• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Finally Has a Plan...2 1/2 Years Too Late

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congratulations to President Draft-Dodging Chickenhawk for finally coming up with a "strategy for victory" in Iraq. (Note to President Dumbass: A good stratagy for victory is to have a strategy for victory before the war.)

Too bad this "strategy" is the same ol' rehashed "stay the course" blather he's been spewing for the last two years.

Stay what course? The course where you send in just enough troops to lose? Where you ignore pre-war military planning? Where you create a terrorist training ground where there was non before? Where you stretch our military to the breaking point because you thought we'd be "greeted as liberators" and declared "mission accomplished" two months into the war and so didn't plan for a drawn out occupation and bloody insurgency? Where you like to strut around in a flight suit proclaiming yourself commander-in-chief uttering dangerous inanities like "Bring it on!" yet you don't admit a single mistake let alone take resposibility for your egregious blunders? Stay that course?

God help our troops.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
argexpat said:
Congratulations to President Draft-Dodging Chickenhawk for finally coming up with a "strategy for victory" in Iraq. (Note to President Dumbass: A good stratagy for victory is to have a strategy for victory before the war.)

Too bad this "strategy" is the same ol' rehashed "stay the course" blather he's been spewing for the last two years.

Stay what course? The course where you send in just enough troops to lose? Where you ignore pre-war military planning? Where you create a terrorist training ground where there was non before? Where you stretch our military to the breaking point because you thought we'd be "greeted as liberators" and declared "mission accomplished" two months into the war and so didn't plan for a drawn out occupation and bloody insurgency? Where you like to strut around in a flight suit proclaiming yourself commander-in-chief uttering dangerous inanities like "Bring it on!" yet you don't admit a single mistake let alone take resposibility for your egregious blunders? Stay that course?

God help our troops.
Bitter, party of one, your table is ready.

Hey, arg, this was the strategy all along. Just because he is now telling the whining left, doesn't mean it hasn't always been there.

By the way, tell us what you know about that 'mission accomplished' incident. I forgot.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
The "Mission Accomplished" incident was when Bush got up onto the aircraft carrier and declared "major military operations were over" in Iraq. Funny guy, if I do say so myself
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
heyjoeo said:
The "Mission Accomplished" incident was when Bush got up onto the aircraft carrier and declared "major military operations were over" in Iraq. Funny guy, if I do say so myself
I kind of thought someone might say that. Here, let me help.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it."

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history."



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am assuming running away is the smarter answer?

Would seem that the President has had a plan from the start when he said this wasn't going to be over right away. That it was going to take time and resolve.....
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
heyjoeo said:
The "Mission Accomplished" incident was when Bush got up onto the aircraft carrier and declared "major military operations were over" in Iraq. Funny guy, if I do say so myself

You mean there not over.... When was the last major millitary operation?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
expat,

Thats telling them! But, unfortunately, after having paid more attention to the critics and the MSM claiming there is no plan than to, you know, the actual plan, everybody is acting all surprised and confused. The isn't the first time the WH has disclosed the strategy for Iraq (although it is the first time it has been extracted and released in a declassifed doc), and the strategy isn't new. This is something the MSM really should know about. Granted, the WH could have/should have done a better job at spreading the message from the beginning. But, it is sheer laziness and/or incompetence on the part of the media and critics and some DB posters to pretend that the Iraq strategy hasn't been widely available for a long time.

Whats new is that the WH is forcing people to pay attention to the plan, and to the fact that there is, and has been, a plan even though the press has ignored it. That many in the MSM and among Bush critics seem to think this is all new is merely evidence that they've been providing lousy war coverage all along.

Thats my impression (with thanks to instapundit and a couple of other bloggers from whom I shamelessly plagiarized some phraseology)- YMMV.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Well we are still losing troops over there. In my opinion, the only way things are really going to change in Iraq is the complete removal of US forces in the area. I think it's naive to say we are "running away." I do believe there is a high possibility of a civil war in Iraq, and American troop presence in the area is just delaying the inevitable.

The "plan" that the President has is one of inaction. Stay for a while, "train" Iraqi troops, "fight" terrorism. They are great ideas, but we have been "training" troops for awhile, yet we are still required to hold the checkpoints with US troops, etc. SOMETHING else has to be done besides the status quo, because right now the status quo is the methodical picking off of our troops through guerilla warfare.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Look at the entire statement. Here is exactly what he said:

my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
And,

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.
And,

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
Transcript is here.

So whats wrong with that statement? It was delivered on May 1, 2003. Sounds kinda like his Annapolis speech, doesn't it? You know, the one that critics said finally articulated an Iraq strategy?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
joeyo,

SOMETHING else has to be done besides the status quo,
Absolutely right. But if you think that our guys over there are static and not changing tactics with the environment, you are mistaken. Consider these comments from an article in the FT today,

As Bush administration rhetoric has turned towards preparing the American public for a reduction in US forces in Iraq, the US military has been gradually – almost imperceptibly – changing its on-the-ground tactics to prepare for a smaller footprint after the December 15 elections
And,

people familiar with the changing tactics said the military was moving towards a post-election “clear, hold and build” counter-insurgency plan based largely on the lessons learned from the failures of the anti-Vietcong campaign during the Vietnam war.

Under such tactics – credited to Vietnam veteran and counter insurgency expert Andrew Krepinevich, who has advised Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Baghdad, on military issues – coalition and Iraqi forces will concentrate on securing and holding urban areas and gradually expanding their area of influence, a process called an “oil-spot” strategy.

In briefings to the US military’s joint staff and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s office, Mr Krepinevich, who has been highly critical of the lack of a country-wide counter-insurgency plan, has argued that through embedding US forces in Iraqi units and relying more heavily on those Iraqi units as the core of the “oil-spot”, the Pentagon should be able to rely on 120,000 troops, or 17,000 fewer than previous levels.
Link to complete source.

As Bush stated in his Annapolis speech, and somewhat paraphrasing Krepinevich, what we don't need in Iraq is more US troops, we need more Iraqi troops. And thats what we're doing.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Calm2Chaos said:
I am assuming running away is the smarter answer?
Few people want to "cut and run". I am democrat and know quite well we cannot and should not leave Iraq. Though timetables are needed for the steps towards exit. Goals are great but if your goal doesnt have a deadline it is nothing but a nice goal to have.

Calm2Chaos said:
Would seem that the President has had a plan from the start when he said this wasn't going to be over right away. That it was going to take time and resolve.....
His administration seemed to have not received that intel.

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” -Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KCConservative said:
Hey, arg, this was the strategy all along. Just because he is now telling the whining left, doesn't mean it hasn't always been there.
Bungling the war and getting soldiers needlessy killed was the strategy all along? Then mission definitely accomplished!
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KCConservative said:
I kind of thought someone might say that. Here, let me help.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it."

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history."


Who cares who put the banner up. Bush stood underneath it and declared "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" after posing for a photo op in that stupid flight suit, thus mocking all the actual pilots who didn't dodge the draft and fought in an actual war (like his father). If he had planned the war as well as he planned that inane farce, we might have stood a chance of actually accomplishing the mission.

Since that fatuous stunt, more than 2,100 soldiers have been killed and 15,000 injured. Tell them "major combat" ended back in April of 2003. If Bush were to pull that stunt today, it would come off as grotesquely callous, which is exactly what it was back then.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gibberish said:
Few people want to "cut and run". I am democrat and know quite well we cannot and should not leave Iraq. Though timetables are needed for the steps towards exit. Goals are great but if your goal doesnt have a deadline it is nothing but a nice goal to have.
The truth of the matter is that the military simply cannot sustain the effort beyond two more years, and they will be "cutting and running" regardless of what's been accomplished, because, as the quotes below demonstrate, Bush didn't plan for an extended occupation and bloody insurgency. And Bush knows this. So all Bush's talk of "artificial timetables" is just a lot of hogwash meant to smear his critics and distract us from his incompetence.

But by not being honest about this, Bush just shoots himself in the foot, because hawkish Democrats like Murtha beat him to the punch and stole his thunder, so when we finally do "cut and run" he's going to look like he capitulated to his critics. The longer he keeps to his "stay the course" claptrap, the stupider he'll look.



Gibberish said:
The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” -Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]
I love these quotes! But the Bush administration didn't mislead anyone. Right.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
They meant for this speech to happen much sooner but the production of the stage Bush would be speaking on took 2 years longer then anticipated. When asked why the stage took so long the production team replied, "The white house never gave us a deadline, they just said when ever you feel ready."

Picture of the stage:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/images/20051130-2_p113005pm-0115jpg-515h.html

Why so many "Plan for Victory"? So just incase anyone forgot what they were there for. I it says it right on the banners so he must really have a plan right? I have never seen a President use so much propogranda and eye candy before. I can't wait to start seeing the commercials and the movie of the week "Plan for Victory".
 
Last edited:

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
As Bush stated in his Annapolis speech, and somewhat paraphrasing Krepinevich, what we don't need in Iraq is more US troops, we need more Iraqi troops. And thats what we're doing.
Not according to this.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
argexpat said:
Bungling the war and getting soldiers needlessy killed was the strategy all along? Then mission definitely accomplished!
Bungling the war is your opinion, arg. That doesn't make it so. The strategy has been clear from the very beginning. Take off the hate blinders.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
argexpat said:
Who cares who put the banner up. Bush stood underneath it and declared "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" after posing for a photo op in that stupid flight suit, thus mocking all the actual pilots who didn't dodge the draft and fought in an actual war (like his father). If he had planned the war as well as he planned that inane farce, we might have stood a chance of actually accomplishing the mission.

Since that fatuous stunt, more than 2,100 soldiers have been killed and 15,000 injured. Tell them "major combat" ended back in April of 2003. If Bush were to pull that stunt today, it would come off as grotesquely callous, which is exactly what it was back then.
YOur hate is getting way ahead of your logic, arg. The banner was to signify the end of the ships long deployment. Their mission was accomplished. I provided the facts to back this up. Any unsubstantiated claim that you spit out saying the opposite doesn't hold water.

Regarding his flight suit being stupid, etc, .... Hey, I think it's good to have opinions. ;)
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
As Bush stated in his Annapolis speech, and somewhat paraphrasing Krepinevich, what we don't need in Iraq is more US troops, we need more Iraqi troops. And thats what we're doing.
argexpat said:
Not according to this.
[SARCASM]

Yeah oldreliable!...

Why are you believing the President of the United States when you can read a bias op-ed piece from someone who obviously has much more insight?

[/SARCASM]
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
Why so many "Plan for Victory"? So just incase anyone forgot what they were there for. I it says it right on the banners so he must really have a plan right? I have never seen a President use so much propogranda and eye candy before. I can't wait to start seeing the commercials and the movie of the week "Plan for Victory".
Oh good Lord. You crazy libs have been clamoring for him to give more information about the war plan. Now that he does, you criticize it. Your partisan hate is apparent but your logic is AWOL.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
Oh good Lord. You crazy libs have been clamoring for him to give more information about the war plan. Now that he does, you criticize it. Your partisan hate is apparent but your logic is AWOL.
I am critizing how commercial the President has become not what he said or that he finally said something. Try not making assumptions next time.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
I am critizing how commercial the President has become not what he said or that he finally said something. Try not making assumptions next time.
Let me guess. You hate President Bush. And no matter whay he does or says, it isn't good enough. Is that about it?
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
Let me guess. You hate President Bush. And no matter whay he does or says, it isn't good enough. Is that about it?
Do you only read half of my posts normally or is this just a special day? You assume I hate Bush. He is the president, I wouldn't want anyone other then Bush to be president at the present time. Over the past 4 years I am getting tired of hearing the exact same speech rephrased every way possible with little change in actions. The only change in the speech is a bigger stage this time.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
Over the past 4 years I am getting tired of hearing the exact same speech rephrased every way possible with little change in actions.
You'd rather he flip back and forth on issues, or what? That he has remained consistant in his message is exactly what I like best about him.
 
Top Bottom