midterm elections. I don’t necessarily agree with Rich on this point, I think that the PNAC fantasy of global domination played a considerable role, but I agree with Rich that the cynicism in the White House is bottomless.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 amCorrect me if I’m wrong, but for GWB getting out of bed in the morning is a political decision — the most dangerous decision of his day — FOR US.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 amSomeone throw Bush and anchor before he sinks the rest of us along with him.
-GSD
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 amCould someone please riddle me this. What political advantages are there to troop esculation? Elections are over. There’s no chance of gaining political capital. Ergo, why esculate?
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 amThis is an admission that the administration has no respect for basic human life.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 amGeorge Bush and his cabal are real modern day terrorists.
Where is the outrage?
Ergo, why esculate?
Comment by Steve
George W. Bush needs to save face. That’s all that matters here.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 amWhat political advantages are there to troop esculation? Elections are over. There’s no chance of gaining political capital. Ergo, why esculate?
Comment by Steve
So he can look and feel like the leader he wants to be. Nothing more. Ego and hubris renamed as political gain.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am19. I fear it’s tied up with GW’s legacy. He’s trying to salvage some type of stable Iraq that he can be remembered by.
I used this on another post but it fits for every republican and 30%er.
Just because you bet on this horse doesn’t mean you have to follow it to the glue factory.
Wake up congress. Demand to have oversight. Demand to know what the current troops are being used for and any additional troops. Don’t be afraid to stand up to this runaway train.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am#9 zimzone, what state are you in? We turned on Frontline last night to watch the Dark Side and it program was spreempted by Ford funeral coverage.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 amSo disappointed.
HEADLINE: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 amTRANSLATION: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Stupid Decision Than An Intelligent One.’
We can all make a difference in this debate. We can possibly stop this sacrifice of our sons and daughters! We need to all act and act quickly. We need to write letters to local newspapers all over the nation. We need to call every talk show on the radio that exists over and over. Call the righties, call the lefties.
We need to brand this troop surge “Operation Cannon Fodder.” We need to say it over and over again until the mainstream media starts to use the phrase.
And what we really need is an organizer who will bring us to the door of the White House in an organized protest. Thousands of marchers carrying signs protesting “Operation Cannon Fodder” would shame this war profiteering president right out of his dream world. If not, it would empower Congress to act in defense of our soldiers.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 amThere can be only personal reasons for the surge of troops in Iraq - saving George from further embarrassment. People in the know believe his plan won’t work, but he will continue to send troops to the sacrificial hill of Iraq to demonstrate that he is trying.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 amThe miserable failure cannot disguise that he is a miserable failure, however, and the thought of a presidential funeral for him one day makes me sick. He should go down in ignominy, obscurity, exile and in prison!
We need to brand this troop surge “Operation Cannon Fodder.â€
Make that “Operation IED Fodder”.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 amBush will say that more troops will give Iraq the democracy they “deserve” and he eventually promised and anyone not supporting his plan will be aiding worldwide terrorism. This clown needs to keep Americans confused for two more years when he can skip town. Bush will say that more troops will lead to more killing of American soldiers and this will “prove” that democracy is working, but it is a sacrifice that he’s ready to make!
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 amNYker, how bout “Operation - I really don’t know what else to do”
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 amCheck out this excellent anti-war video, and please help to spread it;
Guernica Iraq
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 amhttp://911blogger.com/node/5219
Looks like my last two posts were too fiery for TP to print. Sensitive Sensitive.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 amOf course it is political. No matter what happens or what action occurs, the outcome in Iraq will be bad, so from the Bush team’s skewed perspective, it makes sense to propose something that would never be approved. Then when the predicted bad outcome takes place after troop withdrawal, the Bush administration and Republicans in general can say, “See, you should have listened to us and sent in more troops” — as if that in an alternative universe would have had a better outcome. It’s brilliant in a twisted way with Karl Rove’s signature all over it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 am#25 Marie,
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 amI live in MN.
I believe you can watch in ‘on demand’ here…
http://www-c.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Well worth the time, but bring a vomit bucket; Cheney’s all over it.
I don’t think any military decisions have been made by the Chimp, its all politics.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 am2007 Looks Like Repeat Of 1967?
3rd of January 2007
by Jay Randal
In 1967 President Johnson escalated the Vietnam war knowing that conflict was a lost cause, and dire fiasco, but he was more concerned about himself and refused to admit defeat, so he caused social unrest in America.
His actions ignited a robust anti-war movement, and protests across the entire United States, but Johnson ignored the civil strife and forced more young soldiers into the meat grinder of Vietnam, to die for stupidity.
“Military Industrial Complex” profiteers controlled the White House, and forced Johnson to escalate the conflict to enrich themselves further, but they did not care that US soldiers died, or maimed for their greed.
President Bush like foolish Johnson before him is in bed with greedy war profiteers, and Oil Cartel slime, so he plans to escalate the Iraq war and ignite unrest in America in the process, just like occurred in 1967.
Remember that 1967 was followed by horrific 1968: Robert Kennedy and Rev. Martin King assassinated, Pres. Johnson disgraced, and US in massive turmoil.
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 am….”Fact is they’re not up to the task yet.”
These “reporters” make me laugh. They act like they’re telling us something we don’t know. No, the’re not “up to the task” yet. Not near up to the task. And Iraq forces are infiltrated with militiamen. And weapons we provide are being stolen. What is the solution to that?
This is a joke.
Answer the first question.
Second question is, when you “throw more money” at Iraq, where’s the money going and how do you prevent it from getting into the wrong hands as usual? Why after all the money spent there is not already “jobs and reconstruction??” Explain that.
So the blank check has to end now. If even the Republicans and Republican pundits were getting fed up, then why aren’t we? The Democrats have to take the lead in this, not follow.
Dems have to demand a plan. They have to say, ok this is excalation not surge. Then they have to say, where is the money going specifically, how do we track it, and what specific assignment do the “new” troops have other than what they’ve been doing.
Questions and accountability.
A plan for victory, ….demand it now.
Odds of success for the new plan…..demand it now.
Alternatives for the new plan….demand it now.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 amI belive everyone should read this interview with a prominent psychiatrist on Bush. It is very clarifying and should be taken seriously. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/049
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 amOne of the most preposterous things I can recall to come from any White House is this charade of “The Decider” become “The Listener” for two months to gain some insight that has eluded him for years…and the fact-free reports reassuring us of progress made in listening, deciding, planning, refining…and meetings of nearly three hours to get the job done.
Now we’re treated to a drum roll lasting a week or two to build us up for what?…an announcement confirming that Bush will continue to pursue his delusions with no regard for the pain and cost to others?
Please give us MSM reporting along the lines of: “Bush may quit stalling…been grunting almost long enough…may drop his latest pile of steaming crap on America next week. Increased death and spending is assured.”
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amThis is a man who can not discern the difference between appearance and reality. God help US! This country is being led by a man who is delusional.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amOne of the smartest things the Government ever did was end the Vietnam war. People were speaking up, calling out the bullshit, and civil unrest was at its highest. I think the Government felt “the people” were getting too close to the truth, and getting too angry. So they got out. Since then, I feel they have learned from that time, and now we have laws and systems in place to prevent any more “uprisings” or if there is, it will be controlled quickly. They are on to the business of making money from war, and protecting their little egos. We have less power to resist than in 1968.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 amThank you zimzone #35
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 amI will try to get it.
Good post as alway’s Jay, yes I remember well….Now at my age and remembering the past I lived through may I add….Let the game’s begin and let’s boot these basterd’s out of office and into jail for good…..Blessings
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 amHas anyone heard a coherent military strategy addressing how these additional troops are to be used?
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 amThe last time we placed 7,000 troops (Oct>?) in Baghdad, it did nothing but strangle commerce and piss off more Iraqis.
How would this be different?
Are they going to Anbar?
Fallujah?
Hello?
Anyone home in the dingy dishwater gray House?
Since then, I feel they have learned from that time, and now we have laws and systems in place to prevent any more “uprisings†or if there is, it will be controlled quickly. They are on to the business of making money from war, and protecting their little egos. We have less power to resist than in 1968.
Comment by ForTruth
Well said, Truth.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 amThis link to buzzflash interview with Dr. Justin A. Frank is a must read…
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 amBushIsInsane
The surge is for Bush and Bush alone. He is willing to sacrifice good soldiers and country honor and resources to keep from admitting he is a dumb f*ck.
He is trying to string it along for two more years, then he and his apologists can say that if we had only stayed the course we would have won.
Impeach, coup, a broadhead……. something needs to be done.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 pmYes Sharon I was a young teen in 1967-68, but I remember it well. It’s a bad thing when history is allowed to repeat! Remember Pres. Johnson was a stupid Texan just like Pres. Bush, so perhaps that state should never be allowed to foist oil creeps into the White House. There will be massive upheaval in 2008, unless Bush and Cheney are forced to resign!
IRAQ DEBACLE MUST BE ENDED NOW!!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pmComment by Midge Wilson — January 3, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Good point.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm[…] Watch Video […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmWell, so far Shrub has been motivated by political desires, all of which backfired.
This will too. Then impeachment will be even easier.
Bring it on, you pile of sh*t.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 pmThe ‘Texecutioner’ has become the ‘Presicutioner’.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pmMaybe Pat Robertson could talk to God & get the Texecutioner some help here.
Pat: God, GW is going to need a little help over there in Iraq. Now, as you know, this is political, not religious, but you do owe me a big favor for being your spokesman. Could you just raise a little Hell with them ‘thar Muslims? You know, a quick plague or something? I know, make them sandstorms into tornadoes & blow ‘em all the way to Hell.
God: Patty, that’s the most asinine request I’ve ever heard. Muslims are no different than Christians. They believe in God, and are actually more faithful than your flock.
Pat: Yeah, but I gotta do this or they may revoke my tax free status. What would I do then?
God: Make less money?
Pat:This is no fun. I think I’ll guit talking to you.
God: Thanks. Now, what were you saying, Ted?
[…] Posted in Military, Government, GOP, Iraq War, Bush Administration at 9:29 am by LeisureGuy They even admit it: the decision to send more troops to Iraq is a political decision, not a military decision. At one time, the rule was not to play politics with American lives. George Bush, though, clearly feels that rules do not apply to him. […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 pmzIMzONE
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmROFLMAO!!!
Texas Oil Creeps in the White House pretty much sums up a lot of what’s wrong with our country.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm[…] Update: According to NBC, the administration has all but admitted this decision is more politics than strategy. […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pmSending more of our kids to die in Iraq is a political decision?
I am getting nauseous. This is sickening.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pmWHY are the Decider and the real Decider still running with scissors? It is time to take away their sharp toys and put them back in Timeout, where they can’t hurt any more people!
The inmates have run the asylum long enough, now it is time for them to slink back under their rock and decompose, like all good feces.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pmWe’ve already tried escalation and failed. We currently have about 140,000 troops in Iraq; we had 160,000 there in January 2006. “Surging” 20,000 more troops only brings us up to the same level. Why should we expect to succeed this year with the same number of troops we had last year?
We also tried and failed twice to secure Baghdad last year, in Operation Together Forward and Operation Together Forward II.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pmBush Admin’s Iraq “Surge” Motivated by Politics…
Once again, what’s good for the nation gets trumped by what’s good for George W. Bush….
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmA surge will hasten the breakdown of an already-stressed army. The surge will come from keeping the same soldiers in Iraq longer and bringing back to Iraq early those who have already been there. There are no additional troops to send.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:54 pmMegalomania is the driving force behind Dubya, who’s far more concerned building a monument to his ego than the lives of American soldiers or the repution of America in the eyes of the world. Congress must stop this mad man!
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pmMay I quote Aesop Rock?
Sun down, goggle up; canteen gobble-juice
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 pmTeargas nozzle up, brain buff hostile youth
Chop it up, lock a noose upon it
You will die for the glory of…Shit, I can’t put my finger on it
But it’s big! Big and legitimate!
Before sending any troops ask whats the Plan for Victory , Let the country , troops and iraqis Know ….. No Honesty No More Troops
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 pmbush reminds me of the knight in Monty Python’s “Search for the Holy Grail” who keeps getting his limbs cut off but still wants to fight.
Oops, there goes an arm. (No WMD)
Opps, there goes another arm. (No connection to 9/11 or alQuede)
Oops, there goes a leg. (Stopping the civil war)
Oops, there goes the other leg. (the BS government he installed)
So there’s bush’s torso now screaming to “bring it on” as the rest of the sane world rides away.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm31, Now I’ve posted 4 times today and TP has not printed any of them. I’ll move to a different site where they’re not afraid of a little truth.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmI wish to hear from a competent psychiatrist to diagnose Bush in tears when speaking to or about the troop wounjded or killed in the war he and his cohorts started.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmGet more soldiers killed for a political gain. That’s it. That works. Why is congress not taking this administrations POWER AWAY? It needs to happen.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pmThis could be the end of the US Empire, just as Afghanistan was the end of the Soviet one. I know what you are thinking, but imperial wars can have consequences wildly disproportionate to the apparent stakes–especially when the imperial economy is not in healthy fundamental shape.
He has lost. This new Operation Provide Targets is just a last desperate throw of the dice, a move known to every wargamer alive. He won’t get the results he wants, the war will be lost, and a general regional war could very well occur by the end of 2007, involving no fewer than four different countries outside of the black hole that was Iraq, as the Saudi Crown and the Zionists alike will both try to crush the new Shiite colossus that is forming, with a sideshow of the Turks beating up on Kurdistan while no one is looking.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmGood Lord, do these people have any shame? I mean these are American soldiers that they are messing around with.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmthe whole inception by chief republican loon mccain was political, so why wouldn’t the follow-through by the bushliar-criminal regime be political. Clearly the decision to escalate was made weeks ago and they’ve been putting together the marketing campaign since, working on the best go-to-market date. They are insufferably vile, craven human beings.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm.
Did y’all hear our Secretary of State (and first concubine) the other day catagorize our 3,000 plus dead as a ‘good investment’? That pretty much made me sick. These SOBs waste our young men & women as if they were playing Stratego or Risk.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmOne day discerning, insightful individual will write a truthful biography of this president. It’ll be entitled “The Madness of King George.”
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhen this sad, sorry saga is over, one benefit and only one benefit will result from the additional loss of lives and money.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pmMcCaine will be branded as the loser that he is.
Edwards is already coining the “McCain strategy”, gearing up for the eventual millstone to toss overboard during the 08 campaign.
I say let’s set the stage for a March on Washington. Any one game?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmEscalation or Surge..or whatever you call it is not the issue here…the issue here is what is the MISSION ? Is it the same MISSION that was called ACCOMPLISHED in May of 2003 by President Bush.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmI believe I read where both Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersch think the “surge” is really designed to get more troops into Iraq to defend against a projected Iranian counterattack after we attack them sometime in the first half of this year…
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:28 pmIraqi refugees are leaving at a rate of up to 90,000 per month and 2,000,000 have already left. Therefore, Baghdad (Pop. 6,000,000 ) will be empty in 3.5 years. Also, the John Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health reports that 655,000 Iraqis have died during the current war.The Bush Administration disputes this number. However, considering the data, the situation in Iraq equals the atrocity that occurred in Darfur. The UN has identified Darfur ( Pop. 7,000,000 ) as a genocide. So, adding more troops will only contribute to the atrocity. Of course, leaving may avoid further American casualties, but Iraq may descend even further into oblivion. But, maybe a slight chance exists that the Iraqis can work things out among each other, if the Americans didn’t interfere. I would take my chances with leaving, while trying everything possible to make reparations with the conflicting parties.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm[…] Via Think Progress I learn that last night on NBC News, Jim Miklaszewski reported that President Bush has decided to send more US troops to Iraq, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.†[…]
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmI know the MSM and Congress ignore, do-not-know, or refuse to inform but maybe someone out there knows about military manning and equipment. Everyone uses 140,000 troops in Iraq. In reality how many boots-on-the-ground, weapons carrying troops are there ? 60,000, 80,000 ? All the rest are support personnel. General with aides and staff, doctors,nurses,medics, med-evac,mechanics and on and on. (G-d bless everyone associated with the Med units as the death toll would be much higher without them). Now someone who knows about this manning thing will notice that there are not enough support personnel for the combat troops, something else not mentioned much. All the no-bid contract civilians doing food service (any GI’s serving food or doing KP?), cleaning, garbage pick-up and on and on. So the equivalent of what, 180,000 or 200,000 military personnel, including civilian support.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmHow about the billions we spend on the troops, does that include all these high priced civilians or are those costs hidden somewhere else? As to this so-called “surge†of 20,000 or 30,000 troops, are they all combat troops or maybe combat units with their support units? How many more no-bid contracts will be needed to support these additional “troops� And to end this quest, does anyone know how many experienced,qualified trainers have been sent over there and how many need interpretors while they are doing their job? So how about it, can someone enlighten Americans what “troops†really mean?
MORE OF THE SAME DANGEROUS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CRAP FROM BUSH & GANG!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmNow, the boy is really saying: I dare anyone to try to impeach me! I am the decider!
We are in a ridiculous situation. Our president is morally bankrupt and criminally insane. This is indisputable; all we have to do to see it is open our eyes and look at what he is doing. Bush defiantly continues to break innumerable domestic and international laws of basic ethical human behavior. Bush is literally embodying and acting out on the world stage what it is to be criminally insane. His pathology is symbolically expressed in his act of not only refusing to participate in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), but threatening the use of military force in the event that any American national is tried before it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm66 Steve - Psychiatrist says Bush needs to be impeached for the good of “we the people”
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm[…] Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’ Quote: […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pmWell at least the administration has addressed the critical issue - coming up with a macho-tough name for it. “Operation Surge and Accelerate”!
God, I want to be sick.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pmBush and Cheney are a blessing from god upon this great nation! No one has the rite to questun them on anything they due. If your not willing to support Busha nd Chaney in everything they want for america, then go joyn the fashists and be prepared for totul anniulation! Give the president what he wants for total victory over islom and evildours world wide. Now! Otherwise the deomcrats will take our guns and force us tobe atheeists.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmActually it’s a decision based soley on trying to salvage poor George Bush’s fragile ego.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmFellow Citizens, Men and Women in Congress:
It is apparent that a gravely forked-tongue commands America’s Commander in Chief. And, consequent to the fact that Bush wouldn’t tell the truth if he had a mouthful, Congress must bring the valorous and precious lives of our kids home now; safe from being needlessly sacrificed by the Chief Executive of arrogance, deception, and denial.
Looking at the world through the dim light of his ego, Bush is ethically incompetent to lead anywhere other than where none of us really wants to go. And, the more time he has in office to raise his own banner, the more dust of fading hopes will flutter in the winds of change. Bush is profoundly confused, but not about how to do things wrong. So, as he follows a script suitable for Frankenstien, every other politician who puts career ambitions before the lives of kids in uniforms is complicit. Not one life of any soldier or civilian should have been or ought to continue being wasted for the president’s lies, or for a Congress bereft of courage for change. Now, concerning his thoughts about a military surge in Iraq, I say this: The surge we need is to save the military we have from a Commander in Chief, who lacks the health to be in command. The failed state of Bush’s intelligence is why he claims to be fighting a war on terror, by putting the world on the road to hell. He seems helpless to do better; therefore, Congress must.
Aristotle said that “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.†Apparently, Rove is Bush’s substitute for Aristotle. No sir, no surge is my response.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Gola Wolf Richards, MottoCitizens.com
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmB.A., Human Development Psychology, M.A., Theology, Philosophy of Change
I’m more and more convinced that the whole Iraq debacle was politically motivated in the first place. Read “Hubris”…there are strong implications that Rove & Co. felt like war in Iraq would help the 04 election campaign.
So why should it be different now?
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm[…] (An unnamed administration official tells NBC News that the decision to boost troop levels is political. –g) […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm“He’s been sinking very fast and can’t help but feel the water line
approaching nose level.
Just kick him out and put him on trial already.
Universe knows . . . he deserves it. ”
I believe that the water level has remained the same. He, like the wicked witch in “The Land OZ” who was melting, is screaming, “I am shrinking, I am shrinking.”
When one get smaller, one get shrunk, and this criminal is real small.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm#37….Thanks so much for the heads up on the article…..excellent reading…….so ….my next question is how do we get this “sociopath” immediately isolated, impotent and prevent further harm he can do to our country and the world…..he is dangerous and could easily precipitate “the end of time” for all of us through his “Madness”……The citizens of this country need to tak action NOW to protect all people around the world. I don’t think most of the population of this country really understands how seriously disturbed and dangerous he is! I have emailed this article to my senator and Lou Dobbs, I’m pretty sure it won’t be read or addressed by either but I have to do SOMETHING!….i DON’T THINK WE WILL SURVIVE HIM 2 MORE YEARS…..HE SEEMS TO BE DECOMPENSATING MORE EVERY DAY!!!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pmto #74
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:26 pmYes, we need a march on Washington. Moveon should be able to organize it. I live just outside D.C. and can put people up.
Let’s do it!
marial
BUSH TO ENGINE ROOM OF TITANIC AFTER HITTING ICEBERG AND ALL HIS ADVISORS TELLING HIM THE SHIP IS SINKING…….
FULL SPEED AHEAD…..STAY THE COURSE!!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm[…] NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reports that an administration official admitted to him that the surge option is more of a political decision than a military one. […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 pmBy all meens, go a head and have your little march in Washinton. Everybody will see you for what you truly are - cut-and-runners! You know what Isee when I see some liberul piece activist marching with a peice sign? Peice sign = footprint of the american chicken! Ha, ha ,ha!
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 pmI have a more positive take on this war of choice. This is just what the world needs, a weakened US government, that will cease to be a superpower in the world. Each day your war is helping to create a more irrelvent USA that will soon be begging asia for food. Once the USA comes down from the clouds it will be a safer saner world. God Bless the Less. S. A.
juan.. barcelona
keep up the fool fight GW
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:23 pmYou know what Isee when I see some liberul piece activist marching with a peice sign? Peice sign = footprint of the american chicken! Ha, ha ,ha!
Comment by Carl Gordon
Bad spelling and grammar do not make for good taunts. Ha, ha, ha!
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm(You can’t even misspell “peace” consistently.)
To Jay Randall –
The opposition to US involvement in Vietnam began long before 1967, and LBJ. I began mine in 1965, while still in high school.
Others had been actively opposing it for years before that.
Truncated histories ignorant of the full facts and history we don’t need; we get more than enough dis- and misinformation from the Bushit War Crimes Family and Illusion Factory.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:57 pmImpeach Bush & Cheney? Hell no, they should follow Saddam to the gallows.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm– Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’ –
it staggers the mind …
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:42 pmDisillusionment among US troops in Iraq is mounting rapidly, and morale is extraordinarily low. Recent poll data suggests that our long-suffering forces question the wisdom of both the supposed “mission” and our decision-makers. Could a mutiny (as unthinkable as it sounds) among US forces in Iraq be imminent? If such an event were to occur, could the public blame them?!
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:58 pmTo Carl Gordon –
The abundant misspellings in your posts are a precisely accurate measure of your defective thought processes. I hope those are the result only of illiteracy, and not also of mental defect.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pmBush and Robertson tell us they talk to God and God talks to them. Such true believers are absolutely delusional and, therefore, should be in mental hospitals rather than leading a country or congregation. Two classic whackos whose terms should expire forthwith…
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 pmThis mad C.O.W.(Coalition of Oilers & Warmongers)boy is repeating what that other megalomaniac tried to do back in 1944–throw young lads into a last-ditch effort to snatch “victory” from the jaws of the self-inflicted quagmire arising from an illegal War of Aggression. Last time it was called the Battle of the Bulge, this time it’s the Battle of the ‘Surge’.
What’s the dif? Hopefully, the latest Shrubbenfuhrer will also come to his demise in his bunker!
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm[…] Posted on Wednesday 3 January 2007 Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’ […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 pmIf I live long enough to help end this bush madness and see our country turn around for the good of her people again I will prapose to the legislators they pass a law that includes a syc test, drug test along with a complete back ground check on any and all people running for office..If they fail in any catagory they are out of the race and off the balott…..First we need to end the Iraq occupation and many other life threatening issues……
Did any one else see Lou Dobb’s show this evening…OT sorry…It was about a bill bush is about to sign, one I had not heard of untill today…It will allow amnesty and Social Security benefit’s to Illegal immigrant’s that have stolen S.S. cards and worked in america….Upon earning 6 credit’s they are elgible for benefit’s…..It amount’s to 18 month’s in america for criminal’s, here illegiely to tap into our system, this from an administration that has given away our port’s in the past, going after giving away our air lines, exchange mangos for uranium, declared preemptive war on a sovreign nation that was no threat and now giving the entire retirement system that was pretty solvent untill this mindless parasite took over…The more I learn the more I wish I didn’t know….Blessings all, we realy need them
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 pmreading your comments…its good to see the american people are waking up to the bush catastrophe and the evil mainstream media who help make it happen.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:30 am[…] Bush will be sending more troops to Iraq, not for military reasons but for political reasons. Story is here 1-We are winning in Iraq 2- We aren’t winning but we aren’t losing 3-There is no insurrection in Iraq 4- The insurrection is in its last throes 5- There is no Civil War 6- There is no Civil War but we may need more troops in Iraq 7- Well if there is Civil War that means we are winning. Insanity is here Why do Sunnis and Shiites have each other?  Story is here Even Spiderman sees the idiocy that is going on with the repeal of our rights. Story is here Read about a radio guy going overboard and thoroughly placing his feet in the realm of the loon. Story is here Digging up Barack Obama’s history also leads to the digging up of Bush’s history. Someone at FOX News will get fired for this. Video here  Put him in a room with a pen and paper for a year and he could not come up with this. His byline is a lieline. Story is here  The religious bigotry continues in Washington DC without shame however it has a sweet twist. Story is here and additional story is here  The military does not support their Commander in Chief. Story is here  The rise of the Republicans in 1994 was based on lies. Republicans have not shrunk the government but did degrade it substantially. What failed previously is failing today. Listen to story here  Was the debt that accrued under Reagan brought on by Democrats – NO Reagan wanted more spending and his cabinet over assumed the increase in the economy therefore the additional unemployment spending and more added up to debt rocketing all because of Reagan.  Story is here  Even more on the debt is here  So Wal Mart is bad…they do things that are worse…now they are even worser. Story is here […]
January 4th, 2007 at 2:44 am[…] Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’ CNN reports “President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week.†According to the BBC, “The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq.†[…]
January 4th, 2007 at 7:08 am[…] Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress “I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.†read more | digg story […]
January 4th, 2007 at 8:53 amNot sure if everyone’s seen these videos of the US Military in Iraq or not…pretty amazing stuff:
January 4th, 2007 at 9:08 amhttp://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 12/ winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
“Surge and Accelerate” is likely to be followed by “Ejaculate and Withdraw”.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:10 amObviously, Bush is following the advice of Jesus and/or Dobson, so get off his back. That Jesus just loves a good war! This will teach those Iraqis to try to take away are freedom. Sieg, heil!!
January 4th, 2007 at 2:24 pmHey Carl-
Maybe you should go to Iraq. Put your money where your mouth is.
-an infantry veteran
January 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI would but I’m do to retire soon! Been working for the school district for 22 years! Besides, victory is rite around the corner. The MSM refuises to print the good news of whats going on in Iraq! Traytors!
January 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pm[…] 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> […]
January 4th, 2007 at 9:57 pm35. Obama should invest in a bullet proof vest. They’ll kill anyone who really threatens their power. That’s the sad truth and anyone who leads any kind of mass protest or revolution against this now 60 year-old war machine is risking their life.
Then again, the founding fathers risked as much, and so should we. Our children deserve that.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:16 pm[…] Another Bush war speech is on the horizon. Oh, goody! Actually, I’m not sure I’ll be able to force myself to watch next Tuesday’s speech, in which Bush is expected to announce a politically motivated “surge and accelerate plan.” But I’ve seen enough Bush speeches to sum this one up in a limerick, without even seeing it: […]
January 5th, 2007 at 2:01 am[…] Meanwhile, President Bush is expected to announce his “new†strategy for political gain plan for victory in Iraq next week. […]
January 5th, 2007 at 11:01 amWar Is Politics…
No duh:Jim Miklaszewski reported that the new strategy will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.â€As is often the case,…
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm[…] The Washington Post reports today that “deep divisions remain between the White House on one side and the Joint Chiefs and congressional leaders on the other about whether a surge of up to 20,000 troops will turn around the deteriorating situation.” The Post also provides more context about an administration official’s recent claim that the escalation is “more of a political decision than a military one.“: The U.S. military is increasingly resigned to the probability that Bush will deploy a relatively small number of additional troops — between one and five brigades — in part because he has few other dramatic options available to signal U.S. determination in Iraq, officials said. But the Joint Chiefs have not given up making the case that the potential dangers outweigh the benefits for several reasons, officials said. […]
January 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAssuming that this really is purely political (like everything else since 2000), cui bono? And how far down the line? Is it about McCain?
The “McCain Doctrine” is that sacrificing the lives of more Americans in a cause that was lost before it began will bring “victory.” Three possibilities: (a) He gets all the deaths he wants, and we still reap the wind. (b) The Preznit-wit and Military give him half the deaths he wants, and we reap the wind. (c) The Preznit-wit and Military pretend to try to give him all the deaths he wants, but the Dems refuse to play along with the “Charge of the Light Brigade” strategy.
Outcome (a), then McCain loses—as does Lieberman? Outcome (b), then McCain wins, getting to claim that had he been allowed to kill as many Americans as he wished, we would have “won” (whatever the hell that means!). Outcome (c) McCain can’t lose! He gets to claim that the Dems prevented America from “winning.”
Any thoughts from those who are more politically astute than I?
January 5th, 2007 at 6:54 pm[…] The Washington Post reports today that “deep divisions remain between the White House on one side and the Joint Chiefs and congressional leaders on the other about whether a surge of up to 20,000 troops will turn around the deteriorating situation.†The Post also provides more context about an administration official’s recent claim that the escalation is “more of a political decision than a military one.“: The U.S. military is increasingly resigned to the probability that Bush will deploy a relatively small number of additional troops — between one and five brigades — in part because he has few other dramatic options available to signal U.S. determination in Iraq, officials said. But the Joint Chiefs have not given up making the case that the potential dangers outweigh the benefits for several reasons, officials said. […]
January 5th, 2007 at 7:00 pmHail to our great deceiving strategist of party favors, and other balloonies!! When will this all be over?
January 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am[…] When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the “surge option” of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions. […]
January 7th, 2007 at 12:54 pmI’m very concerned about the soft stance the Democratic majority seems to be taking with the Bush plan to increase troops. The Democrats are clearly signaling at this point that they will not challenge Bush in an increase in troops unless it goes well beyond 10,000.
From the Center for American Progress’ own report today:
“A recent Center for American Progress memo suggested that Congress “place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.” Yesterday, Pelosi pledged that Congress not issue Bush a blank check. “If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,†Pelosi said.”
It appears to me that the Democrats are trying to sound tough, but signaling that they will go along with pretty much anything shy of 20,000 more troops. How is an increase of 10,000 or 15,000 acceptable? This is quite a turnaround from the message Democrats said they received, and would act on, in the last election. Why, when given such a clear mandate by voters to end the war, are Democrats continuing to refuse to provide leadership on this issue?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pmYou can switch energy and save on utility bills…
You can switch energy and save on utility bills…
January 11th, 2007 at 10:12 am[…] Earlier this month, a senior Pentagon official admitted to NBC News that “this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” […]
January 19th, 2007 at 7:59 pm[…] FACT — LAWMAKERS, MILITARY COMMANDERS, AND EXPERTS OPPOSE ESCALATION: Sen. John Warner (R-VA), an influential conservative on military affairs, offered a resolution that opposes President Bush’s escalation plan. “Combined with near-unanimous Democratic opposition to Bush’s war policy, the Republican stands show a broad bipartisan lack of confidence in the president’s course.” Nearly seventy percent of Americans say they oppose Bush’s escalation. Top military leaders, including former Gen. Colin Powell, the current Joint Chiefs, and Gen. John Abizaid, have expressed their opposition to putting more U.S. troops on the ground. The president’s strategy goes against the recommendations of the recently-released Iraq Study Group. One Bush administration official admitted that the escalation plan is “more of a political decision than a military one.” [Seattle Times, 1/23/07; Newsweek, 1/20/07; Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); Washington Post, 1/10/07; NBC, 1/2/07; ThinkProgress, 1/3/07] […]
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pmDong
The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 amTeen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am