. More drama. Is there anything you don't blame Bush for?

1. Shift 50,000 troops to Afghanistan and keep the balance in Iraq.

2. Reassign remaining U.S. military in Iraq to perform the following missions:

A.Secure the border of Iraq and help protect the infrastructure.
B.Destroy all foreign terrorist forces in western Iraq and prevent their operation in the future.
C.Provide logistical and air support for Iraqi military forces.

3.Turn over ALL combat operations against Sunni/Shiite areas to Iraqi Forces.

4.Increase the training of Iraqi military and police forces.

Islanddog

Both these wars are Bush wars. Who would you blame? Bush is the commander-in-chief

“We are in a campaign right now where we have had extraordinary political success,” he said. “Ninety percent of the people of Afghanistan … firmly reject the Taliban. The government remains popular. At the same time, the question the people of Afghanistan … want answered is not how to elect a government, but what is this government delivering to them.” Eikenberry said it is easy to see the negatives in Afghanistan: It is a poor country; it does have divisions; it does expect a Taliban offensive. “On the surface, we’re going to have some violence here this spring,” he said. “But under the surface,” he added, “there are some very strong currents that are going in the right direction: The government of Afghanistan is much stronger right now; it has a much better set of governors than it did four years ago; it has a much more capable army (and) police force.”

Both these wars are Bush wars. Who would you blame? Bush is the commander-in-chief

I don't know, maybe blame the terroirsts themselves!  Every day it's something else about Bush, it gets real old fast.

Island Dog

If we had completed the job in Afghanistan and not diverted out attention to Iraq we may have destroyed the al Qaeda cell in that country and got ben laden. Now things are getting worse and we need more troops that we do not have because they are tied down in Iraq. That is because of BUSH and no one else.

Shift 50,000 troops to Afghanistan and keep the balance in Iraq.

Col Gene, What do you really think W's goals in Iraq are?
Do you believe the none-sense about a gvernmenet capable of so and so and so?
or is it really "USA permenant Bases" there?

This is really the crox of the matter. isn't it?

From what he is doing, i say it is permenant Bases. nothing else justifies the war or what he is doing now. and no one could be that stupid even him to go to war for the declared reasons.

If you agree, then what you suggest will not achieve that. And nothing else will. The era of invading to establish bases is gone for a long time now.

if you believe the declared reasons, then it is a foolish thing to even stay there for a second.

so what do you think?

If we had completed the job in Afghanistan and not diverted out attention to Iraq we may have destroyed the al Qaeda cell in that country and got ben laden.

Our troops have been in Afghanistan fighting.  The focus was never taken off, just the media attention.  Bin laden, which personally I don't believe is still alive and the taliban are mostly operating out of Pakistan.  Of course we can't go into Pakistan because some people will complain if we do that.  So now the issue is pure politics, and if certain people would stop worrying about what the world thinks and let the military do its job, we'd all be better off.

From what he is doing, i say it is permenant Bases. nothing else justifies the war or what he is doing now. and no one could be that stupid even him to go to war for the declared reasons.

Ah yes, I haven't seen the permenant bases theory in a while. 

Ah yes, I haven't seen the permenant bases theory in a while.

you dont think so? what else is there for us?

we may have destroyed the al Qaeda cell in that country and got ben laden.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I like your retrospectoscope, Gene - too bad they are so useless to anyone but whiners & second-guessers. I think we'd already have been looking at AQ reconstituting in Saddam's Iraq had we sat tight in Afghanistan. But then, that's an opion, just like yours.

Daiwa

There was no evidence that Saddam had rebuilt his military or his weapons programs in November 2002. There was NO urgency to attack Iraq in the spring of 2003 and had we just kept our powder dry for another year, we would have learned what we know today- Saddam was NO threat and had no WMD. The war was not because we were in ANY danger in the spring of 2003.

I assume the clip above is George in Iraq!