Smirky: "No war has ever been won on a timetable,"

Bush Unveils New Iraq Strategy Document

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - President Bush confronted doubts about his war policy Wednesday, asserting that more Iraqi security forces are taking the lead in battle but saying it's still uncertain when U.S. forces can be withdrawn.

"No war has ever been won on a timetable," according to a new White House strategy document.

Facing criticism and impatience about the conflict, Bush went on the offensive with the release of a 35-page plan titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

In the report, the Bush administration says it is working along a political track to help the Iraqis isolate enemies from those who want to participate in the democratic political process. The "enemy" is a combination of Iraqis who reject democratic reforms, Saddam loyalists and terrorists and others inspired by al-Qaeda.

(end snip)

Same shit, different day.

Here is a link to the document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

I guess they have things well in hand. GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA!

reasons for invading the Benelux.

"mission accomplished", way back when. That was his timetable.

NOONE is talking strategy--we should be talking PLAN.
There is a big difference. Besides the four talking points, can NEVER be achieved--neutralizing the insurgency, defeating terrorism,
helping Iraq strengthen it's economy, increasing international support?

So who makes the final decision that these objectives have been achieved?

What a crock of shit.

This will backfire

trying to support an obviously flawed premise.

until the bitter, ignominious end.. departing the region defeated and demoralized. And there was no timetable there, either. History repeats itself.

other high commanders...

about to tell him the truth, that he's become the punchline at the end of a sick joke.

What is the fucking objective of this optional piece o' shite war? When will those be clearly defined? (and no George, don't tell me to read the report - you've had 3 years to tell me the truth in that plain-spoken way of yours :eyes:)

I do believe the first objective was to save us from WMD. At least that is what we were told.

We started this war for the OIL.

Everything about this was a lie from the beginning. Remember what your parents always told you about lies? Some day the truth will be known.

and the administration, many many times. People just don't seem to recognize it.

The Bush administratioin declared a War on Terror

The objective for going to Iraq was to take the war to the terrorists (dubious reasoning aside).

The goal of this was to make Iraq the central battleground in the War on Terror. This mission has been accomplished.

The timetable for leaving Iraq will be when it is no longer the central battleground in the War on Terror.

This will happen when the War on Terror has been won.

By the administrations own admisssion, the War on Terror can never be won.

Therefore the time table for pulling troops out of Iraq is never.

The only thing that can affect that policy is the American people realizing that these are the objectives and timetalble and demanding that they be changed. Which is what seems to be happening now.

But if there wasn't an anti-war effort and criticism, if everyone walked around saying things like, 2000 casualties is nothing, we've got to support the president no matter what;if recruiting by the Armed forces was increasing and not decreasing, the administration would just continue along on the course outlined above buoyed by the beleif that they are doing God's work.

The objective of the administration, it seems, was to always have troops in Iraq, maybe not as many, but to keep them there indefinately, to possibly even use them to take the War on Terror to other countries in the region. What they don't seem to have anticipated is that the insurgency would be so effective at fighting against us that it would effectively bog down their whole strategy and weary the American people on the effort.

In that respect, the central objective of going to Iraq has really been a failure. The case could be made that we are not really fighting the War on Terror in Iraq anymore (if we ever really were), rather, our troops are engaged in "damage control", the effort to prevent things from so falling apart in Iraq that it falls into a civil war with all it's negative consequences for the Middle East and the rest of the world.

The Desert Storm ground war lasted exactly 100 hours.

The order to cease fire had nothing to do with the operational situation, it was on a timetable (my cousin was with the 101st Airborne and was ordered to stop in the middle of destroying two Republican Guard tank divisions).

... this is not a war. You can keep calling it that, just like you said there were WMDs, but that doesn't make it so.

that this is a "war," and further that it is, in fact, "winnable."

When you start from false premises, you can come to any conclusion you want.

but *co is giving it a good go

is what he should have added to that...because it is true...

It's a frickin' RW talking point...argghhhhh...:nuke: <----me imploding.

won where the agressor went in unprovoked based on lies..especially in Iraq?