Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on September 14, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics




Last Night President Bush continued to lie and spin the facts to the American people. In that his speech was just like most of his other speeches over the past 6 ½ years.

Lie ONE:

The success in Anbar, which is the major example Bush sighted, is the result of the American Troop Surge.

First, Bush only sent 4,000 additional troops into Anbar. The success against al-Qaeda elements in Anbar is the result of the local Sunni tribes that agreed to attack the foreign terrorists and not because of additional U.S. Forces. The U.S. Forces did support the actions of the local tribes but the surge troops in Anbar are not responsible for the success in lowering the violence in that region. In fact the Sunni tribal leader that was killed this week was responsible for getting about 25 Sunni tribes to agree and attack al-Qaeda elements in Anbar and those agreements were negotiated BEFORE the SURGE!

Lie TWO:

We are reducing troop levels because of the success of the Surge.

The success in Anbar is not because of the Surge and success in some areas in the Baghdad area are offset by increased violence in other areas around Baghdad and in both the northern and southern areas in Iraq. The TOTAL death toll is UP not DOWN and thus any claim that the Surge has reduced the Overall Violence is a LIE! The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE! It has NOTHING to do with any so called success from the Surge. If there were NO areas where the violence was down we would still have to reduce the troop levels in Iraq.

Lie Three.

There are 35 Countries that supported our invasion in Iraq.

When the State Department was asked to list those countries they could only come with 20 some and most of then only sent a token number of troops. The two leaders that supported Bush in England and Australia did so despite their people DID NOT support the war. Blair lost his job over that support and the Australian PM is about to suffer the same fate.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 14, 2007
no you haven't proved anything
on Sep 15, 2007

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, September 14, 2007
no you haven't proved anything


The Facts PROVE that Bush Lied and you and all the IDIOTS that support him are the way Bush continues to KILL American Military for a war that was not justified and should NEVER have been fought. As Gen. Petraeus said, after 4 1/2 years of war he can not say this war has made America safer.

CNN Reported that during a break that took place right after he made the statement Petraeus received a call from the White House. Do you want to bet it was to say WELL DONE!
on Sep 15, 2007
Do you want to bet it was to say WELL DONE!


so what and how in the world do they know that the pres. call petraeus. is cnn wire tapping them
on Sep 15, 2007
The Facts PROVE that Bush Lied


what facts all you have given is opinion.
on Sep 15, 2007
i have been thinking about this gene


if you had been in command of the 101st during the battle of the bulge. when they were cut off, had no food, had no ammo, and had no warm clothing. you would have surrendered. if i recall right the 101st won their part of that battle.

Iraq is no where as desperate as the 101st was then.
on Sep 15, 2007
The OVERALL impact of the Surge was a NET INCREASE in total deaths.


and a decrease in the number of attacks.


of course when you attack people who are not prepared for it the number of dead will be higher.
on Sep 15, 2007

Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2007
The Facts PROVE that Bush Lied


what facts all you have given is opinion.


WRONG:


First, Bush only sent 4,000 additional troops into Anbar. The success against al-Qaeda elements in Anbar is the result of the local Sunni tribes that agreed to attack the foreign terrorists and not because of additional U.S. Forces. This is TRUE and has been reported by all the news agencies.


The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE! The Joint Chiefs told Bush two weeks ago the Surge could not be maintained.


There are 35 Countries that supported our invasion in Iraq.

When the State Department was asked to list those countries they could only come with 20 some and most of then only sent a token number of troops. You do not believe the State Dept is telling the truth?

NONE of this is OPINION but facts on the ground that you refuse to acknowledge. They are true never the less.
on Sep 15, 2007
The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE!


the surge can be maintained for another 12 months
on Sep 15, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2007
The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE!


the surge can be maintained for another 12 months

WRONG. As the Surge Troop tours end, the Army does not have the combat brigades to replace the SURGE troops. Thus, starting g in April 2008 when the first of the Surge Troops rotate, they can not be replaced. Thus, the troop reduction begins in April 2008 and will end in August 2008 not because, as Bush claimed, of the Success from the surge but because we do not have enough troops to continue 20 combat brigades in Iraq. Has BUSH LIED as to why the troop reduction will take place! It has NOTHING to do with any so called SUCCESS from the Surge!
on Sep 15, 2007
It has NOTHING to do with any so called SUCCESS from the Surge!


except that they are going are ready to start sending them home now but probable wont until december
on Sep 15, 2007

IT IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS. It has NOTHING to do with the success of the Surge as Bush claims.
on Sep 15, 2007
IT IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS.


And you're not?
on Sep 15, 2007
you see gene last week bush was bad because he wouldn't bring troops home. this week he is bad because he is bringing troops home.
on Sep 15, 2007
if you had been in command of the 101st during the battle of the bulge. when they were cut off, had no food, had no ammo, and had no warm clothing. you would have surrendered. if i recall right the 101st won their part of that battle.



If ColGene ever found himself in command of a unit in such dire circumstances, he would have pissed himself, sat in a corner in the tent blubbering out innane "orders" while a top notch Field Grade Officer and Outstandng NCOs took control of the troops and did what needed to be done.
on Sep 15, 2007
If ColGene ever found himself in command of a unit in such dire circumstances, he would have pissed himself, sat in a corner in the tent blubbering out innane "orders" while a top notch Field Grade Officer and Outstandng NCOs took control of the troops and did what needed to be done.




no he would have surrendered because it was to hard.
3 Pages1 2 3