|
Freedomswatch.org
Contact Officials Sign Petition Invite Friends Support the Troops Contact Us
Blogs
Thursday, December 13, 2007
In the News on December 13, 2007
By Eric Livingston :: 10 Comments :: Email to a friend
 

A USA Today editorial argues that with the recent success of the surge in Iraq, its time to seize the initiative both in Iraq and at home.  In Iraq, political leaders need to take advantage of the relative calm in the security situation to form a more stable and inclusive government - as Secretary Gates and Ambassador Negreponte have recently traveled to Baghdad to encourage.  The editorial also argues that many in Congress are either unwilling or unable to recognize this recent success, and as a result these gains are in jeopardy.

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.

What's needed is acknowledgement that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success.

Stephen Barr in the Washington Post is reporting on Congressional Leadership's plan to avoid furloughs during the holidays for up to 100,000 civilian contractors who work for the military.  Majority Leader Hoyer (D) and Appropriations Chairman Obey (D) have stated that the military can borrow funds from their working capital funds, meaning necessary maintenance and contracts would be delayed, though the Pentagon refutes that this would cover the shortfall.  Instead of forcing the military to choose between maintaining their equipment and bases or laying off their personnel, there is a third option - pass a funding bill this week which gives our troops the financial support they need to complete their mission.

Comments
By keeemosabe @ Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:08 PM
Let us remember that the surge was John Kerry's position during the last presidential campaign. He wanted to ramp it up and finish the job quickly and to surge Iraqi training also. Bush, being Bush, could not bring himself to do anything a political opponent would suggest....just like he wanted to be the Un-Clinton and do nothing Clinton ever did, even if wildly successful.
Pride, arrogance, and unwillingness to hear anything contrary brings down presidents, countries and individuals....Recipe for disaster.

By bathroomboy @ Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:06 PM
Presidential popularity formula:

1. Create a monumental mess

2. Let it fester

3. Clean it up a bit

4. Declare victory

5. Get the hell out

We are at stage 3. I can't wait till we get to 4 and 5.

By Jackson38 @ Friday, December 14, 2007 7:41 PM
OMG, these liberals are falling back on ...wait for it....John Kerry????
We're talking about "John Kerry"?
The man lost an election to George Bush and these dopes are bragging on him?
My God you people really are morons , and yes, I'm still laughing my ass off

By keeemosabe @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:48 AM
for j-38: Excuse me, but you support trained pilot prez who went awol military assignment and pulled strings to hide it? And love your Chickenhawk Cheney, who wangled how many draft deferments?.... 4 or 5? That insults those in uniform.
to radlad: another lapse in your memory? What were you smoking a few years ago...or were you memorizing the Rove talking points?

By keeemosabe @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 3:56 PM
Reply to Radlad @ Friday, December 14, 2007 5:27 PM
>>> All you knuckleheads do is is rewrite history to suit your present. Or I should say argument. <<<

ANSWER: Surely you speak about Karl Rove, who recently said it was Congress who was responsible for getting into the Iraq war earlier than your beloved Bush-Whack-o and ChickenHawk Cheney wanted. It would be funny,,, but this nation is used to this administration's WAR LIES by now and it causes no big reaction anymore. 1984 (the G. Orwell book you never read) all over again.



By evansguy @ Monday, December 24, 2007 1:08 PM
My three page Web-site will tell just what I think
at: http://www.tinyurl.com/205c0

By Radlad @ Friday, December 14, 2007 5:27 PM
keemo in what reality ? All kerry talked about was running away with tail tucked between his legs. All you knuckleheads do is is rewrite history to suit your present. Or I should say argument.

By Jackson38 @ Monday, December 17, 2007 8:48 PM
to Kimo da Chick
I'll post my military record after you astound me with yours........I won't hold my breath.
And is your real name Nancy P?
just askin

By keeemosabe @ Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:39 PM
To Radlad @ Friday, December 14, 2007 5: I'll tell you atory about running away with tail tucked between his legs. Ronald Reagan after the Marine bombing in Lebanon. I have yet to hear a convervapunk criticize hiom for it. Imigine the howls yet today if it had been Clinton. We'd still hear about it daily from your hero LUSH Rim-BAHHHH.



By Pocomaxa97 @ Friday, December 14, 2007 6:01 PM
The troop surge was officially called Operation Law and Order, and it lasted from 14 February 2007 through 24 November 2007. It has been declared a "coalition victory" because the number of overall attacks across Iraq has fallen from a few thousand in a given period to just a few hundred. This is a pyric victory, at best, but let's look at U.S. casualties ...

U.S. forces lost 687 killed and 5,415 wounded in the period from February through November 2006. This is the baseline by which we must compare the "surge." U.S. forces lost 848 killed and 5,172 wounded in the same time period in 2007.

2007 was actually deadlier for U.S. forces than 2006 for the purposes of judging the troop surge. This year did have 82 fewer, overall casualties ... a net gain counts as a victory even though more of our people died? Do the math ... 161 more of our people died during the time of Operation Law and Order compared to the year before! What sort of victory is that for those families?

Total casualties for the war in Iraq currently stand at 3,911 killed and 28,451 wounded. We are no safer now than we were before this war. We are actually less safe. Is it all worth it?

Click Here to post a comment
© 2008 Freedoms Watch | Legal Disclaimers | Privacy Policy

Paid For By
   Freedom's Watch