NYT preview of Bush's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is up

New U.S. Efforts to Ready Iraqis to Take Control
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: November 30, 2005

...."I want our troops to come home, but I don't want them to come home without having achieved victory," (Bush) said in brief comments to reporters in El Paso during a visit to the Mexican border.

He was describing the speech he plans to give Wednesday at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. "And we've got a strategy for victory."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, too, emphasized the imperative for Iraqis to gain control of their country, echoing the thought that instead of "an exit strategy, we should be focused on our strategy for victory."

The catchphrase will reappear on Wednesday morning in a document elaborating on Mr. Bush's speech, titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

Taken together, the activities amount to a carefully calibrated effort to answer critics, including Democratic leaders in Congress who have argued that Mr. Bush has no plausible plan for bringing home the nearly 160,000 troops engaged in a war against the insurgency....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/international/30military.html?hp&ex=1133326800&en=3c577b6362432860&ei=5094&partner=homepage

How do I know? Because. they. never. tell. the. truth.

More lies and platitudes. The robber barons are making a lot of money off this war and they don't plan on ending it. It will be us, the people who are fighting this war, who will end it. The robber barons will let it continue as long as we let them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You sound so pissed off, you should get over there to wipe out some terrorists (aka the Iraqi people).

www.goarmy.com

Ohh - let me guess, you've already served in the Green Berets.

You can add it to the catalogue of useless lies that have been spewed by the right wing over the last three years. And yet, the war goes on as it goes on, no progress, no nothing, just the same old daily attacks after attacks. Your vapid rhetoric is of no use. You have no strategy, and your ideology is flaccid, impotent.

The insurgents don't care what you call them in your American home with your American venom. They have only one slogan, the only one you can't touch with your lies and fairy tales:

Welcome to the desert of the real.

"Peace with honor," blah, blah.

"Peace with Honor"

Who will be the last person we ask to die for this war?

By helicopter. Early.

cleaning up half the clusterfuck they created.

In 3 years there will still be 80 thousand US troops there

All this crap about "staying the course," not leaving until we "win," is total bullshit because there's no way to win. Bush should have learned something from Vietnam, which is that you can't defeat people who are fighting, on their own turf, foreign invaders. The war on "terrorism" can't be won because terrorism is a method, not a country or movement. What does it mean to win in Iraq? Bush won't say. It used to be that the goal was to prevent Saddam from using the WMDs that he didn't have; then it was to overthrow him. There are no WMDs and Saddam is overthrown. Now what? How do we "win," huh, George? How will we know we've won?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This should be easy. Go ahead.

cokehead fratboy is the day that pigs fly.

he didn't have to go there.

the evil-doers ???????????????

pleeeeeze..... stop insulting the
intelligence of this country
(or at least blue half)

... we have destroyed what tenuous little sense of order Iraq had under Saddam Hussein. It's a quagmire. A no-man's land. A "Mad Max" movie come to life.

Our troops are chasing a phantom enemy called 'Terror' which - much like the "war on drugs" & "war on poverty" - defies an absolute definition and therefore also defies strategy, measurable outcomes, and beginning/end dates.

And lest any of us have forgotten, 'Terror' and 'Iraq' had no solid association to begin with. So as the good Dr. Dean has been saying since 2003, its 'the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.' And history shows that those can't be won.


:hippie:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The presence in Iraq of US soldiers, the killing of civilians, the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the existence of secret prisons, the fact that we torture people, serves only to encourage more Iraqis to join the insurgency. How many will we have to kill? Thousands? Millions? Will we destroy that entire country in order to "save" it? Sounds like the same old bullshit that was stinking up the planet 35 years ago when that asshat Nixon was president. The only difference between Nixon and Bush is that Bush is stupid as well as evil.

around the world. Not enough of them, no planning on what to do to get out, nothing except being sent there by a bunch of hairbrained chickenshit lying bastards who saw visions of flowers being thrown and heard echoes of songs being sung (amongst other delusional ideas bouncing off the walls of their skulls).

All based on lies. Pay attention here. Closely. All based on lies coming out of Cheney's fake intelligence 'gathering' scam otherwise known as the OSP. Remember little Dougie Feith? Who was it that called him the stupidist mother f**ker that ever lived?

Oh yes, I forgot. They're chasing terrorists? Well, that country belongs to those 'terrorists'. Not you, not Commander Bunnypants, not VP Five-Deferments Cheney, but to the Iraqi people who you are now referring to as 'terrorists'. And finally, not least importantly, but finally, there were never people in that country who people like you could sit on your ass at a keyboard and call 'terrorists' until the neocons got someone to front for them and send the US military into an unarmed country to kill innocent civilians by dropping bombs on them. Remember 'Shock and Awe'. There's where you got your 'terrorists'. By indiscriminately murdering their wives, children, fathers, mothers, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents.

We all know you're a reich-wing slug, but the only intellectual position that can be held is that you can't run a war against tactics (terrorism) and you can't run a war against behavior (drug use), unless you like endless war on the people, whether internal or external.

The only answer is to go after the actual criminals and their sponsors while also doing things to reduce that which feeds the desire to commit terrorist acts.

Since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam didn't have WMDs when we invaded, there was no imminent threat *and* invading Iraq could not have been possibly construed as part of a "war on terror". The war was bogus from any intellectual angle.

Getting wise, yet?

stirred by dum and dummer

(B's removed for your protection)

I guess his "coherent" window now closes at 9:30am EST.