Brilliant Spin job

WickedLou9 · 09-13-2007, 05:37 PM

Bush approves gradual troop cuts in Iraq - Yahoo! News

So bush is spinning this as a troop reduction.

umm. Ok so stay with me here. Prior to the "surge" we had about 130,000 troops on the ground. Then Bush proposed a "surge" of about 30,000 more troops.. a Surge is a temporary increase by it's very definition. So now that we are nearing the end of this surge bush tells us that he is going to start withdrawing some troops because we have been so successful.. INfact by next summer we are going to bring home as many as 30,000 troops, See he is listening to us! Oh wait... no that will just return us to where we were before the surge when people were still calling for a withdrawal. So Bush did exactly what he wanted to do and now he can spin it as a compromise that he has decided to start bringing troops home.

bravo! well executed spin job. Rove must be proud.

P/N · 09-13-2007, 06:07 PM

Hasn't the left been arguing that we didn't have enough troops from the beginning? Seems pretty hypocritical of them to complain that Bush is bringing troops home when there weren't enough to begin with.

RMNIXON · 09-13-2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Bush approves gradual troop cuts in Iraq - Yahoo! News

So bush is spinning this as a troop reduction.

umm. Ok so stay with me here. Prior to the "surge" we had about 130,000 troops on the ground. Then Bush proposed a "surge" of about 30,000 more troops.. a Surge is a temporary increase by it's very definition. So now that we are nearing the end of this surge bush tells us that he is going to start withdrawing some troops because we have been so successful.. INfact by next summer we are going to bring home as many as 30,000 troops, See he is listening to us! Oh wait... no that will just return us to where we were before the surge when people were still calling for a withdrawal. So Bush did exactly what he wanted to do and now he can spin it as a compromise that he has decided to start bringing troops home.

bravo! well executed spin job. Rove must be proud.

I would call it having the level of military support to do the job. Would that work better for you? I am sure the troops who leave Iraq will consider it a troop reduction. But not a retreat.

Can we wait for Bush to actually give his remarks? Obviously John Edwards could not. He already has a comercial responce ready to go. Sitting behind a desk with a flag like he is already President I have heard. How disrespectful of the President can you get?

garbagemanlb · 09-13-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by P/N

Hasn't the left been arguing that we didn't have enough troops from the beginning? Seems pretty hypocritical of them to complain that Bush is bringing troops home when there weren't enough to begin with.

There needed to be more in the beginning, when they could have actually made a difference. Bush didn't listen to the military commanders, and we have been seeing the consequences of that ignorance.

RMNIXON · 09-13-2007, 06:32 PM

Rove is Good!

ABC Sept. 11th!

Petraeus suggests US troop reduction in Iraq - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"Petraeus suggests US troop reduction in Iraq"

".....Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid July 2008," General Petraeus said."

ABC News a tool of Carl Rove!

The General is a Bush Puppet!

P/N · 09-14-2007, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

There needed to be more in the beginning, when they could have actually made a difference. Bush didn't listen to the military commanders, and we have been seeing the consequences of that ignorance.

They are "actually making a difference" now by having more troops, or did you not listen to what Petraeus said on Monday.

Now if we can just get the Iraqi government to get their heads out of their asses, then it will have been worth it. If they don't, then at least we gave them every opportunity to take control of their own country and declare a victory for freedom in the Middle East.

Nonphixion · 09-14-2007, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by P/N

Hasn't the left been arguing that we didn't have enough troops from the beginning? Seems pretty hypocritical of them to complain that Bush is bringing troops home when there weren't enough to begin with.

All reports prior to invading called for more troops, and our strategic battle plans called for at least 300,000+ US Forces and troops to be able to "prevent the nation from devolving into chaos". That was at the outset of the war and the beginning of our invasion and occupation. This is not referring 4+ years on into the fight, as you would make it seem, or do you not have a concept of time?

P/N · 09-14-2007, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

All reports prior to invading called for more troops, and our strategic battle plans called for at least 300,000+ US Forces and troops to be able to "prevent the nation from devolving into chaos". That was at the outset of the war and the beginning of our invasion and occupation. This is not referring 4+ years on into the fight, as you would make it seem, or do you not have a concept of time?

Ummm, not sure where I ever said we had enough troops at any point in this war (at the onset or now). If you can show me that, I will gladly apologize.

avsp · 09-14-2007, 05:51 AM

If the surge has been a success then why are the troops going to brought home at all?

I'd see it as an arguement for sending even more.

I say this coz Baghdad, (for example), is still massively unsafe with people wanting to leave etc.

I liked Bush's emphasis that the planned reduction was to be based on there being progress, ..., even if I dont agree with the plan itself.

In the various hearings etc there has been an increased emphasis on the dangers of premature withdrawal, ..., but the dangers are never realistically stated IMO.

Its as if noone is prepared to talk of the risk of megadeath

motivez · 09-14-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by P/N

Hasn't the left been arguing that we didn't have enough troops from the beginning? Seems pretty hypocritical of them to complain that Bush is bringing troops home when there weren't enough to begin with.

We didn't have enough troops in at the beginning, the time for that has already passed.. if he had listened at the beginning instead of being arrogant stubborn and thinking he knew better than people who have spent their lives in the military (like he has about so many things), Iraq might be in a much better place right now.. but I digress.

These troops were scheduled to come home because the troop levels couldn't be sustained, we knew that before the surge even started. Technically a troop reduction, but not really a 'cut' from pre-surge levels

We are always promised in 6 months, or 1 year time stuff will start happening. Then it rolls around, and we get another promise. Since the surge has failed to accomplish anything that can be sustained when the troop levels decrease again (like, political progress, which is all that has mattered for years), I doubt anything will be different this time.

Stylerod · 09-14-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

There needed to be more in the beginning, when they could have actually made a difference. Bush didn't listen to the military commanders, and we have been seeing the consequences of that ignorance.

Ok, we needed more troops in the beginning. That didn't happen. Now we have more troops and it worked! But you're people are still whining about troop levels. Why? There are either too many or not enough according to democrats. And that number changes as troop levels change. What a strange cooincidence.

RMNIXON · 09-14-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

We didn't have enough troops in at the beginning, the time for that has already passed.. if he had listened at the beginning instead of being arrogant stubborn and thinking he knew better than people who have spent their lives in the military (like he has about so many things), Iraq might be in a much better place right now.. but I digress.

I am not clear on what part of the Democrat Party demanded more troops from the beginning? No doubt they were few and ignored by both parties. But if any should agree with you "now" perhaps they can get an NFL job as the first Tuesday Morning Quarterback?

RMNIXON · 09-14-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, we needed more troops in the beginning. That didn't happen. Now we have more troops and it worked! But you're people are still whining about troop levels. Why? There are either too many or not enough according to democrats. And that number changes as troop levels change. What a strange cooincidence.

Complaining is easy.

Leadership is hard.

That is why they are better off when out of power!

P/N · 09-14-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

We didn't have enough troops in at the beginning, the time for that has already passed.. if he had listened at the beginning instead of being arrogant stubborn and thinking he knew better than people who have spent their lives in the military (like he has about so many things), Iraq might be in a much better place right now.. but I digress.

I agree completely. Had he gone in with more troops, Iraq wouldn't have spiraled into the mess it has become.

Originally Posted by motivez

These troops were scheduled to come home because the troop levels couldn't be sustained, we knew that before the surge even started. Technically a troop reduction, but not really a 'cut' from pre-surge levels

The fact that they are coming home "as scheduled" is a good sign is it not? You couldn't say this a year ago when troops were being held over for longer tours.

Originally Posted by motivez

We are always promised in 6 months, or 1 year time stuff will start happening. Then it rolls around, and we get another promise. Since the surge has failed to accomplish anything that can be sustained when the troop levels decrease again (like, political progress, which is all that has mattered for years), I doubt anything will be different this time.

The surge has succeeded in getting more of an upper hand on the insurgents and Al Qaeda. The troops can't hold guns to the Iraqi government and force them to get their shit together, although that doesn't sound like a bad idea (sarcasm). As long as they are replacing the departing US troops with Iraqi troops, they should be able to sustain the gains they have made in the past few months.

Time will tell if the surge has worked in the long term, but I agree that if the Iraqi government doesn't step up, and soon, this will have all been a waste.

Stylerod · 09-14-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Complaining is easy.

Leadership is hard.

That is why they are better off when out of power!

Oh man. If they get into leadership and actually have to do anything, they won't know what hit them.

P/N · 09-14-2007, 05:26 PM

BTW, I just noticed the keyword 'Yankees suck' - LMAO!!!

motivez · 09-14-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, we needed more troops in the beginning. That didn't happen. Now we have more troops and it worked! But you're people are still whining about troop levels. Why? There are either too many or not enough according to democrats. And that number changes as troop levels change. What a strange cooincidence.

Nothing has 'worked', the surge hasn't changed anything.. people don't want more troops because the boat has already left the dock, and unless there is a desire from the Iraqi's to really begin to work towards political change, it has no chance of coming back.

They seem more interested in fighting eachother than fighting for their country, and our soldiers shouldn't be stuck in the middle of their civil war.

motivez · 09-14-2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I am not clear on what part of the Democrat Party demanded more troops from the beginning?

Shinseki was the one who I was talking about, I'm not sure where I ever said it was the Democrats? Bush is stubborn and arrogant and thought he and his inner circle of never-really-served neocons knew better what to do than someone like Shinseki.

motivez · 09-14-2007, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by P/N

The fact that they are coming home "as scheduled" is a good sign is it not? You couldn't say this a year ago when troops were being held over for longer tours.

They're coming home as scheduled because we're incapable of sustaining the surge at the levels it's at now, not because of some success that has allowed it.

More troops home is always a good thing, but this is being spun as a success where there isn't one, as a concession where there isn't one, and so on and so forth.

Originally Posted by P/N

The troops can't hold guns to the Iraqi government and force them to get their shit together, although that doesn't sound like a bad idea (sarcasm). As long as they are replacing the departing US troops with Iraqi troops, they should be able to sustain the gains they have made in the past few months.

What gains? There have been no political gains, and without those, no military operations really do much of anything.. people have been saying for well over a year that without political progress our military can't accomplish anything.

They've been saying since '04 that they were training Iraqi's to replace us, but yesterday I talked to a Marine here who was over there and just got back.. he was talking about despite all the training for the Iraqi brigades or units (or whatever they're called, I can't remember the wording) being certified as ready, they don't have the skills to carry out their missions, they're corrupt, and so on and so forth..

Originally Posted by P/N

Time will tell if the surge has worked in the long term, but I agree that if the Iraqi government doesn't step up, and soon, this will have all been a waste.

Most of the country already sees that ship as having sailed, the Malaki government is incapable of governing effectively, the militias have too much sway and power, and we can't outlast a homegrown insurgency.

P/N · 09-14-2007, 05:47 PM

Well, for