View Full Version : C-span yesterday ....Iraq/ Senate Hoods & Robes?

Gayle in MD
11-16-2006, 09:02 AM
Did anyone watch the questioning of the Generals? McCain was pretty disgusted, so were many others, both Republicans and Democrats. Abazid, started out stone walling, re-phrasing the questions, honey coating the answers, pretty much angered the Senators. He finally admitted, that Schenchekki was right, (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest, wrong) about the number of troops we needed going in. He tried to get out of a straight answer on this, but got backed into a corner. Listening to the testimony really was discouraging, since it is clear, that the Iraqi PM, and Government, have failed miserably to unite their countrymen. He completely avoided a straight answer when asked about Woodward's description of his gesture with his thumb and forefinger, showing Murtha how close they were in the way they saw the war. His overall M.O. was Bushesque, in that he was giving rosey scenario's, but painting gloomy expectation when adressing the facts, and then being critical of the Senators when they pointed out the obvious, this is a no win set of circumstances.
Need more troops to quell the violence, and win the war.
Can't send more American troops, without increasing the numbers of insurgents.
Can't trust Iraqis to fight the enemy, without misbehaving themselves, and adding to the violence.

It sounds like the problem is that although we need more troops, they need to be Iraqi troops, and Iraqi security forces, but they can't be trusted, and have failed to weed out the radicals among them who promote the sectarian violence, and to use their positions of authority correctly, but instead, have added to the ethnic Sunni/shiite slaughter, which leaves us without enough people fighting genuinely for the cause. But, sending in more troops, puts too much of a U.S. facade on the war, causing more resentment. Reading between the lines, one got the sense that Iraqis are fine with us fighting their battles, while they sip green tea at sidewalk cafes' .... which sort of contradicted his overall premise, that they would stand up, eventually, to battle for their own freedom and democracy. Sen. Bayh, even asked, in so many words, "Hey, do they have it in them to fight for freedom or not?"
Of course, the General said they do, but not many Senators listening seemed to believe his rosey picture.

Although the General expressed confidence that Iraqis will meet the call to come together, eventually, and create unity among themselves, he continues to say that the only hope, is imbedding our people with Iraqi soldiers, so we're still at "Training Iraqis" which is what we have been doing for years now.

So, sounds like, not enough boots on the ground to quell the violence, but sending in more troops, will expand the resentment, and hence, the violence. Then when the Senators pointed out the obvious quagmire we're in, and the years of failed promises, and expectations, the General Accused them of being negative and gloomy, (Can't remember the exact word he used) about the War, saying that he never gets that from our troops, or the Iraqis. Same old republican BS....shame on you for noticing the obvious, and daring to ask the pertinent questions, and raising your expectations, for failing strategy.

Man oh man, what does he expect? He's still saying the same things he was saying over a year ago, and trying to say things are improving! That won't fly anymore.

Also, while he says Iraq is the central front on terror, he also says that alQaeda is only about 2 to 3% of the bombers/fighters/warriors.

McCain, was completely disgusted, along with others, from both Rep. and Dem. sides.

I think we should fly in two hundred thousand troops, and give them black robes and hoods, so the radicals won't know they're American, and get this mess settled, once and for all.

Bottom line, the present non-plan, Stay The Course, is a joke. How many more years is it going to take, to gather up enough willing, trained, and trustworthy Iraqis, to fight for their freedom? You really got the feeling, that the Iraq government, is purposfully standing down to let our people do it for them, and that that is one main reason why the General isn't asking for more of our troops, but rather, chooses to put more pressure on Iraqais, and thinks present levels are about right to acheive that.

When he stated the many aspects of the mission, however, McCain, among others, were incredulous that he would think that the present numbers were sufficient to accomplish everything involved.

Still sounds like a quagmire, very slowly moving, increasingly dangerous, and more violent, with the numbers of insurgents growing steadily, and only more of the same in sight.

Very depressing, all in all. Stay The Course, still the only strategy.

Gayle in Md.

11-16-2006, 05:21 PM
Are there any decent plans that have a chance of working?
Would a higher tax on explosives do any good??
Do the libertarians have a viable base in Iraq???

I think i know which way things are heading -- i reckon that we (they) will get what shood have been done long long ago -- 3 new states (ie countryz) -- Kurdistan -- Sunnystan -- and Hateistan.

11-16-2006, 06:16 PM
You have very eloquently stated the situation. So what would you propose we do about it?

Gayle in MD
11-17-2006, 05:42 AM
LOL...it's a mess for sure. but, IMO, it's a mess that should have been avoided in the first place. Now we're in the middle of it, and know that the policy has made everything worse for us, here, and around the world. My hope, is that Murtha, and other respected Generals, will bcome more outspoken regarding the conditions, the policy, and what is realistically possible. It is obvious, to me atleast, especially after what I viewed during the questioning, the this General, along with Pace, are in Bush's camp, above and beyond their concerns for our troops. Bush, IMO, is sacrificing our people for the sake of his legacy. Our people should have been re-deployed to the peripheral, as Murtha suggested a year ago. What's the point in sacrificing brave Americans, for a people who don't value freedom enough to lay aside their differences in the interest of peace for their country, and their children's future?

I'm afraid that when the tipping point comes, our people will be totally slaughtered, if we don't change course now. We should stay out of the business of Nation Building, and solve our own pressing issues here at home, IMO. I disgusted with listening to unrealistic plans, from Bush's designated mouthpieces, while the blood of our people flows over grievences which have nothing to do with America.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2006, 06:02 AM
First of all, Baker, should have been willing to reveal his findings as soon as he arrived at conclusions. Why we seem to be in limbo over his findings, is a mystery to me, since many on his panel, have no military, or foreign relations expertise in the first place. I think we should have listened to the opinions of the Generals who have been speaking out all along, and that they should be the ones to arrive at a new course of action, not Bush's daddy's friend. While our country is waiting on Baker, the blood of our people flows in Iraq. Does this make any sense to you?

What I think will happen, is that Murtha will continue to expose the realistic facts, as he has done for a year, but he will call in Military experts, who have been pushed out of the debate for daring to disagree, and give them a platform for debate. This, I believe, will lead to withdrawel from Iraq. Unless and until the Middle East leaders, despots, whatever one wishes to call them, are called together for debate in the interests of the region, nothing good can happen, obviously. If you can't bring the leaders of these countries together to form agreements, how the hell can you affect the actions of their radical groups of people?

As before the occupation, International talks, debate, and dilomacy are, and were, the only resonable action. Giving radical elements greater fuel for their cause, won't solve anything, but only make matters far worse, as we have seen. I believe, this was my own position from the time I realized that Bush and Company, were, shall we say, less than honest about the urgency of the threat. Events since then, suggest the occupation was a huge mistake.

Gayle in Md.

11-17-2006, 06:40 AM
Gayle as I posted yesterday turning Iraq back to Saddam Hussein is the only answer. How the hell he ever kept the peace there is beyond me.

The Bush blunder is going to put Iran in the Driver Seat in the Middle East. Saudia Arabia Prince's are worried that their life styles are going to change. That is the only reason for the Friends of Oil/George H.W.Bush/Jim Baker and company trying to get Georgie Boy out of the JackPot that he got us into.

George opened Pandora's Box and we will never close it. As I remember it, the Death Toll was at 159 when he landed on the Aircraft Carrier pronouncing that the War was won. Now it is 3000 keeping the Peace. How can we Win a War that we already Won. That is the Question nobody can Answer.

I thought after the Election I could just Gloat. Have the Impeachment of Bush, then Cheney. Argue about Nancy creating her Legacy as the First Women President. Now I am more concerned about the mess and how to clean up the Oil Spill.####

Gayle in MD
11-17-2006, 07:02 AM
Ditto!!! Dick, the ONLY thing I care about is for people to stop killing other people. The 9/11 attack was labeled a WAR, to give George the undue power he wanted for his dictatroship of America, and his, (And particularly Cheney's) contempt for our system of checks and balances, the thorn in the side of every President. The framers put that system into our constitution for a reason. We are Not a Kingdom! War is no excuse to remove those checks, or avoid obeying our laws, and in fact, even more reason to enforce them. People point to other times when Presidents went beyond their power, as proof that it is alright to do so, but everytime they did so, the result was not good.

Terrorism is composed of isolated, although horrible, cowardly attacks. They organize and plan in secret, and in cowardly ways, their faces hidden, and their missions secret. No amount of warring in Middle East countries, and no amount of democracy, can or will stop terrorism. The policy is false, period. Did the Iraqis stop killing one another after they voted? Hell no. Did bin Laden, and his followers, stop plans for terrorist attacks after we occupied Iraq? Hell no. When you're dealing with an enemy that uses stealth methods, you have to use stealth methods to stop them, not launch a war somewhere else. We have failed to address our most dangerous enemies, in significant ways. Our worst threats are China, Iran and bin Laden, not Saddam, or Iraq. Saddam was a non issue at the time we invaded. As I asked, at the time, are we going to invade very country under the dictatorship of a despot? The policy was not only flawed, it was illegal. Now, as you say, we have opened a Pandora's Box, that will be difficult to close. THANK YOU GEORGE BUSH!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2006, 08:50 AM
It was interesting that they said the key to bringing stability to Iraq was disbanding the militias and promoting a secular national Army - and then proceeded to give evidence that just the opposite is occurring. There are no signs that the militias are doing anything other than getting stronger, while there is very little evidence that the secular national Army is an effective fighting force.

So, the net is the status quo isn't working, but they want to continue on the same as before, making only minor changes that MIGHT help develop the national Army, while having NO EFFECT on the disbanding the militias.

Now, Bush is in Vietnam, trying to build a case for "Staying The Course" in Iraq! His method is to suggest that we would have won in Vietnam, if we had stayed longer!!! Give me a break! Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in Nam, and he thinks we should have stayed there longer????

Sometimes I think our only way out of this mess is to impeach this SOB!! Now, We're sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Obviously, Republicans have sent Bush the message, that they do not want ot have to campaign in 08, with Iraq still in kaos. This, I think, is his last big push, to try to get out while saving face to some degree. How many more must die on his behalf?

I can't believe that he has the balls to insist that our people stay there in what the Pentagon, itself, describes as kaos, when the mission was wrong to begin with. His failure to admit that he made the worst mistake in our history, is costing the lives of our troops. Ultimately, HE made this mess, and untimately, HE is the one who is going to have to clean it up. He's the decider. He thought, he would be able to leave the whole mess for the next president, but his party, is now sending him the message, Oh no you don't, Georgie, you clean it up!

Guess thie means elections are good for something!


11-17-2006, 09:40 AM
" He finally admitted, that Schenchekki was right, (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest, wrong) about the number of troops we needed going in."

GWB ..re the number of troops...gave this inspiring speech yesterday, as he prepared to lead the troops into battle:

"If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from America.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Woflowitz, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us."

11-17-2006, 09:54 AM
That speech would be GWB as Henry V (Shakespeare) who was a strong military leader, with the respect of his troops..but I see George as Henry VI...
"On gaining his majority, Henry VI proved to be a deeply spiritual man, lacking the worldly wisdom necessary to allow him to rule effectively. Right from the time he assumed control as king in 1437, he allowed his court to be dominated by a few noble favorites; the faction in favour of ending the war were ignored, while the voices of Richard, Duke of York and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the leaders of the pro-war faction, were favored. (I had to adjust the court's leanings a bit)

11-17-2006, 10:14 AM
Dick, I think you and Gayle are much too critical of the Prez.
considering his pre-White House background...A National Guard dropout, a failed businessman....I believe he has lived up to expectations.
The only mistake the people who helped him obtain office made...they didn't realize that he was both dumb and arrogant...no longer willing to take advice from anyone, except his higher power.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2006, 11:11 AM
Poor judgement, incompetence, combined with arrogance, is not an endearing profile, to say the least. He is still in a State Of Denial, and out of touch with the American people, and his own options, if he thinks we're going to leave our troops in a no win proposition, to die for his foolish notions. He'll be impeached before this country will leave him to do even more damage than he's already done.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2006, 11:55 AM
Who thought that Muslims in Iraq would throw roses at our feet?

Who thought that centuries of ill will between the Shiites and the Sunnis would magically melt away under the benevolent occupation of the United States?

Who thought that bringing in a majority Shiite government to Iraq wouldn't lead to empowering Shiite Iran?

Who thought it was a great idea to attack a country that didn't attack us?

Who thought it was a great idea to make up intelligence to pretend Iraq was a real and gathering threat to the United States?

Who thought that in a power vacuum in the Middle East that Muslim fundamentalist wouldn't fill the void?

Who thought dismissing all the Arab experts in the government as "Arabist apologists" was a good idea before going to occupy an Arab country?

Who thought that we could dictate the government of Iraq to a Muslim population that already deeply mistrusted us and we wouldn't encounter any type of resistance?

Who would be so profoundly arrogant and misguided? The pseudo-intellectuals who wrote the Project for a New American Century. The blowhards who burrow themselves in to an intellectually bankrupt bunker called the American Enterprise Institute. The neo-clowns who today advocate that we implement the same disastrous plan that sunk us in Iraq in another Muslim country in the Middle East -- Iran.

Cenk Uygur..

It seems, the neocons, are now calling for pre-emption in Iran, and North Korea. Can you believe it? This piece can be viewed on the Huffpost.

11-17-2006, 07:42 PM
We will need to get permission from China in both instances.

Gayle in MD
11-18-2006, 08:18 AM
Our policies with China, and the coming results, are probably the most serious gathering threat we face, IMO. Bush chose a great time to wear down our weapons and equipment, and degrade our armed services, on a misguided lark. We should have been about the business of strengthening our armed services, our economy, and building allies these last six years. I'm afraid we're going to pay a far greater price in the long run, for Bush's decisions, than we can even begin to realize.

Gayle in Md.