Troop-surge proposal fodder for ’08 presidential hopefuls

True. But US forces had Al-Sadr's Mahdi army (who are responsible for most of the sectarian killings recently) backed into a corner two years ago, and let them off the hook for political reasons. President Maliki has promised that won't happen this time, and other Shi'ite moderates are pushing for a crackdown on Sadr's death-squads ... "They are jeopardising all our efforts and achievements," said a senior official from the United Alliance party. link

 

How is Senator Biden a tough-talking chickenhawk? I don't hear him or see him repeating anything like the tough-talking CHICKENHAWK behind the EIB golden microphone......

Regards,
BiR

 

Maybe at some point the War on Terrorism will be important enough for President Bush to publicly encourage his own children to join the military. They could even follow their dad in volunteering for the National Guard.

Of course that's a lot more dangerous than it used to be.

 

At one time, we could have avoided this disasterous war. That opportunity is gone now.

At one time, a massive surge in troops would have worked. That opportunity is gone now.

At one time, letting the Iraqi Army keep the secretarian violence under control would have worked. That opportunity is gone now.

We have the choice of bleeding lives and dollars for the indefinite future, or letting a US-enabled Shiite terrorist state form.

Thank you, Mr. President.

 

Galatian,

How do you know that a troop increase won't work?

You don't, do you? You are guessing just like everyone else. You are telling our troops that they are not up to the job. You are telling the world that we cannot do this. Nothing like talking down your own side.

Hearing the politicization of this war by the Dems and some Repubs gives up to the terrorists. They know that there are people here who do not support the troops and would rather them come home in defeat.

All because they do not know whether or not something will work.

 

Atough-talking chickenhawk because he never was in the military, yet he poses as a military expert and said, "I'm going to send him [Bush] the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq. There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

Other non-serving politicians who have changed their tune -

Howard Dean on 'Meet the Press' - “I know that we don't have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq.” He now opposes the surge.

Sen. Hillary Clinton told Katie Couric, “We should've had more [troops] going in. The administration thought that they could win the war on the cheap with few troops and not much of a commitment.” And of course now she opposes any surge.

Regards,
NS

 

Yes. Course, I've never heard anyone say that Chelsea Clinton should've picked up a rifle and gone on patrol in Haiti & Kosovo.

No one suggested that John Kennedy's daughters, or Lyndon Johnson's daughters should have enlisted and volunteered for service in Viet Nam.

Nobody implied that Amy Carter should have been sent along on the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran.

 

To suggest that the Bush twins should enlist and go to Iraq to somehow validate the war is a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest debate tactic.

I think the word I'm really grasping for is somewhere along the lines of "stupid".:BangHead:

 

ROFL! - That's one way to put it

 

Yeah, it would be such a Democratic thing to do...like FDR's sons did during WWII.

Bush can publicly encourage young people to serve in the military yet, his own daughters who are of age can't even join to file papers for the military.

Sounds like a lot of other chickenhawks...if they're under 43, they should sign up if they support the war. If they have children of age, they should encourage them to go, but usually they have other priorities.

 

I understand what you are saying, but none of these people you mention have been tough-talking CHICKENHAWKS like El Rushbo. They are simply talking about military strategy, but they are not talking like Limbaugh does.

Regards to you and yours, hope your Sunday is as BEAUTIFUL as mine here in Richmond,
BiR

 

Exactly right. I have 2 sons who have pulled two tours of duty in Iraq and both say that 20,000 troops is like putting one band-aid on your neck after your throat has been slashed ear-to-ear.

 

We have never tried it with teh current situation. With increasing numbers of Iraq soldiers and officers, this may be enough.

And then people would still be whining. It's not about numbers; it's about opposition.

How do you know? You don't ... unless you are a prophet. And you aren't.

 

One does not have to be a prophet to possess common sense. It has nothing to do with being a weak willed American as you put it, it has to do with what is vital to our national security to make the sacrifice of our children

 

Many republicans have joined I am sure. But the validation of the war hardly depends on the makeup of the army. Surely you don't really believe that.

We have an all volunteer army. Why should we change that to justify your personal views of who should serve and who shouldn't? And why should Bush's daughters join in any case? Call me old fashioned but I think women shouldn't serve in combat.

 

Common sense is telling us that this is a good step. Let's see how it works.

I think it has much to do with being a weakwilled American. You guys talk about having tried this before. Vietnam comes to mind ... Soldiers overseas lost the support through rhetoric very similar to what we are hearing now. Why should we try it again?

Do Iraqi lives not matter to you?