Comments on: Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:24:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-4907044 Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:33:40 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-4907044 <strong>Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Dong http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-4693204 Dong Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:09:25 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-4693204 <strong>Dong</strong> The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August Dong

The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August

]]> By: Think Progress » SOTU: Bush Stands In Isolation On Escalation Plan http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1511887 Think Progress » SOTU: Bush Stands In Isolation On Escalation Plan Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:46:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1511887 [...] 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] [...] [...] 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] [...]

]]> By: Think Progress » ABC Falsely Claims Pelosi Opposes Cutting Funds For Iraq Escalation http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1486421 Think Progress » ABC Falsely Claims Pelosi Opposes Cutting Funds For Iraq Escalation Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:59:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1486421 [...] 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.” [...] [...] 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.” [...]

]]> By: http://www.you-switch.org http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1431452 http://www.you-switch.org Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:12:39 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1431452 <strong>You can switch energy and save on utility bills...</strong> You can switch energy and save on utility bills... You can switch energy and save on utility bills…

You can switch energy and save on utility bills…

]]> By: MR http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1408142 MR Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:13:26 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1408142 I'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? I’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?

]]> By: Paul Craig Roberts:The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation? « Is it over yet? http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1402630 Paul Craig Roberts:The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation? « Is it over yet? Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:54:25 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1402630 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: plages http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1396431 plages Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:15:14 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1396431 Hail to our great deceiving strategist of party favors, and other balloonies!! When will this all be over? Hail to our great deceiving strategist of party favors, and other balloonies!! When will this all be over?

]]> By: CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’ | Outlaw News http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1393051 CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’ | Outlaw News Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:00:35 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1393051 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: Scarabus http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1393028 Scarabus Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:54:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1393028 Assuming that this really <strong>is</strong> purely political (like everything else since 2000), <em>cui bono</em>? 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 <strong>can't</strong><em> lose! He gets to claim that the Dems prevented America from "winning." Any thoughts from those who are more politically astute than I?</em> Assuming 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?

]]> By: Think Progress » Report: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1391514 Think Progress » Report: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’ Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:14:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1391514 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: Dohiyi Mir http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1391507 Dohiyi Mir Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:13:17 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1391507 <strong>War Is Politics...</strong> 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.”As is often the case,... War 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.”As is often the case,…

]]> By: Will a Richardson announcement be overshadowed? at Live From Silver City http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1390900 Will a Richardson announcement be overshadowed? at Live From Silver City Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:01:39 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1390900 [...] Meanwhile, President Bush is expected to announce his “new” strategy for political gain plan for victory in Iraq next week. [...] [...] Meanwhile, President Bush is expected to announce his “new” strategy for political gain plan for victory in Iraq next week. [...]

]]> By: Mad Kane’s Political Madness » Blog Archive » Bush’s Surge Speech: A Mad Preview http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1389071 Mad Kane’s Political Madness » Blog Archive » Bush’s Surge Speech: A Mad Preview Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:01:14 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1389071 [...] 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: [...] [...] 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: [...]

]]> By: yakfitguy http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1388125 yakfitguy Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:16:46 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1388125 35. 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. 35. 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.

]]> By: Cartoons Fans Lounge http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1388076 Cartoons Fans Lounge Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:57:40 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1388076 [...] 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> [...] [...] 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> [...]

]]> By: Carl Gordon http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1386478 Carl Gordon Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:24:08 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1386478 I 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! I 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!

]]> By: GMan http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1385992 GMan Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:31:26 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1385992 Hey Carl- Maybe you should go to Iraq. Put your money where your mouth is. -an infantry veteran Hey Carl-
Maybe you should go to Iraq. Put your money where your mouth is.

-an infantry veteran

]]> By: GMan http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1385969 GMan Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:24:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1385969 Obviously, 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!! Obviously, 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!!

]]> By: Wargasm http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/comment-page-3/#comment-1384865 Wargasm Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:10:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/#comment-1384865 "Surge and Accelerate" is likely to be followed by "Ejaculate and Withdraw". “Surge and Accelerate” is likely to be followed by “Ejaculate and Withdraw”.

]]>