PDA

View Full Version : Republican Definition of "Cut And Run"



Gayle in MD
02-28-2007, 10:41 AM
Here is Murtha's bill,

1) mandatory home base time with their families between deployments -- 365 days for the Army and 270 days for the Marines 2) sufficient training and equipment and 3) mandatory face to face physical, mental and emotional health evaluations upon their return from combat -- a standard practice before this Administration came to power --

According to FAUX news, and the RNC talking points, Vice President Cheney, Bush's pre election speeches, this makes John Murtha, His bill, and all the Democrats who are outraged over the way this administration is operating this war, an act of emboldening terrorists, and/or Cut And Run.

Gayle in Md.
"will demoralize our soldiers and turn the Middle East into a cauldron of blood and chaos" ???

Our soldiers are already demoralized, and the Middle East is already a cauldron of blood and chaos...go figure /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
02-28-2007, 11:13 AM
Just another example of you twisting what is being said.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-28-2007, 12:37 PM
Ed, I hope that you can see the demoralizing effects of being constantly redeployed.....if we are going to continue with this war....and it looks like it would be a long committment, to achieve our goals......we need to reinstitute a draft.....

(not enough young Republicans swelling the ranks of enlistees /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif) JMHO

Gayle in MD
02-28-2007, 12:50 PM
Tap Tap Tap. Reinstitution of the draft, good example of yet another Democratic proposal. On C-Span this morning, they read a story about a Mother who was quoted in an article about her son, how he came home, strickened with severe mental and emotional stress disorder, withdrawing from drugs, couldn't get any effective response from the Veteran's administration, no help from the Army, they spent their own money to get him back on his feet, get him the psychological help he desperately needed, he's better, but a long way from well, and now, he's being sent back to Iraq. This war is absolutely criminal. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-28-2007, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolf:</font><hr> not enough young Republicans swelling the ranks of enlistees <hr /></blockquote> Maybe so, but if we were to believe your quote and believe Kerry, that would make the Right the smarter of the two parties.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kerry:</font><hr> "You know education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
<hr /></blockquote> I guess all those young republicans are out getting an education and the young dems are swelling the ranks in Iraq.

wolfdancer
02-28-2007, 03:23 PM
I also saw a report on the alarming, increasing number of homeless vets,as a result of this war.
Here's just one of the stories:
web page (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6394180)

Gayle in MD
03-01-2007, 06:11 AM
Jack,
Here's the worst part. Pace, Rice and Gates sat in front of the Senate foreign Relations Committee, with their usual cherry- best case - reporting on the state of the Iraqi army, and the big question, ARE THEY GOING TO SHOW UP For The Surge, AND FIGHT? Their statements of high expectations, were contradicted by the Army though, and now, it seems their new founded efforts for diplomacy in the neighboring countries are too late ...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Bush administration to join Iraqi-led talks attended by Iran, Syria

By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and Renee Schoof
McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON - In a softening of its refusal to pursue direct diplomacy with two Middle East adversaries, the Bush administration announced Tuesday that it will participate in a series of international meetings on Iraq that will include representatives of Iran and Syria.


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the talks with Iraq and its neighbors as a "a new diplomatic offensive." She said she hoped that Iran and Syria would "seize the opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq - and to work for peace and stability in the region."


But her announcement at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee - amid signs that the Iraqi army has failed to send the troops it promised to Baghdad - appeared to fall short of calls from Congress and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to open direct negotiations with Tehran and Damascus.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the talks a "first step," but said, "It is not enough on its own."


The White House has accused Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, Damascus of trying to undermine Lebanon's government, and both governments of aiding anti-American forces in Iraq. Until now, it had refused high-level talks with either country.


The first meeting is due to take place during the first half of March in Baghdad, hosted by the Iraqi government, and a second, in which Rice herself might participate, is tentatively set for April.


Meanwhile, top U.S. intelligence officials disclosed that the deployment of Iraqi forces into Baghdad under President Bush's new plan to stabilize Iraq is running behind schedule and that all of the units sent so far have arrived under strength, some by more than half.


Top military officials, speaking at the same hearing with Rice, gave a mixed review on the early implementation of the plan, which is aimed at ending carnage in the capital between Shiites and Sunni Muslims.


Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Iraqi military was "good for the most part," but uneven. "The Iraqi military is coming on very well," he said, adding that the soldiers should be able to replace U.S. troops by late 2007. "We should have significant turnover this year," he said.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified that the Pentagon would send Congress a confidential report on the Iraqi military later this week. "I am watching to see how the Iraqis perform," he said. "So far, so good."


The plan, which Bush announced last month, calls for the deployment of an extra 17,500 American troops to Baghdad, along with thousands of additional Iraqi security forces. The Iraqis are to play the leading role in suppressing the violence and ending forced evictions, most of which are against minority Sunnis by militias linked to Shiite parties in the U.S.-backed coalition government.


But retired Vice Adm. John McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Army Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a separate hearing that the Iraqi army sent to Baghdad only two of the three additional brigades that were to have been in place by Feb. 15.


An Iraqi brigade is supposed to have 3,200 men.


"One of the problems was having fully manned units when they arrived in Baghdad," McConnell said. "A work in progress is how best to describe it. It's not there yet."


It was McConnell's first time testifying before a congressional committee since he became the nation's top intelligence officer on Feb. 13.


Maples, the military's top intelligence official, said that the strength of the Iraqi battalions that comprise the two brigades range from 43 percent to 82 percent.


The numbers were the most concise manpower figures that the U.S. military has given for the additional Iraqi units sent to Baghdad.


McConnell said one reason for the Iraqi shortfalls is that typically 25 percent of an Iraqi army unit is away on leave or on some other assignment. But U.S. and Iraqi officials also have cited high desertion rates as a serious problem.


On the positive side, McConnell said that Iraqi forces have begun taking leading roles in some parts of Baghdad, although he didn't specify which areas.


Maples said that the new Iraqi commander for Baghdad, Gen. Abboud Gambar, a Shiite, is "taking charge. He's been very active. And he is apparently demonstrating a very level approach to his command. That is, he is not showing a sectarian bias."


Moreover, he said, U.S. commanders and U.S. trainers embedded with the Iraqi troops have assessed the troops as "capable."


On the negative side, Maples said that two of the extra Iraqi brigades comprise members of the ethnic Kurdish minority, who don't know the city and are divided from Arabs by language, culture and decades of enmity.


McConnell said that while progress has been made in training and equipping the Iraqi army, "they're still not where we need them to be."


Several lawmakers expressed deep concern over the prospects for success for Bush's plan, including Sen. John Warner, R-Va.


"I do not see evidence, strong evidence, that the Iraqi forces are measuring up in any amount to what the president laid down," he said.


The new diplomatic steps evoked skepticism from both sides of the aisle as well. Reid said in a statement that the decision to begin talks with Iran and Syria "should have been made long ago."


"Today's announcement is a first step, but it is not enough on its own. Our national security requires a robust diplomatic effort in the Middle East, and the Bush administration cannot again settle for mere half measures," he said.


Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Bush shouldn't have taken so long to organize a diplomatic push.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Fat chance of any success in Bush's New Way Forward, it's just more of the same, and more slaughter of American Tro9ops, for a peoples who don't want what we're trying to help them to accomplish. In short, another Bush policy, based on insanity, and indifference to our kids who are the ones who continue to pay for his complete incompetence.

Gayle in Md.






"I think he missed an opportunity ... to increase popular support for a long-term U.S. interest in Iraq."

hondo
03-01-2007, 07:39 AM
I, for one, am dead set against a draft.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Ed, I hope that you can see the demoralizing effects of being constantly redeployed.....if we are going to continue with this war....and it looks like it would be a long committment, to achieve our goals......we need to reinstitute a draft.....

(not enough young Republicans swelling the ranks of enlistees /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif) JMHO <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
03-01-2007, 08:15 AM
No one likes a draft Hondo, but what should we do? Keep sending the same worn out troops back, over and over again?
Given how long this mess has gone on, with no real success of lowering violence, and in fact, it is increasing, both in Iraq, and now more signs of increasing violence and kaos in Afghanistan/Pakistan, what are we to do? There will be more effort from surrounding countries to join the fight, already proof of that happening, Britian is pulling out, I don't see how it's fair to redeploy the same people over and over, back to the Middle East, and without complete training and equipment, and a reasonable span of R &amp; R between deployments, to fight the Iraqis civil war.

This is an outrage, and something that is completely unfair, not to mention the devastating results to our own security here at home, due to the fact that all top Army officials state that our Army is broken, both in equipment, and manpower. Unless the public begins to demand impeachment, I don't see how people can continue to buy this BS that staying in a no win situation, and continuing this assault against our own best interests, can possibly provide any positive results. We're going down the tubes over this idiotic policy. Another hundred billion, and for what? There are terrorist cells all over the world. We should be pin pointing those locations with small special forces, in Pakistan, and in Anbar Province, aimed at al Qaeda, and leave Baghdad to go the way it is going to go, with or without our presence, IMO.

A draft, is the only fair way to continue this policy, IMO.

gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-01-2007, 10:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Approximately one-third of all homeless men in New York City are U.S. veterans. Nationwide, nearly a half-million veterans are homeless during the course of a year. <hr /></blockquote>

GW and his crew are always using the " you don't support the troops" card anytime they can. They use it to counter any critique about Iraq or the cost of the war. We are suppossed to believe the the Dems don't care about the troops, but they do!?
They use Patriotism and cash to get kids to fight in Iraq but when they come home traumatised they are discarded. '
'Cut and Run' describes it very well.

Q