Has Bush really not heard of 'broken' army?

Another example of how this President believes the buck stops with everyone else but him.

THIS is why he shouldn't be celebrating at holiday party photo opp's, or making Barney videos.
He can't multi-task.

"The truth will cleanse your soul"

My guess is that Republicans,McCain,McConnell,Old Man Bush,etc.,finally had a heart to heart with little bush,and explained bluntly,that if he didn't change course,there would be no guarantees from his own party,that once the Dems started investigations,he was on his own.

So,instead of worrying about your legacy,worry about getting thru the next two years,and killing any hopes R's had of winning in 08.

"And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people"

There it is. The new tack. He has turned this war into a disaster......but the new speak will be that it's the democrats fault because they won't sgree on whatever rubbish the republicans
come up with to try and fx it. More troops? Against the experts and general's advice?

c.morris - I'm thinking that although I agree with you that he can't multitask; perhaps the safest place for him is to be partying and making Barney videos - at least we know what he's doing and keep an eye on him.

I am constantly amazed by the inability of this man to admit he (and his entire administration) made a unforgivable mistake. This malady has taken 3000+ young Americans away from friends and family.

This needs to stop now---NO MORE TROOPS, and bring our Fathers, Mothers, Sons and Daughters home NOW.

I think it's time we stop electing our leaders and start hiring them. If Bush was a CEO he would clearly be fired. Unfortunately he gets to keep his job like the daily weathermen who gets it wrong most of the time but unlike them people die under his direction.

As he rambles, Americans continue to die. He and Cheney should be impeached in January when the Dems take over. The cost in lives and treasure is unconscionable.

"Broken Army?"

How about "small" Army. This nation of 300 million has an Army of 750,000, only a third of which are combat soldiers.

And what can you do with a small, hi-tech Army? Kill targets you can see with efficiency, but not really hold much ground.

Our problem has been the same since Vietnam. Our military leadership has lost the concept of a "front line". In past wars, the "enemy" was on one side of the "front line", while the other side was mostly safe ground for our troops.

But since our military strategy leaves the borders to Iran and Syria wide open, there are no "front lines" except for the 360 degree circle around every solider or base camp.

Perhaps there are always "front lines": the ones either in front of you or all around you.

Iraq can be won rather easily. Send more troops, seal off some borders, isolate some problem towns, and the insurgency (without a steady flow of supplies and conscripts from Iran and Syria) will die off.

Until then, we have a problem. But I'd hardly say our Army is "broken". (I don't see them routing.)

I would say the Leftists in our nation are broken, and always have been. Heck, I heard some of them throwing in the towel right after 9/11. Those folks will make find serfs under Islamic domination, if the latter ever happens.

Bush said today in his press conference that we're going to have to find a way to build up the Army and Marines. Hmm, does anyone else feel a DRAFT? How much longer are we going to let him get away with this? Impeach him, already!

...It`s unbelievable what we have allowed this man to do with our country, our military, our economy, our world reputation and not only our future, but the future of the world. It`s way past time to put a stop to his total ruination of America and other parts of the world.......WS

This President doesn't really care about the Military. It shows in his actions. They are nothing more than a tool to be used to obey the orders he gets from his corporate masters. There is blood on all your hands, for no good cause other than greed.

This is why we need to get rid of the electorial college. Democracy is of the people, by the people, and the people voted for Al Gore, hey why is this lunatic president, again?

"I agree with no more troops need to go. Bring them back home NOW. Familys are in morning and it is going to be much harder on them now that Christmas is around the corner. We truly need to worry about our problems and fix our situations here first and foremost."

Are we all not listening to what is being said? There are very powerful people caling for a reinstatement of the DRAFT. With our pentagon, generals, military advisers etc.. saying that our military is "broken" what do we think the outcome will be? Throw more money at the problems? The military manpower quotas are being filled by lowering the standards for entry. When the standards can not go any lower and still fill the quotas then what!!! Pay close attention to what is not being said. We need to be very careful to avoid allowing the draft to begin.

Not winning but not losing either? Then what exactly ARE we doing? We're tied? Stalemate?

As for 'growing' the Army and Marine Corps, where the hell does he think the extra soldiers will come from? The military can't meet its recruiting goals now because of Iraq; it's forcing people to remain long after their legal contracts to serve have ended, it's calling up people who finished their service, it's press-ganging the National Guard into combat leaving cities and states vulnerable to disasters (Katrina, anyone?), and sucking the Reserves dry. Who the hell is going to volunteer to serve in that kind of chaos and mismanagement.

And if Congress shows any backbone at all, I'm sure he'll be tossing the insults again: appeasers, cut-and-runners, terrorist sympathizers, yada yada yada.

And oh yeah, who's going to pay for all this? Not Bush and his wealthy class of contributors and lobbyists. And not their grandchildren either because they'll inherit the wealth and therefore all the tax breaks that go with it. It'll be the children and grandchildren of the rest of us, including the families left behind by the soldiers Bush has fed into the meat grinder of Iraq for his own vainglory.

mjjp - EXCELLENT idea!

I will let the rest of the public decide and write what they think of Pres. Bush, I am just writing to let you know that the word Marine is always capitalized!!

it is a sad state of affairs, no doubt.

scariest part of this article was the unchallenged claim that America : a) thinks it CAN and b) INTENDS .... "to militarily secure Middle Eastern oil fields for the sake of the global economy" if need be!!!

Wow, now there's an incredulous statement.

Do the world a favour, America. Don't help make it a better place to live. I'm not sure we can survive.

An intellectual would be able to logically present this news to the public and not inject their own personal emotions. Spear-heading articles directed in this manner neither educates or informs, and I am sorry that you carry a position with this newspaper. Why don't you place yourself in the position of controlling sectarian violence in a foreign country. This is a delicate matter, and I find the fact that our president is living up to his responsibility inspiring. and before you ask, I spent for years in the special forces. What have you done for your country?

Oh Frankie James, I know as a committed, unable to be objective reporter leftist, comprehension and understanding are WAY beyong your grasp. So I will try and write so even a first-grader can understand. The Army is NOT broken. No one has said the Army is broken, except for ilk like yourself. Schoomaker warned the Army "WILL break" if not increased in size. He DIDN'T say "it's broken," or "one the verge of breaking."
Can you and the rest of the left wing loon faction understand and comprehend that? I doubt it.

I haven't heard the word "broken," but I've heard the word "stressed." - Bush

And this sums up the true function of the parser in chief. This is a war of concepts and words-- between Bush's own dim thinking and reality. Unfortunately, real people continue to die while Bush plays word games.

Karl has trained Bush well on the avoidance of certain terminology. To use the words of your critics, according to Karl, insinuates sensitivity to them. And we all should know by now, sensitivity translates to defeat in Republican thinking.

In Bush world, to merely use the word "broken" is an admission of defeat and defeat implies responsibility. Having lived a life completely devoid of responsibility, to Bush, these concepts are not only foreign but repugnant.

1- Equipment is breaking down or broke down
2- Three to Four Deployments
3- Troops with Mental problem back on the front
4- Chain of Command broken
5- Bone tried Troops
6- Returning troops not getting their Education benefit
7- Returning troops being put on waiting list for health care
8- One out of four with PTSD
9- One out of three who faced an IED suffer from some sort of brain injury
10- Your Republican do-nothing- Congress has every department working on last years budget they have them on a CR
11- The VA is only on a CR
12- Military Families doing without
Yes Mr. President you and Rumsfeld have broken the Military and the VA great job
9-

We did not start this! They chose to crash into the WTC and kill thousands of our fathers, mothers, children, wives, husbands, and friends. Are we forgetting this? What is Bush supposed to do? Say, "Oh That's OK!?" Then sit back and wait for the next big bummer to happen because it undoubtedly will. Everyone wants to complain about Bush, but do they think they have a better plan? If so, I have some land for sale!Please contact me.

These questions are not just of national US importance but also for the rest of the world. In the last election it is estimated that 300 million Europeans would have voted against Bush. Perhaps the US President would take the world's interests into better account if they also had to face the global electorate they affect with their actions.

"we need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war, and this ideological struggle..."

Somewhere, plans for restoring the military draft are on the table. I'm hearing that the registration will remain effective until at least age forty.

the devil is in the details. bush's answer reminds me of ken lay who infamously proclaims that he doesn't know the details since he trusted his people, so to speak. and for that, ken lay squandered away billions of dollars. shame on bush to take that approach, and for that, not only hundreds of billions have been squandered away (so far), but thousands of american lives have vanished, not to mention the lost lives in iraq. how could a so-called "war time leader", or "commander-in-chief" be so darn ignorant?!?!?! how could the american people have stood by this airhead?!?!?!

What G.W. Bush says isnt highly relevant, he's the not the "Deciderator" as he said, he's the speech-maker, speeches written by Rove, Cheney, Iraq Viceroy James Baker & others of the GOP hi command.

Since the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group said the Iraq situation is "grave and getting worse," Cheney's and Gates' options are limited.

They are also limited by the Army that's breaking, the huge and mounting debt to Red China and other foreign creditors, the loss of credibility of this admin, the divisions in the USA govt on Iraq Policy, and the empowerment of USA's adversaries like Iran, Syria, the resurgent Talian in Afghanistan, and our partner in economic co-dependency, China.

The IraqNamQuagmire has been a bleeding sore for all involved, and the USA cant take it anymore:

As in the VietNamQuagmire, begin a phased withdrawal. I think the Saudis and Iranians have also been sobered by the Iraq debacle and will not want to foment much more chaos there for fear of it spilling over into their fragile societies.

Blah blah blah... Bush Lied People Died. No War For Oil. It is amazing how quickly the Bush Haters and Anti-war crowd can jump in and pile on to Bush any chance they get, regardless of the specific topic.

On the specific topic, it is funny how everyone knows what he is planning on doing (more troops, etc.) when he hasn't even announced the new strategy. If you all had waited another 10 minutes you could have listened to him say just that.

The question posed was, is our army broken. The real question is, what will it take to fix it?

I believe that we Americans have become spoiled by the prospect of "video game wars": played out on television over a few days with Tomahawk missiles flying thousands of miles, while we (and our troops) sit relatively safe at a distance. Clinton believed in all of the same things Bush does on the topic of Iraq (read his speeches in 98 if you don't believe me). The difference is, all his was willing to risk to accomplish his objective was a few million in weaponry.

Iraq is a minor skirmish in a much larger war. There is no magic pill or secret weapon that can fly across the ocean and figure out who is innocent and who is willing to take their own life in order to stop the "evil America". It is going to take innocent lives, on both sides, before this war is over. The alternative is to become isolationists, sit back and sip our lattes, while people living in poverty, worrying about if they will survive another day, are drawn into the philosophy that their plight is due to the fat, dumb, and happy American way of life.

You don't have to believe Bush, and you cetainly don't have to believe me. Listen to the words out of the mouths our enemies. I, for one, would rather not wait for them to succeed.

No one has said the Army is broken, except for ilk like yourself. Schoomaker warned the Army "WILL break" if not increased in size. He DIDN'T say "it's broken," or "one the verge of breaking."

JohnD....you are the perfect example of why the word game is so important to the polititions.
Since first-grade is what you prefer...I'll stick to that. Your front door will break if you don't fix it. Is your front door broken?

Thank you Southern State for help in electing this genius of a man. Because you fell for his “bible” chorizema, many families in America will not see there love one this holiday season, but wait there is always the Barney video to cheer them up. Thank you.

And now we are told that sending thirty or forty thousand soldiers to Iraq is going to what...? Get more young Americans slaughtered while our President sleeps fitfully?

As a Vietnem Vet I think out military people have it worse than I did. I attribute that to the JERK they have for a commander & chief. I'm not leaving out Rumsfeld.He is equally liable for and directly screwing up all our military.

judging by news reports and anecdotal stories from career military people, military recruiters are already scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with their quotas. and the pentagon's made the barrel a little bigger by allowing older and older recruits to join up. somewhere there's a betting pool trying to come up with odds on the first vietnam vet to re-up, the first korean vet, the first WWII vet, etc. it's just ridiculous.

if the nation needs a larger military, so be it. but the way to do it is as has always been done- we need to reinstate the draft. for better or worse. and it better be fair and equitable- EVERY healthy 21 year-old goes into the draft lottery, both men and women.

Who cares what Bush thinks? This is not a dictatorship, or is it? He has proven himself the Murphy’s Law of presidents. When 2 equal options arise Bush will always pick the wrong one. Please Congress and the Senate stop our delusional figure head.

MORE troops? NO! How about impeachment? Let's all get together and blame someone for this incredible debacle; it'll do us good and W is my choice in '07, maybe he'll start naming names and we can have another one of those GOP Saturday Night Massacres.

I am thoroughly amazed when idealogues pretend to know what is what in Washington DC, a town corrupt on both sides of the aisle and ALL elected officials so far out of touch that if they ever knew what we citizens face in our daily lives they have long forgotten. Everyone comments here about our service members because they hate our President and some well meaning, patriotic private in the sands of a foreign country reads that his fellow citizens think he is incompetent and feels abandoned and forgotten.

It's news to me that the army is broken...

As an ex army officer and veteran of the first "Gulf War", it saddens me to see that President Bush is so out of touch with the sentiments of the American public and the war in Iraq.

I suggest that President Bush read "On War" by Carl Von Clausewitz. Clausewitz observed that nations need three things to wage a successful war, the backing of the military industrial complex, clearly identified and obtainable objectives and the will of the people.

The smartest thing the American army did after Vietnam was to make "On War" required reading for its officers. Too bad that we can't make it required reading for our Commander in Chief.

I think we should just go home. There isn't anything important going on in that region of the world...

Al Qaeda on Israel / Palestine...

"Those who try to liberate Muslim land through elections ... will not liberate one grain of sand of Palestine," al-Zawahiri said in video footage aired first by the Arab-language Al-Jazeera television network.

"Their efforts will only result in creating a reversion to jihad and will negatively affect the [current] struggle of mujahedeen," al-Zawahiri said.

------

Iran on US...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has predicted that Britian, Israel and the United States would eventually disappear from the world like the Egyptian pharaonic kings.
"The oppressive powers will disappear while the Iranian people will stay. Any power that is close to God will survive while the powers who are far from God will disappear like the pharaohs," he said Wednesday, according to Iranian news agencies.

"Today, it is the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime which are doomed to disappear as they have moved far away from the teachings of God," he said in a speech in the western town of Javanroud.

"It is a divine promise."

I think the interesting thing in all of this there is but one commentor that doesn't disagree that Bush has failed this country. 2 years ago you would have actually had half the group trying to defend Mr. Bush. Now it's more than self-evident he is nothing but a disgrace to the entire country, regardless of your party affiliation. IMPEACH the bastard.

The ARMY isn't broken, nowhere close to it! It's the best in the world, no one else comes close. The LEADERSHIP, particularly the leadership at the very top, has proven itself worthless. A ship with a lunatic at the wheel doesn't do you much good, no matter how powerful it may be.

There is no front line becasue its the only way a group of people can fight such a high tech military, to nickle and dime us. If we "create" a front line of troops as Texican suggests that DOES NOT mean the enemy will do the same. That is a short sighted veiw of military interaction and continues to leave our troops out in the open fighting for their lives and nothing else. Bottom line, this war started over lies. Troops are not being taken care of. Iraqis know we are not there for them.

The insurgency will not stop as long as Iraqi people are not secure that they will be designing thier country and not the US. Start putting yourself in their shoes and then start talking about policy.

Greetings Folks,

This is another example of Mr.President being in a State of Denial. Hats off to the reporters doing all the good work.

Regards,
Asad Mohammed

Michael,

"In the last election it is estimated that 300 million Europeans would have voted against Bush."

Here's a few back at ya...

"In the last World War, it is estimated that hundreds of million Europeans would be speaking German if not for the US."

Or how about this...

"In the past few decades, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands would be dead, if not for the compassion of the US."

I don't give a DARN what European voters think. They are letting radical factions run pseudo governments within their own territory. We all know how well appeasement works (or did we all forget???)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

The British and French governments followed a policy of appeasement in order to avoid a new European war. This was partially due to doubts about the willingness of their populations to fight another war so soon after the huge death tolls of the first World War. This policy culminated in the Munich Agreement in 1938, in which the seemingly inevitable outbreak of the war was averted when the United Kingdom and France agreed to Germany's annexation and immediate occupation of the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain declared that the agreement represented "peace in our time". In March 1939, Germany invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, effectively killing appeasement. ... The failure of the Munich Agreement showed that deals made with Hitler at the negotiating table could not be trusted and that his aspirations for power and dominance in Europe went beyond anything that the United Kingdom and France would tolerate. ... France signed an armistice with Germany on June 22, 1940, leading to the direct German occupation of Paris and two-thirds of France, and the establishment of a neutral (but pro-German) state headquartered in southeastern France known as Vichy France.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

We did not start this! They chose to crash into the WTC and kill
Posted by: Margie Renchin | Dec 20, 2006 10:20:54 AM

How many Iraqi's were involded in the attack?
I know...they were all dark skin, muslim, and
their names had a lot of the same letters as did the real attackers.

I don't know who Frank James is, but he might need to go back to junior college. His logic is unbelievable-literally. By taking statements out of context and presenting partial information he builds his case. I worry about the readers who can't see this and because of their prejudices jump on the Bash Bush Bandwagon. Where have all the critical thinkers gone?

Margie, Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC. If Bush had stopped with Afghanistan and gone after the people who really did fly the planes into WTC he would have been okay.

This is another example of Mr.President being in a State of Denial. Hats off to the reporters doing all the good work.
Posted by: Asad Mohammed | Dec 20, 2006 10:47:48 AM

I smell winger!!!

"And what can you do with a small, hi-tech Army? Kill targets you can see with efficiency, but not really hold much ground.

Our problem has been the same since Vietnam. Our military leadership has lost the concept of a "front line". In past wars, the "enemy" was on one side of the "front line", while the other side was mostly safe ground for our troops."

Texican,

They call it 'servicing the target' these days, I think.

In Vietnam, Westy tried the 'attrition' strategy on the NVA. His theory was to never try to hold territory, but to inflict casualties of such magnitude that the VC and NVA would lose the will to regroup and fight. Many a firebase was created to be bait for the NVA. They hoped to draw in three battalions or so of NVA, then evac. the base just ahead of the Arc-Light strike.

It didn't work. The NVA had thousands of underground bunkers that could shelter whole battalions. High speed trails to get out of the way.

I smell this strategy in Iraq, what with the green zone, and retaking the same towns repeatedly.

Blaming the 'left' for this fiasco is pretty weak, by the way. Get a picture of President George for the blame.

"We did not start this! They chose to crash into the WTC and kill thousands of our fathers, mothers, children, wives, husbands, and friends. Are we forgetting this? What is Bush supposed to do? Say, "Oh That's OK!?" "


It is amazing how acceptable this racism has become. One group of crazy brown people from a completely different area of the world attacks us, and you want to somehow use that to justify our invasion of a completely different country? Why, because the people are brown also? Astounding. The fact that Iraq and Sadaam were actually ENEMIES of the organization that attacked us on 9/11 still doesn't mean much, I guess. Just come out and say it, "Muslims attacked us, so we are at war with Muslims." I wonder what your reaction would have been to the Tim McVeigh attacks, had you not been the same religion or race as he.

Bush has basically screwed up every simple task presented to him. I'll take anyone else at this point. With Bush, you have a guarantee that he'll do a terrible job, with anyone else, at least you have a 50/50 chance.

"Where have all the critical thinkers gone?"

Gwendolyn, certainly not into the Bush Administration.

Margie Renchin you still don't understand that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks? I find that hard to believe.

Please understand Iraqis didn't start anything. But about 100k of them are now dead, a large number of them killed by american bombs and guns. The ones that are left alive hate your guts (I'm Canadian, thank God!). How much do they hate you? For many of them, probably enough to blow up anything american. The Iraq invasion is a cause of terrorism, not a cure.

As a European, I am finally having some faith in the US restored by the above comments.
For too many years we have not heard anything bad said about your current president, from your press your people.
Many of you will say what business are these comments from a European, but this guy has screwed with the whole world and made it a more dangerous place for us all to live in.
You have all let this man get away with destroying civil liberties (worldwide), invading countries and been responsible for the killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.
I am so heartened by the above comments that it seems finally there is a voice of reason decending from the majority, instead of a minority of your population.
Keep it coming and eventually even Fox News may file a negative (but factual) story about this failed president, politician, businessman and father.

Yours
Mark

Thanks for this author clarifying that the American Army secures the oil producing lands with its might. That is the equivalent of saying that it shackles those countries and then pulls the ropes. Till today I thought those countries were independent and self sustaining.

I hope America is aware that there's an existing movement to IMPEACH Mr. Bush.

The more he speaks, the more it seems America definitively chose the wrong man for the job. Can anyone say "worst President in American history?"

Everyone comments here about our service members because they hate our President and some well meaning, patriotic private in the sands of a foreign country reads that his fellow citizens think he is incompetent and feels abandoned and forgotten.

Posted by: Don Gough | Dec 20, 2006 10:37:09 AM

Hey Van Gogh,you know he might be thinking the same about your President. You know,like what are we doing here? You know,waiting for the Prez to come up with a new plan.You think?

Since we don't have the courage to impeach the jerk for all the wrongs he has committed, I propose the following. Take up a collection to give to some lady who is willing to perform oral sex on him and then we'll be able to impeach him for sure. He's got to go.

The Mongols had the largest Land Based Empire in the world. Fast moving Cavalry, their main weapon in their armoury was unstoppable. Within a very short time their sphere of influence spread from the heart of Europe in the West to the Pacific Ocean in the East, from the Arctic in the North to the Deserts of Mesopotomia in the South. But within three generations their empire had imploded. This is a classic example of over reach from history.

America should learn from this example. Superior weaponry devoid of ideals can acheive just that much and there is always the certainty of over reach.

Margie, Irag didn't start this, either. There was no connection between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC. The attacks were carried out by Al Quaeda, not by Iraq. That's been published in multiple reports, so the information ought not to be news to you. If you believe that we ought to be thwumping Al Quaeda's butt, I'm behind you 100%, but my opinion is that you and others who argue that we belong in Iraq should be very clear on your logic as to who did what, why we're in that country, what we hope to accomplish, and what our plans are to accomplish those goals. We all ought to be diligent in assessing whether or not that all is working for us (as Dr. Phil might say) and whether a new plan might be needed. My thoughts are that the plans AREN'T working and we need a new plan, but Bush has said many times that "with all due respect, [he] know[s] better." He's the one calling the shots, not me.

The President and his administration had a good start on battling those behind the WTC attacks back in 2001-2002 when they went after Afghanistan. They even made a good start on the reformation of Iraq in spite of the pitifully inaccurate information that Bush used to argue our need to attack that country. He was effective in toppling the government, but that's where the leadership ends. I think he and his administration were unforgivably incompetent in not speculating that there might be a chance the people of Iraq might not line up behind our plans 100% and immediately adopting a democratic government based on ours, and making plans for what to do in that event. It was NOT the fault of "liberal doomsayers" who disagreed openly with the President's policies (if indeed he HAD any real policies to begin with) and the enemy taking heart thereupon, it was the fault of the administration for their lack of imagination and effective leadership.

I lay the blood of the soldiers killed after the end of the Iraq invasion entirely on the shoulders of the President because of his unwillingness and inability to accurately assess his ongoing plan and his need to remain in his world of delusion. He had an opportunity to shape these events meaningfully, and HE, because he wouldn't take an honest look at what was going on, threw it away with both hands and continued for several more years to keep throwing it away. Bush has no one but himself to blame, and someday his God is going to make him answer for it even if we as Americans do not.

As the son of a military officer in the United States Air Force I can see from both sides of this argument. On one side, there is the anti-war group. Some of them are legit-some of these people have lost sons, daughters, fathers, mothers to this war and just want the war to stop. Others are jumping on the band wagon to just use it as another excuse to hate Pres. Bush. Now I personally think that people need to quit bashing Pres. Bush for this war-its the past now-we entered the war, whether you like it or not, we have to finish it. What people SHOULD be arguing about is how to fix the war. Not talking about, oh lets impeach the President. Or look how horrible our President is. Or how did a man like that get into office. No-how bout you put your time to a more efficient use by discussing other alternatives. My father was required to spend almost a year away from me flying F-15's over Iraq-yet you dont see me complaining. If your going to argue about how bad a leader Bush is-at least come up with some alternative plan. The reason why i dont vote Democrat is simply because the other side of the table never gives any alternative ideas (other than completely pulling out-which sorry people, thats not going to solve the problem) for what can be changed. And show some respect-calling the President a bastard is not acceptable, nor will it get your point across.

In Vietnam, we went up against people who knew what they were doing and why... we did not know the answers to either question. Same now in Iraq. We have no chance. Iraq did not do the WMD or the WTC. Get out now and pray for forgiveness.

Texican blames leftist for the nations ills--perhaps rightist who do not know the BASIC facts are the problem. First, the Active Army has a strength of just of 500,000, not 750,000. The administration--not leftists or even Democrats--approved permanent Army strength--before yesterday--was actually 482,000, the other 20,000 to 30,000 were "temporary.". Now the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve total another 555,000, the vast majority of those have been called to duty since 9/11. Second, the nation is NOT at war. The Pentagon is operating on a "peacetime budget." A decision made by the Republican Adminstration and Congress. The war is paid for by extra supplemental funds, which can not pay to rebuild the equipment of the Army and Marines destroyed by years of operation in rugged overseas environments. If you are going to comment--know your facts.

Here's my plan:

Apologize to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world and get the hell out of there.

Impeach, remove from office, hand the whole lot of them over to the Hague for war crime trials. That's pretty much the only way we're ever going to get anyone to listen to us anymore.

Oh, and ban the Republican Party.

bill r,

Yeah, you hit on it all right. Bush&Co knows it can't fix the mess it created in Iraq. Now it is just posturing to shift the blame on someone else.

If you'd only supported us in sending in (fill in the blank) more troops we could have fixed that little problem in the Middle East in a jiffy.

So let's do a quick review so we know where we stand:

1.9/11 is Clinton's fault even though it happened 9 months into your watch and despite the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda didn't seem to concern you at the time.

2.We invaded Iraq and took our eye off the ball (Bin Laden) because of WMD's (nope), Hussein tied to 9/11(nope), a democratic Iraq will stabilize the whole middle east and all it's neighbors will rush to emulate them (maybe in some neocon fantasy).

3. O.K., so maybe things didn't quite go as well as Rummy promised but, you know, "stuff happens". The important thing is, our strategy is sound (you have strategy?)our end-game is clear(not!), and if you could just indulge us the luxury of a few more troops, we'll make it all better (really?).

This president and his ship of fools is beyond pathetic. Bush&Co is like the down-on-his-luck, addicted gambler (only he's gambling away lives and the nation's treasury). Just give me a few more chips (men), and I can win it all back.

But guess what Jr.?, you can't win back the 3,000 U.S. lives you've surrendered, or the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives that have been taken. You can't restore the limbs, or the lives of soldiers you've committed to your neocon folly.

And you know what else? You don't finance wars by giving tax breaks to the rich. Someone, but not you certainly, will have to pay for this war and it could amount to trillions (that's a lotta chips, even for you W).

Yeah, you've done a heck of a job Georgie!

There will be no draft. The shallow, selfish, and cowardly yammering about a draft have no need to fear they'll be taken away from the Nintendo Wii or Play Station video games.

Those of us in the military want nothing to do with draftees. Draftees would be more prone to being fragged by volunteers than hurt by any OPFOR.

The last thing any volunteer in the military wants is to be in the ranks with unmotivated, whinning draftee who doesn't want to be there.

Grow up people.

I read these comments and am reminded about a statement by Gen'l Robert E. Lee. After reading a Richmond paper editorializing against his military leadership Lee quipped that the Confederacy was ill served since none of it's best Generals were actually in the Army, but worked for newspapers instead.

How many of the people here screeching that the Army is "broke" are actually in the Army? How many of you are in the military or have done a tour in Iraq?

I'm a Navy Seabee, my son is a Marine, my son in law is a paratrooper in the 82nd, and my daughter is a medic in the National Guard. I know of what I speak, unlike the crowd here. Here's the deal: we fight in Iraq so that Islamofascist terrorists don't have to be fought in the streets of NYC or Chicago. Sure, go left, pull our troops out of Iraq and repeal the Patriot Act. When the Islamofascists attack NYC, Boston, Chicago, or San Fransisco after that: don't call us. Many of us would have gotten out of the military after that. You'll have to draft your blue state sons to go fight for your blue state cities, or surrender. The war on terror is a one time deal. We fight to keep you folks safe, but if you are to meek, to scared of sacrifice, to afraid of victory; go ahead surrender to the Islamofascists, you're on your own after that.

Reenlistments in the Army and Marine Corps are 105% of targetted goals. We believe in the mission. It's sad that the far left doesn't care to use us as anything other than political footballs.

I don't think our military is broken. It's the people in the administration who have abused it who are broken.

Many other comments to this article are worthy, but those who think that Iraq had something to do with the WTC attack really need to seek out the truth. Mostly Saudis were involved, but no Iraqis. And Saudis were the only ones allowed air transport within the US in the days immediately following the attack. How does that make sense, both immediately and with what's followed in the years since then?

Those who think that we don't have enough troops in Iraq need to understand that tens of thousands of our soldiers are stationed there just to occupy the bases, nothing more. Are they being used to partol the borders to thwart outside insurgents? No. And others are being used over and over again for death defying missions on a daily basis. Either way, the same people are getting deployed over and over again, far beyond what they signed up for. And why?

What was "our" objective in stirring up this mess, in attacking Iraq? To depose an evil dictator? To have access to more oil? To incite a civil war? To create a rallying place in the Middle East for angry militants who have their own agendas for power-grabbing? What mission of ours has been accomplished? And what mission of ours might be accomplished?

How much of our tax dollars have gone into this debacle and at what cost to us at home, as well as those who have lost their lives and limbs, and faces, and nerves, and minds on the "front lines"... and their families and friends? Who has benefited? KBR? Halliburton? Bechtel? Where has all the money gone at a time when we are suddenly deeper in debt than ever before?

Are our troops in Iraq under-supplied? Yes. Why? Do they have adequate care and support from the goventment that sent them there, once they return? Not really. Why not? Are they even adequately trained for winning an urban guirella war in a country where they don't know the language, the customs, or who the enemy is? No. Absolutely not.

There are many many places in the world that have serious problems, yet this administration decided, even before the WTC attacks, that our country should spend hundreds of billions of our own money (that we need) and the precious lives of our soldiers on starting a war in Iraq. Why?

And what of the Iraqi people, the terror they suffer? The hundreds of thousands of their lives lost... whole families, and their torn up country and infrastructure? Do people here (in the US) realize that Baghdad is (was) a modern city? ...one of the oldest in the world, rich in history, with top universities, museums, Arts, hospitals, stores, commerce of all kinds...? Professionals with PHDs in every field, now being slaughtered? And in the more pastoral parts of the country, now littered with radioactive uranium for tens of thousands of years to come... what's the point?

What is the purpose of our military? Do we need it to go into countries and fight sustained wars like this? Is our army broken... the men and women who agreed to put their lives on the line to fight if necessary to DEFEND our country? Is that army broken? And if so, who broke it? Not the Iraqis, I venture to say.

Wow, I can't believe how many people just blindly accept whatever tripe is spoonfed to them. First of all, the author provided a link to the actual interview, and if many of you bothered to read it, you would see that the author has taken a partial statement made by the President, removed the context in which the statement was made, and then fudged the rest of his article to make it sound "good."

I am increasingly disappointed with the way Americans don't even bother to do any research on their own, perhaps even read some actual "think-tank" essays about where we are, and where we're headed. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has lots of good, short articles, and you can find them at www.csis.org

I know it's hard to have an "original" thought anymore, but you could always make up for it by reading as much non-biased, fact-based material as you can. That way, when you read an article like this, you can say, "umm...is there a point to this besides 'I think the President is an idiot'?"

Hooray for freedom of speech! Thankfully, the majority of the media in the United States has devoted their time and attention to showing the successes in Iraq (which are NUMEROUS) and Afghanistan, and indeed the entire Global War on Terror. I'm glad to see they have steered clear of things like highlighting the latest grammatical mistake made by the President, focusing on portions of speeches or comments that can be misinterpreted when taken out of context, Monday morning quarterbacking, talking about the simplicity of the solution to the insurgency in Iraq, and giving us a running body count every single time there is a death . Oh wait...

If you think it's an easy thing to "seal off the borders" of a country, then you are seriously not right in the head.

If you think that someone's pronunciation of a word or the way their accent sounds makes them a moron, then you probably aren't that well-educated yourself.

If you think you can solve the problems of the United States, why didn't you run for city / state / national office? Too much work to do at Wendy's?

First, I think we should revoke the voting privileges of anyone who was stupid enough to vote for GWB the second time.
Secondly, didn't Californians have the right idea when they kicked their Governor out of office just by passing around a petition?
That plan would definately work here, cause Bush Boy has almost no public support left. How can the politicians in Washington ignore the power of the petition? Let's do it!

"Yeah, you've done a heck of a job Georgie!

Posted by: unlettered | Dec 20, 2006 11:34:29 AM"

Unl,

You are smokin' today.

John B., thanks for your right on words and the service of yourself and other family members.

The leftists are losers. They want the U.S. to lose. They hate America.

And Cheryl, your solutions have all the intelligence of a crackhead on more crack.

What is the purpose of our military? Do we need it to go into countries and fight sustained wars like this? Is our army broken... the men and women who agreed to put their lives on the line to fight if necessary to DEFEND our country? Is that army broken? And if so, who broke it? Not the Iraqis, I venture to say.

+++

Umm, actually yes, the purpose of the U.S. military is to "project power overseas" not to be a littoral, defensive force. To talk about "defending the country" does not necessarily mean to "fend off attackers at the borders." In order to ensure that OUR country remains a safe place to live, we have to go where the bad guys are and kill them before they come to us.

No state-sponsored military in the world would try to invade the U.S. because of the fact that we have not only the most powerful military in the world, but we also have a civilian population that is armed to the teeth. It would be an invading army's worst nightmare. So, the states like Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., have to depend on religious zealots and mercenaries (aka al Qaeda et al) to conduct improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, suicide bombings, truck bombings, and other forms of terrorist attacks, and thankfully, our FBI, police, intelligence community, and military have been detecting and neutralizing most of these threats before they get a chance to act.

Zac--Good post and the points you made are true....now get ready to be attacked by these nitwits.
Paulo

Quote from Margie Renchin:
"We did not start this! They chose to crash into the WTC and kill thousands of our fathers, mothers, children, wives, husbands, and friends. Are we forgetting this? What is Bush supposed to do? Say, "Oh That's OK!?" Then sit back and wait for the next big bummer to happen because it undoubtedly will. Everyone wants to complain about Bush, but do they think they have a better plan? If so, I have some land for sale!Please contact me."

Margie, so how many Iraqis were on the planes that flew into the WTC, Pentagon, or the field in Pennsylvania? Was it the Iraqi Shiites? Iraqi Sunnis? Iraqi Kurds? One of Saddam's Revolutionary Guard?

No. No. No. There is no dispute on either side of any argument who was responsible for the suicide plane crashes. It was people loyal to Bin Laden (who were protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan), not people loyal to Saddam Hussein.

There is no documentation of any suicide bombers who came from Iraq prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. Now that America has created a political vacuum in Iraq by deleting one of the only remaining secular (non-Islamic) governments in the middle east in the process, Iraq is now a terrorist hornets nest (although mainly due to a current civil war between Iraq Sunnis and Iraq Shiites). The previous Iraq government and the one who ran it (Saddam) was not good, and had much blood on its hands (not American blood by the way). However, before 2003 it was much better than it is now. Now, there is an Islamic Shiite controlled Iraqi government (one in which certain American political leaders would like to make you believe is a democracy to highlight supposed American successes in the war). Due to the overwhelmingly Shiite population in Iraq, it is safe to say that however all this ends, the Iraq Islamic Shiites will control the Iraqi government, just like in Iran, and will therefore end up a buddy of Iran. Saddam was Sunni, but his government was secular - not Islamic. Big difference. He was an enemy of the Islamic Shiite Iran and the Islamic Sunni Bin Laden. Saddam was also an enemy of America, although a very weak enemy with "no capability" of causing America any physical harm, but only harm to America's psyche due to Saddam's clever rhetoric - similar to a weakened Fidel Castro controlled Cuba, although Saddam had enough regional respect to temper Iran's Middle East influence. What is tempering Iran's regional influence now? The Iraqi Shiite controlled government?

Some agreed before 2003, but everyone should at least agree now, that a weakened Saddam controlled secular "contained" Iraq is obviously better than what is Iraq today and most likely in the future.

Therefore, Iraq is now a whole new ballgame due to the shortsightedness of the ideologues in America who pushed the Iraqi war policy leading up to the 2003 invasion. See this think tank for more info:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
and
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm (note founding members at bottom of this page)

So, for a more accurate representation of "why" we went to Iraq in the first place, please do not confuse the shortsighted reasons for being in Iraq with the more logical reasons we went to Afghanistan.

Now, the Bin Laden backed Taliban is gaining strength again in Afghanistan due to the American ideologue’s distraction in oil rich Iraq.

So, are Bush's priorities really terrorism? If so, he should have taken Afghanistan more seriously by finishing a "more terrorist relevant agenda" there before moving on to Bush's personal projects in Iraq. Or is Bush using terrorism as a cover for a hidden economic agenda in Iraq that is now backfiring (i.e. Oil, Halliburton, removal of the mean guy who was rude to my daddy, etc)?

Oh, by the way, how many "home grown" insurgencies (Vietcong vs. US on Vietnamese soil, Afghans vs. Soviets on Afghan soil, Scots vs. Brits on Scot soil, etc) have ultimately lost in the end? If this is a pattern that plays out true in Iraq, then the US will not win in Iraq regardless of how long the US stays.

Well, "Bo", I think you've done an amazing job of placing yourself high in the standings in the race for "The Most Ill Informed" commentator here. Kudos to you.

1- Voting for GWB makes one "stupid"? Really? This is where the far left jumps the tracks, everything is political and anyone who differs from the far left is either "stupid" or "evil". It is terribly interesting to see people who pontificate on their own intellectual prowess and ability to see many a nuance in various shades of grey all the while demonizing those who reject their conclusions. Perhaps, "Bo", you may wish to consider that not everyone thinks like you do. There may even be people far more intellegent and thoughtful than yourself who find your rhetoric simplistic and irrational.

2- There is no provision in Federal law for a petition of the type you refer to, are you sure you want to call others "stupid" when you advocate a plan that simply has no provision in law for its execution? Seems rather odd doesn't it? Why not demand a law crimminalizing war? That'd solve everything for you wouldn't it?

"Let's do it!"

Right, that would mean you need to step away from the computer games for a while. Real life happens away from the frat house "Bo".

To Margie,

The underlying justification you are using is that the WTC was attacked on 9/11. For your information, Cheney's government was complicit in that false-flag attack. Bush himself said that 9/11 had no connection to Iraq or Saddam. You need to do some research.

"If the U.S. had to militarily secure the Middle Eastern oil fields for the sake of the global economy, the army, and to a lesser extent the marines, would have to hold the ground there"

Did I miss something here? Is the "Three Days of the Condor" scenario now officially on the table? In other words, if some oil-rich (and sovereign) Middle East countries decide to do the 73' oil embargo/ redux and, in turn, this threatens the well being of the world economy, is the U.S. prepared to "handle it" militarily this time? Frank, please clarify.

Quote from TTT:
"As the son of a military officer in the United States Air Force I can see from both sides of this argument. On one side, there is the anti-war group. Some of them are legit-some of these people have lost sons, daughters, fathers, mothers to this war and just want the war to stop. Others are jumping on the band wagon to just use it as another excuse to hate Pres. Bush. Now I personally think that people need to quit bashing Pres. Bush for this war-its the past now-we entered the war, whether you like it or not, we have to finish it. What people SHOULD be arguing about is how to fix the war. Not talking about, oh lets impeach the President. Or look how horrible our President is. Or how did a man like that get into office. No-how bout you put your time to a more efficient use by discussing other alternatives. My father was required to spend almost a year away from me flying F-15's over Iraq-yet you dont see me complaining. If your going to argue about how bad a leader Bush is-at least come up with some alternative plan. The reason why i dont vote Democrat is simply because the other side of the table never gives any alternative ideas (other than completely pulling out-which sorry people, thats not going to solve the problem) for what can be changed. And show some respect-calling the President a bastard is not acceptable, nor will it get your point across."

So, does this mean if I (a lowly paycheck to paycheck 9-5 American) don't know the correct answer to the world's problems, I should stay quiet about the obvious misrepresentations from America's elected leaders?

Sorry, TTT. I respectfully disagree.

The problem is not with me not having an answer. The problem is with the President, the President's staff, Congress, etc, when they don't have answers or lie about their answers.

I don't have a Presidential cabinet to rely on for such decisions. Bush does. Who does Bush answer to when his decisions are wrong? THe scrutiny of the American public.

So, please don't tell me or anyone else in here to shut up about our displeasure with the shortsighted decision making of our elected leaders.

Why do people critize their leader? George Bush has an unbeleivably hard job not only does he have to worry about over sea problems since you could say the us is the head of the UN, but he also has to worry about the saftey and security of every american inside and outside of the united states. I get pissed off when people say impeach the president. Maybe you could impeach him if you took his place and walked a day in his shoes. He takes a lot of crap not only from other political leaders but by his own people. He tries his hardest and if he were to pull out of iraq it would not only show were not able to solve our own problems and would not have our security or bubble of protection at our very own houses. Dont say how he shouldnt be president because YOU VOTED FOR HIM. If you didnt well live with it hes only in for 2 more years. I am not only proud but look up to president bush for his bravery and perserverance. He is able to keep our country safe. After 9/11 we have had absolutley no terrorist attacks. He keeps our transit and streets safe from foreign crime and problems. President Bush is one of the best presidents because of how much hes had to deal with. It just pisses my off when his own countrymen betray him.

I agree with Barney that it is striking to see how few people on here are defending Bush these days. And is it any surprise that Bush cares less about the actually war than he does about how it is going to impact the GOP politically? This is what happens when your policy decisions are made on politics, not principle.

People like the racist woman who believes Iraq is somehow involved in 9/11 (and most likely that we should just eradicate all Muslims) and the loon above who pictures Muslims taking over the streets of Chicago and New York (get a grip, my friend!) sound just as crazy as they are. May you continue to isolate yourself from the world and reality. Thankfully fewer and fewer people are buying idiocies like that these days, which is why I have faith that the U.S. can return to being a respected nation that does good in this world.

I was in Paris and Amsterdam a month after September 11th and will never forget how much people I met empathized with me when they found out I was an American. They were sincerely saddened and united with us and wanted me to know that. One man even thanked me for traveling when there was so much uncertainty about the safety of travel. Bush's biggest failure was to let the Neocons seize the opportunity to link 9/11 to Iraq and finally do what they had been trying to do since before Bush I. Rather than have Europe and the world by our side fighting terrorism, we have gone it alone much to our demise. And it is the troops and their families who are paying.

Any of you military people who defend this man-child of a president need to remember that he is an aristocratic elitist from Northeast blue blood who duped you and this country into thinking he was some Texas cowboy who would be a "compassionate conservative" and the "moral" president you thought you wanted after Clinton. The Monica Lewinsky debacle is looking mighty ridiculous these days, isn't it?

Why we're willing to impeach a president for a private matter involving his sex life and not a president for lying so he could take us to war is beyond me.

But America has awoken, and it feels great. You dont' matter anymore Mr. Bush. Your time is up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

On February 23, 1998, he issued a joint fatwa with Osama bin Laden under the title "World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders", an important step in broadening their conflicts to a global scale.

Ayman al-Zawahiri is the #2 man in al-Qaeda. He is also an Egyptian. He just released a new video statement in which he demands the US "negotiate" with al-Qaeda. Read his wiki entry. The Russians caught him in Chechenya recruiting jihadii's there. The question of whether or not "Iraqis" had anything to do with 9/11 is immaterial. Simple minds think that that is an important point. It is not. Nationalism is not important to our foes. Their identity is tribal. They speak of the Arab nation, there is no significant difference between an Egyptian Arab, a Saudi Arab, and an Iraqi Arab. Islamofascist terrorists are determined to strike the West. Moving into Iraq secured two objectives. First, it deposed a homicidal dictator who has been a terrorizing the region for several decades and was responsible for the deaths of millions (Anfal, Iran-Iraq War, Kuwait, Marsh Arab suppression, et al). Second, it transferred al-Qaeda's front from NYC to Iraq.

What is occuring now is that the Sunnis and al-Qaeda are fighting the Shi'ites with their Mahdi Army first and US forces second. The Saudis are threatening to supply money and supplies to the Sunnis if the US pulls out and Iran is already aiding the Shi'ites. Accomodation of this reality is required. The Sunnis seek to re-establish control over the Shi'ites. The Shi'ites, having been butchered and repressed for centuries under Sunni rule are loath to allow that to happen. We cannot force these two groups to tolerate each others