Comments on: Iraq Plan Seeks Up To 20,000 More Troops
CBS News Exclusive: Details On The Defense Secretary's Recommendations To President
- j-whitman in order to restore Iraq to sovereignity at this point would call for 500,000 troops(Gen. Abizad June 2006)this cannot be achieved we simply do not have the manpower.We have not been able to clear,hold and build Bagdad or any other major city. Iraq needs now in the interest of the US to be stabilized but short of a international surge of troops I simply do not see it happening.
- Reply to this comment
- Search ,,, You're right.. Terrorist don't have to do anything but sit back & watch us... Republicans are indeed showing them how messy & corrupt our democracy is,, who the hell wants a democracy like ours ??
- Reply to this comment
- Lieberman,,, Bush wants open borders, so does other republicans & democrats, & some don't... -- How can you make America Safer with Bush's border policies ??
- Reply to this comment
- Lieberman,,, That's another problem,, Bush/Cheney never were "warriors" of any kind... And again Bush refuses to listen to his Generals.
- Reply to this comment
- this is every Americans war.
- Reply to this comment
- radio,,, You're right again.. That's the issue these idiots will not address,,, Bush failed policies on the war -- Bush's new policy can't be sustained for more than a few months,, nor can we hold what parts of Bagdad we engage.... Deja Vu... More American lives lost in a hopeless wrong direction.
- Reply to this comment
- The regime change that lieberman18 speaks of was to come from within Iraq from its own people not from an invasion.This is not Clintons war, it belongs to Bush and whatever takes place falls squarely on his shoulders as the president of the US who ordered and authorized the war. Read O'Neils book where it is stated that Bush ask for a war plan 11 days into office. No one has rebuked O'Neil, Clarke or Woodward.
- Reply to this comment
- Bottom line for all the defeatists, the sorry excusers, and the Bush haters is this.
Let's try the extra surge in forces - and the other incentives and operations. The Dems will never offer anything except surrender.
The President deserves a chance - after all, you gave Pervert Bill - "I did not have *** with that woman - I did my best to kill Bin Laden" liar, liar pants on fire too many passes. Let's try for victory.
If you can't shut up and let the warriors do their job, then you deserve all that Princess Plastic, Pervert, Peanut Boy, Hanoi John, KKK Byrd, and steppin fetchit Ellison will give you. Higher taxes, Perks for ILLEGALS, and more 9/11s - this time nuclear courtesy of Carter's creation Iran. Then, if you survive, I want to see what you will do - besides blaming Bush. - Reply to this comment
- radio,,, correct,, there where more attacks,, but not on American soil --- If you include foreign attacks, count the ones on Bush's watch - Then you'll agree that this is just wrongfull rehtoric that idiot boy Bush has prevented any more.
- Reply to this comment
- Just make an excuse for him and your Dem friends, Lostman.
In fact, your totally Lost, man. - Reply to this comment
- lieberman18 first off I am not a liberal second you apparently have forgotten what you have read.This is typical from the Bush/Cheney camp either deny or try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.How many people inside have left the Bush admin.? Were not the majority of them who disagreed with the admin. or offered a different view? The same plan that is not carried out repeatedly is a failed plan.The admin. has never completed a plan in regards to Iraq. I am one of the few individuals here that have said that Iraq must be restored to some form of automonous rule. It is not a question any more of how we got here as it is how do we get out of here and leave Iraq as sovereign nation.
- Reply to this comment
- SHURCH,
A few facts for you.
Clinton was the first to argue for "regime change" in Iraq. He also claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, and sent in the bombers for four measley days. Saddam was never convinced.
I have already pointed out how Clinton also behaved foolishly in the war against terror. Remember, one half-a**ed strike against Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan. Nothing after, save the regular bombing runs on those pesky, real terrorists in Belgrade. Pardon my sarcasm. - Reply to this comment
- lierman,,,, Get off of Clinton allready,,, he isn't the one occopuing the office....
- Reply to this comment
- lieberman,, Your not too familiar with responsibilities of command on security in foreign ports are you ?? -- At any rate,, Bush is causing one disaster after another,, from trade, domestic, foreign not to mention the endless loss of American lives for a goal that can't be achieved... Not to mention the degradation of our military which absoultly harms our National Security.
- Reply to this comment
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. - Reply to this comment
- Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; - Reply to this comment
- oh radiob, the spewing lefty has arrived. nice. more venom - and bs.
I've read "Against All Enemies" - if Clinton faced any pressure from the Republicans, it was because of Lewinsky and the ILLEGAL bombings of Serb civilians in Belgrade, not because they didn't want Bin Laden killed. THEY DID.
Clinton was too busy su*king up to Arafat. 9 times times a White House visitor. I'm sure President Bush really had quite a fumigation job on his hands especially after both Clinton and Arafat. Again, read Clarke. He verifies that O'Neill argued for a strike on Bin Laden - but Clinton, Miss Pig, and the rest vetoed it. - Reply to this comment
- Actually terrorist attacks occured on Clinton watch, it took the intellenge agency until 1998 to figure out that one group was behind them and then in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal Clinton ordered attacks against Afghanistan(source: AGAINST ALL ENEMIES).Clinton under pressure from republicans stoppped any future attacks against Al Queda. This is neither now or why as to the story, the story is about a surge of troops in Iraq which despite what Kagan says about the military not calling for enough troops this is simply twisting the truth. At the onset of the war and afterwards the military had asked for additional troops only to be turned down by Rumsfield and Cheney(source:STATE OF DENIAL)the military could never get the troops it needed to secure the country. There has been two policies in regards to Iraq(at least in theory)(1)search and destroy (2) clear,hold and build. The latter has never materialized and the former was never executed completely.A troop surge at this point would probaly require more soldiers than is being asked for or even what the US could even give.
- Reply to this comment
- P.S. Lostman,
You're in California, and upset about the ILLEGALS, right?
Then tell me why Pelosi, Villaraigosa, Bustamante, and the rest of the tax-and-spend, open borders Dems keep getting elected?
Remember one reason Gray was kicked out was because he wanted to tax American citizens on their auto registrations, he didn't have the guts (typical Democrat) to stop the perks the ILLEGALS had gotten or were getting! - Reply to this comment
- lostman,
what about the other attacks, boychik?
btw - just blame it on the c.o. JUST LIKE blaming it on Bush. Read what I had to say about Clinton and his "peace" summit. We had Bin Laden, the pervert was more concerned with how Yasser would have felt than preventing future attacks! - Reply to this comment




