Biden: Petraeus 'dead flat wrong' on Iraq

Stan187 · 09-09-2007, 16:52 PM

Biden: Petraeus 'dead flat wrong' on Iraq
Back from overseas, senator indicates Democrats will persist in pullout date

WASHINGTON - President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which bring the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability. The officials also disputed suggestions that Petraeus and Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.

The testimony sets the stage for an announcement by Bush later in the week about he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness and growing congressional discomfort with the war.

Patraeus missed the point, Biden says.
Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits the pair from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus' assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, was the only way to foster national reconciliation among warring factions.

"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong," Biden said.
Biden contended that Bush's main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

"This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave," Biden said.

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out," except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said.

Republican defends Iraq commander
"I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them," Kerry said. "But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he trusts the military judgment of Petraeus and that it was foolish for Congress to try and second-guess commanders on the ground.

In the end, Graham said, the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw prematurely if it is military unwise and risks plunging the region into more chaos.

"If the general tells me down the road we can withdraw troops because of military success, we should all celebrate it," Graham said. "But if politicians in Washington pick an arbitrary date, an arbitrary number to withdraw, it's not going to push Baghdad politicians.

"It's going to re-energize an enemy that's on the map," he said.

Biden spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry appeared on ABC's "This Week," and Graham was on "Fox News Sunday."

------------------------------------------

What a fvcking idiot! I guess you have a better picture than the actual military man who is on the ground there?

Look at the bold part. He says we should focus on a political solution. And what has Petraeus been saying? The the security gains are not being followed up with parallel progress on the Iraqi political front. And this guy hopes to be president? What a goddamn joke!

Feanor · 09-09-2007, 18:03 PM

Welcome to America? I'm pretty sure I recall a certain Republican assuring the nation that it has been confirmed that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda and is stockpiling WMDs and preparing to start up a nuclear program.

Stan187 · 09-09-2007, 19:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Welcome to America? I'm pretty sure I recall a certain Republican assuring the nation that it has been confirmed that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda and is stockpiling WMDs and preparing to start up a nuclear program.

I completely fail to see the parallel. The guy is repeating part of Petraeus's recommendations and assessments and at the same time calling him dead wrong.

Horrido · 09-09-2007, 20:23 PM

Quote:

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

So, does this mean he's taking personal responsibility for the failure?

Quote:

Biden contended that Bush's main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

Interesting, I see this as Biden's admission the democrats will reveal they are even less capable under the given circumstances.

Quote:

"This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave," Biden said.

Neither do the democrats. What's your plan for a real and tangible victory, Mr. Biden?

Stan187 · 09-09-2007, 21:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horrido

Neither do the democrats. What's your plan for a real and tangible victory, Mr. Biden?

His plan is Iraqiaztion. Sounds like something familiar...

Ray · 09-09-2007, 22:42 PM

Bush Considering Iraq Pullout Date

The New York Times has reported that US President, George W Bush, has been pondering a September 15 deadline for the announcement of future pullout of American troops from country.

The date for the alleged announcement coincides with the publication of a new report on the progress in Iraq and many Republican have announced that they can no longer support President Bush if he does not change his position on Iraq.

The New York Times quotes a Republican official as saying "When you count up the votes that we've lost and the votes we're likely to lose over the next few weeks, it looks pretty grim."

Bush Considering Iraq Pullout Date

**astralis** · 09-09-2007, 22:56 PM

stan,

Quote:

I completely fail to see the parallel. The guy is repeating part of Petraeus's recommendations and assessments and at the same time calling him dead wrong.

actually, the rhetoric is the same but the solutions they advocate are different. petraeus believes that by instituting security around the country, it gives the iraqi leadership breathing space (by reducing the need for revenge-attacks) and time to come up with a political solution, thereby largely solving the iraq problem. thus, keep as many troops in country as possible.

biden believes that american intervention causes over-dependence, and that by threatening/carrying out withdrawal, it will force the iraqis to become more self-sufficient (thus his talk of local control).

i think a good strategy might be to utilize sections from both methods. in the short-term, keeping as many troops as possible (there will be a rather significant drawdown in spring 2008 due to manpower issues anyway), but keep the iraqis in the dark as to when the withdrawal is going to happen, or how it will be carried out. we don't want to cause overdependence, but neither do we want a wholesale power struggle as we see in the british withdrawal from basra.

Feanor · 09-09-2007, 23:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan187

I completely fail to see the parallel. The guy is repeating part of Petraeus's recommendations and assessments and at the same time calling him dead wrong.

Not the first time an American politician is completely ********ting in front of the public, assuming that because the average listener is too dumb to do his research, he can get away with it.

JAD_333 · 09-09-2007, 23:24 PM

Quote:

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he [Biden] said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out," except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

This coming 2 days before Patraeus and Crocker's testimony smells of campaign politics. An objective observer is likely to wonder how anyone can respond intelligently to testimony not yet given. Unfortunately, objective observers are rare these days.

But it's pretty certain that the report will not be effusively positive. It'll cite
gains, but on the whole it will not put the dems on the defensive, as would an unmistakendly positive report. If anyone here doubts how lackluster it will be, ask yourself what picture you have in your mind about the status quo in Iraq right now, progress in al Anbar notwithstanding.

All this points to the stupidity of having set milestones and a date to report on them in the first place, especially when it is widely expected to be a prelude to a decision on whether to keep on going or to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That not only encourages whoever has an interest in seeing us withdraw, but virtually hands them a ready-made strategy for opposing us.

Once you announce to the world you may withdraw if you don't meet certain goals by a certain time, that's tantamount to telling your opponants where to concentrate their resources and how long they have to hold out. If a giant tells a midget, 'if I don't pin you in 3 minutes, I'll let you go,' you can be pretty sure what the midget is going to do for the next 3 minutes. (No offense to midgets.

)

What's the counter to Biden and his like-minded colleagues? One could hold them accountable in some measure for a poor report. Afterall, they forced Bush to convert all his objectives into milestones and report on them on a set date. Did it ever occured to them that they were virtually telling our opponents, 'here's what you have to do to get us to start drawing down our troops'? This is touchy ground, best left to pro-war commentators.

And one could argue that if Biden, etal. had really wanted to see progress, they would have kept the exact milestone secret and required more frequent reports on them rather than one granddaddy of them all. But it's a rare person who isn't invested in his opinion, and the temptation to manipulate events to validate one's opinion is always present.

An important question, of course, is, how will a tepid report play out in Congress? IMO, there's reason to believe that we'll see a lot of political theater with nothing much happening to change our force structure. Biden, etal., won't have an easy time passing any legislation intended to force Bush's hand, unless, the report is more dismal than expected, which is not likely.

Any legislation they introduce to force a drawdown will take a long time to come to a vote, and if passed, it faces a veto that will be very hard to override. Either way, we seem to be in for a political ride designed to play well on the campaign trail. Meanwhile our guys keep dying in Iraq in the absense of a determined, unified Congress.

How about a last minute surprise, like a polticial settlement between the Sunnis, Shia and Kruds? 48 hours and counting...

The good news is that the Redskins won today.

If you know Washington, you know the town's mood rises and falls with how the Redskins do.

JAD_333 · 09-09-2007, 23:45 PM

Ray:

This article expands on the synopsis of the NYT article you posted. Republican support is indeed waning in Congress. That was pretty much underscored when Senator John Warner visited Bush a week ago to urge him to draw down 5,000 troops. Warner's proposal is very likely a reflection of what his fellow Republicans in Congress would accept for their continued support. But as this article reports, force reduction will not be fast or deep for some time.

Quote:

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: September 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress will begin Monday, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq. By August, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan.

The precise timing of such reductions, which would leave about 130,000 troops in Iraq, could vary, depending on conditions in the country. But the general has also said that it is too soon to present recommendations on reducing American forces below that level because the situation in Iraq is in flux. He has suggested that he wait until March to outline proposals on this question.

Many Democratic lawmakers have demanded deep troop cuts as well as a timetable for making the reductions, and there has been concern within some quarters of the Pentagon about the stress of repeated deployments. The effect of General Petraeus’s recommendations would be to begin troop reductions somewhat earlier than many experts had anticipated, while deferring deliberations on more fundamental troop issues. In effect, the much-awaited September debate in Congress over Iraq would become a prelude for another set of potentially difficult deliberations next year.

On Monday, General Petraeus is to begin two days of hearings, along with Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq. The commander is expected to present a series of military statistics that indicate that some progress has been made toward reducing violence in Baghdad.

A letter the general wrote to his troops on Friday outlines some of the arguments he is likely to use before Congress. The general conceded that the hope that Iraqi leaders would take advantage of the American military’s effort to tamp down violence to make political headway “has not worked out as we had hoped.” But he asserted that American forces had achieved “tactical momentum,” and stressed that American troops were forging successful alliances with local Sunni tribal leaders.

While the critics have cited the lagging progress of the Iraqi government and the reduced but still substantial violence as reasons to abandon the current strategy, General Petraeus acknowledges those factors in making his case for more time.

A White House official said Mr. Bush and General Petraeus had not spoken since they saw each other in Anbar Province last Monday. But General Petraeus’s recommendations on how to proceed on reducing the force have been outlined to Mr. Bush and senior officers. “General Petraeus has made recommendations on the pace by which the surge forces can run their course, and he will explain to Congress his recommendation on when the withdrawals without replacement can begin, based on certain assumptions about the situation on the ground,” said an officer who has heard the commander’s recommendations.

“He has also argued that recommendations on reductions below the presurge force levels would be premature at this time, and that recommendations on such adjustments should wait until March 2008,” the officer added.

Mr. Bush has said he intends to address the nation this week about the recommendations by General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker. From the start, General Petraeus, more so than many lawmakers, has viewed the attempt to bring security to Iraq as a long-term effort. The classified campaign plan he prepared with Mr. Crocker calls for restoring security in local areas by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established nationwide by the summer of 2009.

Still, General Petraeus is expected to disclose plans to reduce troop levels in mid-December with the withdrawal of a combat brigade. American military officials said the unit was deployed in Iraq before Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan and the troop reduction would be accomplished by not replacing it. A combat brigade generally numbers between 3,500 and 4,000 troops.

The decision to start the reduction before the end of the year follows an appeal by Senator John W. Warner, a senior Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the Bush administration take the first steps toward a limited reduction of troops by year’s end as a way of signaling Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the American commitment to Iraq is not open-ended.
American officers asserted that a variety of logistical considerations played the key role in the timing of the planned troop reduction. Part of the concern was to minimize the simultaneous shuffling of combat units.

Reducing the force to 15 combat brigades by July or August would require some repositioning of American forces in Iraq — what the military calls “battlefield geometry.” The intent is to keep substantial forces in and around Baghdad. But American forces are expected to be reduced in northern and western Iraq.

Even as American commanders plan to reduce the overall force, they have stressed that the troop reductions could be adjusted or delayed if violence increases. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq, has said one important factor being weighed is whether attacks increase during the approaching Muslim holy month of Ramadan, as has happened in the past.

“Ramadan is big,” General Odierno said last week. “So far in the 30 days before Ramadan, violence has been going down.”

“If we can continue to do what we are doing, we’ll get to such a level where we think we can do it with less troops,” he added.

Some Pentagon officials would like to see the force in Iraq cut below 15 brigades to reduce the stress on the military and make it possible for soldiers and marines to serve shorter tours.

But some military officers in Iraq say that establishing a schedule at this point for reducing forces below 15 brigades is difficult because the Iraq situation is uncertain. While sectarian attacks are down according to military statistics, the gains are potentially reversible and the level of violence is still high. The level of insurgent and militia activity in coming months is difficult to predict. Nor is it clear whether the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government will fully embrace the Americans’ new effort to work with Sunni tribal groups, and how much such alliances might help quell the violence. Efforts at political reconciliation have been stymied at the national level, but American officials still hope to see some modest progress.

The broader issue is whether political reconciliation is possible. Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., the chief of staff of the Army and General Petraeus’s predecessor, recently said at a breakfast sponsored by Government Executive magazine that the American reinforcements had produced “a temporary tactical effect” and expressed skepticism that Iraqi leaders would overcome differences, the publication reported.

But General Petraeus and his officers have argued that the American reinforcements protect the population, essential to a counterinsurgency strategy.

Dwarven Pirate · 09-10-2007, 00:43 AM

The two positions dont really seem all that much at odds to me. Petraeus saying "we are suppressing violence more easily, but the Iraqis are not making any progress", and Biden just saying that "so long as the Iraqis think we will continue to suppress the violence, they will continue to drag their feet".

Seems like letting the Iraqis think we are going to pull out might serve as a good swift kick in the pants, whether we actually follow through or not.

(People keep talking about victory and defeat in Iraq, but Im not sure what they mean. To me, victory would be the Iraqis creating a solid nation that didnt require outside peace-keepers. How can you really have a plan to institute this? Maybe all you can do is goad them continually.)

Bluesman · 09-10-2007, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This coming 2 days before Patraeus and Crocker's testimony smells of campaign politics. An objective observer is likely to wonder how anyone can respond intelligently to testimony not yet given. Unfortunately, objective observers are rare these days.

But it's pretty certain that the report will not be effusively positive. It'll cite
gains, but on the whole it will not put the dems on the defensive, as would an unmistakendly positive report. If anyone here doubts how lackluster it will be, ask yourself what picture you have in your mind about the status quo in Iraq right now, progress in al Anbar notwithstanding.

All this points to the stupidity of having set milestones and a date to report on them in the first place, especially when it is widely expected to be a prelude to a decision on whether to keep on going or to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That not only encourages whoever has an interest in seeing us withdraw, but virtually hands them a ready-made strategy for opposing us.

Once you announce to the world you may withdraw if you don't meet certain goals by a certain time, that's tantamount to telling your opponants where to concentrate their resources and how long they have to hold out. If a giant tells a midget, 'if I don't pin you in 3 minutes, I'll let you go,' you can be pretty sure what the midget is going to do for the next 3 minutes. (No offense to midgets.

)

What's the counter to Biden and his like-minded colleagues? One could hold them accountable in some measure for a poor report. Afterall, they forced Bush to convert all his objectives into milestones and report on them on a set date. Did it ever occured to them that they were virtually telling our opponents, 'here's what you have to do to get us to start drawing down our troops'? This is touchy ground, best left to pro-war commentators.

And one could argue that if Biden, etal. had really wanted to see progress, they would have kept the exact milestone secret and required more frequent reports on them rather than one granddaddy of them all. But it's a rare person who isn't invested in his opinion, and the temptation to manipulate events to validate one's opinion is always present.

An important question, of course, is, how will a tepid report play out in Congress? IMO, there's reason to believe that we'll see a lot of political theater with nothing much happening to change our force structure. Biden, etal., won't have an easy time passing any legislation intended to force Bush's hand, unless, the report is more dismal than expected, which is not likely.

Any legislation they introduce to force a drawdown will take a long time to come to a vote, and if passed, it faces a veto that will be very hard to override. Either way, we seem to be in for a political ride designed to play well on the campaign trail. Meanwhile our guys keep dying in Iraq in the absense of a determined, unified Congress.

How about a last minute surprise, like a polticial settlement between the Sunnis, Shia and Kruds? 48 hours and counting...

The good news is that the Redskins won today.

If you know Washington, you know the town's mood rises and falls with how the Redskins do.

Post-of-the-Month, man. GREAT anaysis.

Stan187 · 09-10-2007, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

stan,

biden believes that american intervention causes over-dependence, and that by threatening/carrying out withdrawal, it will force the iraqis to become more self-sufficient (thus his talk of local control).

Yeah, it could force them to become self-sufficient. Or it could cause them to divide up and do power grabs along sectarian and tribal lines. And which ones is more familiar to them do you think?

I have seen no evidence, nothing besides best wishes and best guesses that waving the withdrawal wand will suddenly make Iraqis more self-sufficient and force people to cooperate. We have plenty of direct evidence of what happens politically to along tribes and sectarian lines, when security is absent.

Stan187 · 09-10-2007, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Not the first time an American politician is completely ********ting in front of the public, assuming that because the average listener is too dumb to do his research, he can get away with it.

What do you mean assuming? Half of the American public is indeed dumb. And its likely that they're not even listening. Most Dems hear what the want to hear. So do most Republicans. It's a shame.

Stan187 · 09-10-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

An important question, of course, is, how will a tepid report play out in Congress? IMO, there's reason to believe that we'll see a lot of political theater with nothing much happening to change our force structure. Biden, etal., won't have an easy time passing any legislation intended to force Bush's hand, unless, the report is more dismal than expected, which is not likely.

Any legislation they introduce to force a drawdown will take a long time to come to a vote, and if passed, it faces a veto that will be very hard to override. Either way, we seem to be in for a political ride designed to play well on the campaign trail. Meanwhile our guys keep dying in Iraq in the absense of a determined, unified Congress.

Isn't it funny how we're yappin' a lot about how the Iraqis should cooperate and break the deadlock in their government when we in fact are in a similar situation in our own country?

09-09-2007, 16:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
Stan187 WAB BOUNCER *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-24-06 Posts: 2,325 Country:	Biden: Petraeus 'dead flat wrong' on Iraq Biden: Petraeus 'dead flat wrong' on Iraq Back from overseas, senator indicates Democrats will persist in pullout date WASHINGTON - President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday. Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home. "The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy. Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations. Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which bring the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability. The officials also disputed suggestions that Petraeus and Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring. The testimony sets the stage for an announcement by Bush later in the week about he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness and growing congressional discomfort with the war. Patraeus missed the point, Biden says. Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits the pair from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus' assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, was the only way to foster national reconciliation among warring factions. "I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong," Biden said. Biden contended that Bush's main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife. "This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave," Biden said. Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out," except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said. Republican defends Iraq commander "I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them," Kerry said. "But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate." But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he trusts the military judgment of Petraeus and that it was foolish for Congress to try and second-guess commanders on the ground. In the end, Graham said, the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw prematurely if it is military unwise and risks plunging the region into more chaos. "If the general tells me down the road we can withdraw troops because of military success, we should all celebrate it," Graham said. "But if politicians in Washington pick an arbitrary date, an arbitrary number to withdraw, it's not going to push Baghdad politicians. "It's going to re-energize an enemy that's on the map," he said. Biden spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry appeared on ABC's "This Week," and Graham was on "Fox News Sunday." ------------------------------------------ What a fvcking idiot! I guess you have a better picture than the actual military man who is on the ground there? Look at the bold part. He says we should focus on a political solution. And what has Petraeus been saying? The the security gains are not being followed up with parallel progress on the Iraqi political front. And this guy hopes to be president? What a goddamn joke! __________________ In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158 The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

09-09-2007, 22:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	Bush Considering Iraq Pullout Date The New York Times has reported that US President, George W Bush, has been pondering a September 15 deadline for the announcement of future pullout of American troops from country. The date for the alleged announcement coincides with the publication of a new report on the progress in Iraq and many Republican have announced that they can no longer support President Bush if he does not change his position on Iraq. The New York Times quotes a Republican official as saying "When you count up the votes that we've lost and the votes we're likely to lose over the next few weeks, it looks pretty grim." Bush Considering Iraq Pullout Date __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How much more of a pounding can the Shia's take?	Srirangan	Political Discussions	13	05-09-2006 03:05 AM
Study Cites Seeds Of Terror In Iraq	Shek	The War in Iraq	0	07-17-2005 07:39 AM
Americans Die for Sharia in Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	0	03-02-2005 14:40 PM
Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	21	01-17-2005 02:46 AM
What Is Going On In Iraq?...Here's an Idea Let's Ask Someone Who Has Been There.	Leader	The War in Iraq	2	12-10-2004 21:24 PM

09-09-2007, 18:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Welcome to America? I'm pretty sure I recall a certain Republican assuring the nation that it has been confirmed that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda and is stockpiling WMDs and preparing to start up a nuclear program.

09-10-2007, 00:43 AM	#11 (permalink)
Dwarven Pirate Contributor Join Date: 08-20-07 Posts: 325	The two positions dont really seem all that much at odds to me. Petraeus saying "we are suppressing violence more easily, but the Iraqis are not making any progress", and Biden just saying that "so long as the Iraqis think we will continue to suppress the violence, they will continue to drag their feet". Seems like letting the Iraqis think we are going to pull out might serve as a good swift kick in the pants, whether we actually follow through or not. (People keep talking about victory and defeat in Iraq, but Im not sure what they mean. To me, victory would be the Iraqis creating a solid nation that didnt require outside peace-keepers. How can you really have a plan to institute this? Maybe all you can do is goad them continually.)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)