On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
We all know that Dem's simply say the opposite of the president, they don't have any actual core beliefs.
Well, the newest issue is troop levels.
During the election Dem's cried that Bush was incompetent because there were not enough troops....
and now that Bush wants to send in more troops they want less troops.
This one is so easy to see because they changed positions in such a short amount of time that even liberals can't deny it....but I'm sure they will.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Democrats call for more....sorry, less troops
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
As I said earlier, perhaps at another blog but I think here, they will say that it's too late now, Bush should have sent the troops when they told him to.
I have not even heard that yet...
Dems have said that bush should have sent more troops in during the initial invasion. Now he is doing nothing by trying to send in 20000 more troop. This will be a complete waste of life, time, and energy. Send to Troops to Afganastan where there is a fight we can win. The only way to solve this problem in Iraq is through deplomatic talks with Iran and the surrounding musilm countries.
"they don't have any actual core beliefs."
Well, it usually boils down to socialism and deconstructing the West in a literal sense, though most of the Dems are too buried in doublethink to face up to it.
When Reyes proposed an increase of 20-30,000 troops it was to dismantle the militias. Bush's plan does not address the militias as I understand it. It is to embed the troops with Iraqi units to quell the violence within Badhdad.
Jason, yadda yadda yadda.
Jim,
As I understand it, dealing with the militias is indeed a large part of the idea. Along with the added numbers, is the removal of handcuffs from our guys. No more phone calls because the caller is connected to the target. But the militias are causing much of the violence, so it goes hand in hand.
anonymous,
I hope your whole post was an illustration of Dem sentiment, rather than a personal belief that Iraq is a war we can't win. There is no such thing. If you truly feel otherwise, you are a classic defeatist and that's a most unAmerican mindset. If allowed to, we have enough troops to decimate the entire country. We have the training, the weaponry, and I have no doubt. But we were unwilling to risk civilian casualties and that makes winning harder, though not impossible for those with the will and ability. I won't argue tactics, because there were many unknowns compared to how war was waged in the past. The same exists in Afghanistan, so that's no easier. And I'll say this again, one doesn't negotiate with assholes like the Iranian leaders, one dictates terms. But we secure Iraq, Iran is in trouble and falls more easily.
Yaaaa, dismantle the militias, yaaaa, that’s the ticket.
Nooo, don’t incorporate the Iraqi troops into the bestest, mostest professional soldiering unit in the world to improve their training, noooo. After all it just might work, and we cant’ have that!
Post a Comment