Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
Had Bush provided the 500,000 troops, there would be no sectarian fighting nor would foreign terrorists have a foot hold in Iraq


is that an obsolutely true. \


YES. That would have allowed our troops to prevent the factions for organizing, accessing the over 200 ammo dumps, secure the border and protected the infrastructure. That is WHY the invasion plan said it would take 500,000 troops when Saddam fell. Bush sent LESS then 1/3 that number! Our troops did an outstanding job in defeating Saddam and the plan said it would only take about 150,000 troops to destroy Saddam’s Army. It was correct. The added troops were needed when there was no Iraqi Army, Police and Civil authority. The Troops that were there tried but they were given a mission without the resources needed to accomplish that mission and that is the fault of the Commander-in-Chief!!

Still, I think they have proved they're point and maybe should get involved just to stop it and avoid letting it spill into other countries. Look at was has happened already for little stupid things such as cartoon and comments by the Pope. Look at some of the terrorist attacks already done and foiled. I guess it will take no less than a nuclear attack or mistake from one of these terrorist to wake everyone up.

You see Col? Now this is a debate, talking with open minds and willing to listen. Try it more often, you just might like it.

And you have proof of this desire to lie to America?

Not true at all!

Mr. Bush is responsible for all dead and injured U.S.troops in this war on terror.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
The GAO report is their assessment of the situation in Iraq. The purpose in giving a copy to the Post was to stop Bush and company from watering it down or keeping the parts that do not support the BS we have been getting from the White House to the public!


And you have proof of this desire to lie to America?


From the way Bush and his minions have tried to distort issues in the past and try to keep secret just about everything they do, YES I believe that the White House would try and spin the GAO Report to appear less negative toward the Bush policies!


Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
Bush is responsible for most of the dead and injured American Troops because of those decisions!!!!!


Not true at all!

Mr. Bush is responsible for all dead and injured U.S. troops in this war on terror.


Yes he is. If he had sent the number of troops that were required to control Iraq, we would not have the foreign terrorists or the internal groups armed and fighting our troops. The lack of manpower allowed these groups to Arm themselves, organize and KILL OUR TROOPS!

I believe the Moslem world is made up of some factions that will continue to attack the West, especially the U.S. I also believe we have provided arguments to the radical Moslem factions they are using to recruit more Moslems onto their side. Actions such as our invasion of Iraq, the treatment of Moslem prisoners and our one sided policies in the Middle East are not helping with the fight with the radical Moslems. Because we refuse to move toward a reduced dependence on oil, we further complicate our problems in the Moslem world. We have spread our military far too thin and are not using our limited ground forces where the real radical Moslem danger continues to grow. The longer we tie up so many troops in Iraq we will be unable to deal effectively in Afghanistan where the radical Moslems grow stronger every day. Today I read an article by one of our commanders in Afghanistan who says we do not have enough U.S. Military in that country to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban. Bush made a terrible mistake by invading Iraq and we need to end our involvement in Iraq except to destroy the foreign terrorist groups we have allowed to set up operations in Iraq.

And you came up with that conclusion all by yourself?



This would have happened regardless of what actions we took to fight terrorist, even if we would have done everything right. For crying out loud Col gene you wanted Bush to take action before the 9/11 attacks by stereotyping every Muslim in the US in the hopes of preventing 9/11. You wanted Bush to wire tape people in the US to try to prevent 9/11. Everything you bitch about that Bush has done to "provided arguments" is what you wanted Bush to do before 9/11 to have prevented 9/11. So in the end we would have "provided arguments" to Muslims to attack us anyways.

You never really think anything thru do you?

Our actions have increased the hate toward our country. In fact Cheney in his 1994 interview understood that invading Iraq was a mistake. It is remarkable how he lost his ability to reason when he became VP. You should look at the clip of that 1994 interview on You Tube!

Pentagon disputes parts of Iraq report


The Associated Press has learned that the GAO report was on track to conclude that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks set to judge the Iraqi government's performance in the political and security arenas haven't been met.

We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from `not met' to `met,'" Morrell said. He declined to elaborate or to spell out which of the benchmark grades the Pentagon was disputing.

In preparation for an expected decision next month on whether to prolong the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, President Bush planned to visit the Pentagon on Friday to hear the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Joint Chiefs spokesman said.

Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, director of operational planning for the Joint Chiefs, told reporters that this would be the Joint Chiefs' opportunity to "provide the president with their unvarnished recommendations and their assessment of current operations" -- in particular, the situation in Iraq.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

But you and the leaker still have no proof of this it is just as you wrote a belief.



You don't know this you speculate this. Iran armed them, financed them and gave aid to them. What made them change their mind and stop supporting us? How about our political infighting showing that we were weak and unable to sustain the victory? Yes, you and your buddies share in the deaths of those troops. As long as we seemed united they did not dare mess with what we were doing. It was ill timed to attack the president and his policies just because of the election. Not so much you or idiots like you but the political leadership on the opposition. Had they kept quiet publicly the war would have been over in under 18 months.

That's purely propaganda and you know it.  The "hate" has been around long before Bush, and the worst attack on our country happened way before Iraq, or anything else Bush did.  So that theory is complete nonsense.

I saw the video, and I saw videos and text from the democrats who told me Iraq was a threat and we should remove him.  Too bad you are too one-sided to realize this.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
“Pentagon disputes parts of Iraq report


The Associated Press has learned that the GAO report was on track to conclude that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks set to judge the Iraqi government's performance in the political and security arenas haven't been met.

We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from `not met' to `met,'" Morrell said. He declined to elaborate or to spell out which of the benchmark grades the Pentagon was disputing.

In preparation for an expected decision next month on whether to prolong the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, President Bush planned to visit the Pentagon on Friday to hear the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Joint Chiefs spokesman said.

Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, director of operational planning for the Joint Chiefs, told reporters that this would be the Joint Chiefs' opportunity to "provide the president with their unvarnished recommendations and their assessment of current operations" -- in particular, the situation in Iraq.”

As I said I believe Gen Petraeus and Bush will point to a reduction in violence in the areas where we have increased our troop strength. They will also show a slight reduction in U.S. Losses in July and August. GAO acknowledged that but the overall situation of killing and violence and the lack of action by the Iraqi Government show that overall the situation is not improving. In addition, we have no way of knowing if the attacks will remain lower if we were to reduce our troop strength. Given the fact that many of the generals in Iraq argue not to cut the troop surge, they must believe the attacks will resume if we reduce our troop levels. That means we have NOT solved anything and the decreased violence will only continue so long as we remain in Iraq with large numbers of troops. The problem for Bush that come spring, we do not have the combat brigades to continue the Surge!!!!!

You don't know this you speculate this. Iran armed them, financed them and gave aid to them. If we had sent the 500,000 troops we would have been able to prevent Iran fron sending anything into Iraq.

Yeah, right. It's amazing what you "know" when it can't be proven one way or the other. How convenient for you.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
If we had sent the 500,000 troops we would have been able to prevent Iran from sending anything into Iraq.


Yeah, right. It's amazing what you "know" when it can't be proven one way or the other. How convenient for you.

Every Military Leader has acknowledged we did not send the troop levels needed in Iraq. The planners and most generals told Bush it took far more troops to control Iraq then he sent into Iraq. We did not stop foreign terrorists from coming into Iraq. We did not occupy the cities where the militia and sectarian groups organized. We did not prevent the factions from using the Ammo stored in over 200 locations in Iraq. We did not protect the infrastructure. WHY - Because we did not send the troops required. WHY Because Bush did not listen to the military experts.

There's no point people, Col just keeps going in circles using answers he's already used and has been contradicted already. There is no point, he just repeats and repeats.