20,000?????

[OklahomaTuba]

This is insane. 20,000 isn't a surge, its a drop in the bucket of what we probably need over there.

If Bush isn't going to exert the effort to try to win this damn thing, then whats the God damn point!!!?!??!!

:mad:

[BoogercountySooner]

Lets make it our 51st state!

[jk the sooner fan]

in terms of what levels different units are manned at, it is a bit of a surge

just my opinion

but without having all the details of his plan.....the few leaks we're reading about seem fair and prudent

[OklahomaTuba]

in terms of what levels different units are manned at, it is a bit of a surge

just my opinion

but without having all the details of his plan.....the few leaks we're reading about seem fair and prudent

Not a Korean war or Vietnam war type of surge, but I guess you are right it is one. I just want to see some major action take place.

I just am getting so sick and tired of this thing dragging on with no resolution while we seem to ignore the problems that Sadr and Iran are giving us. Its hurt everyone involved including Bush and he seems content to just stand there and take it for no obvious reason. Wheres the fight in him? Has he just been beaten down so bad theres no energy left in him??

War shouldn't be fought with one hand tied behind the back. We need to start kicking some Mahdi *** like we are doing with the AQs and start holding Iran responsible for conducting out right war against us.

[jk the sooner fan]

what seems most important to me, is that the ROE is going to change significantly

i dont know those changes are, but if W. is serious about making a difference over there, thats a KEY doctrinal change

i just hope its done in a way that gives them what they need

we'll see

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

At least he's not caving to the media arm of the dims...yet.

[bri]

At least he's not caving to the media arm of the dims...yet.

Thanks for that well-thought-out contribution to the discussion.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thanks for that well-thought-out contribution to the discussion.haha

[jk the sooner fan]

i'm fairly certain the ROE is more complex than it needs to be.....simplify it, make it aggressive and turn them loose

if the Iraqi government can get some time where they arent always on the defensive.....regroup where they can go on the offense, then i think it has at least a chance

[Czar Soonerov]

Here I thought Tuba reach 20k posts. What a disappointment. :O

[OklahomaTuba]

Here I thought Tuba reach 20k posts. What a disappointment. :O

We all can't be JK. ;)

[SoonerProphet]

Humpty-Dumpty ain't going back together again...20,000-300,000, it won't matter.

[OklahomaTuba]

Humpty-Dumpty ain't going back together again...20,000-300,000, it won't matter.

Its an egg that we shouldn't be putting back together really. The Kurds are happier than pigs in shiat and much better off then before we went in there.

[BoomerJack]

I've heard a couple of different interpretations about this. Does G. Dub want to send an additional 20,000 OVER AND ABOVE the, what, 140,000 already there? Or is it a "repositioning" so-to-speak of 20,000 of the number already there? I've heard both mentioned by the talking heads over the last several days.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The Democrats are going to fight him tooth and toe nail to not send these 20000. I would be shocked if they ever get there really

[jk the sooner fan]

how can they stop him?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I actually forgot they can't do anything...well that is good news!!! However...The Dems continue to show they don't get it at all

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10capitol.html?ei=5065&en=43a3f1448e55872c&ex=1169096400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan

By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
Senate Democrats (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/edward_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).
The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
The office of Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per), speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.
In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.
The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.
“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_r_jr_biden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”
The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.
While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.
They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.
Video

var m_appUrl = 'http://graphics10.nytimes.com/feedroom/nytc3/shell.html'; var m_skinType = 'oneclip'; // or sectionfront or oneclip var m_storyId = '324390a0726395a4e5cb3f1b26c4471d0055cb04'; // must be set to empty string if not used var m_channelId = ''; // must be set to empty string if not used // NYTC - Begin generic embed code for the three skins try { switch (m_skinType) { case "oneclip": m_width = 336; m_height = 376; break; case "front": m_width = 337; m_height = 446; break; case "sectionfront": m_width = 395; m_height = 355; break; default: // default to oneclip m_width = 336; m_height = 376; } m_appUrl = m_appUrl + "?" + "skin=" + m_skinType + (m_channelId.length > 0 ? "&fr_chl=" + m_channelId:"") + (m_storyId.length > 0 ? "&fr_story=" + m_storyId :""); var ifrPlayer = ""; document.write(ifrPlayer); } catch (jsErr) { document.write(''); }
“We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/harry_reid/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”
On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.
In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/john_w_warner/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”
But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mitch_mcconnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said.
The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats’ plans. “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real,” he said Tuesday night.
On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/condoleezza_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per) are among those who have agreed to testify.
Senator Carl Levin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/carl_levin/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bush’s plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq.
“We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country,” Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. “We can’t save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.”
Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.
“We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/mary_landrieu/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of Louisiana.
Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents.
“Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/martin_t_meehan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. “Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.”

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, we need to get rid of the Mehdi "army". Can't have a group of thug religious militia type to stay with arms to destabilize any legitimate government. But I truly believe, that most of the A-Rabs couldn't govern themselves out of a wet sack.. They are so used to being led and look out for by monarchs/tribe leaders, they have no clue how to govern themselves or how to act as a self-governing people.

If the Brits or French thought they could do it, do you think they would have used that model when they set up these "countries" after WW1 in order to negotiate oil contracts back then? That's why they used the monarch approach...

[jk the sooner fan]

a symbolic vote......you know, thats a dangerous road to travel down with your own voting base....it screams "we voted you into office to change things and this is what we get?"

they'd be better off being a part of the solution

I watched meet the press sunday and i thought Lindsay graham was excellent....and while Biden disagreed with the new plan, at least he understood it was unconstitutional to withhold funding from the "standing army"

[OhU1]

This is insane. 20,000 isn't a surge, its a drop in the bucket of what we probably need over there.

If Bush isn't going to exert the effort to try to win this damn thing, then whats the God damn point!!!?!??!!

:mad:

Agreed that 20,000 is not that much. Symbolic maybe.

"...exert effort to try to win this damn thing.." Win what? What are we trying to win. When do we know we've "won"? When we win when will I get my Iraq war prize?

[Hatfield]

actually agree with tuba on this one. 20K is nothing more than a dog and pony show Bush is putting on at this point.

until our "goals" are better defined we shouldn't be throwing an insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) number into harms way.

[jk the sooner fan]

how many would make a difference then? if 20K is just a "dog and pony" show and wont have any effect

then whats the right number.....please, do tell

[Hatfield]

did i say it wouldn't have any effect?

how about i retort with something equally as innocuous as asking you to provide what our goal/mission/plan is that will be completely fulfilled with 20k troops.

[OhU1]

As this is a war not a football game how do we know when we've won? What do we get when we win? Maybe we've been in overtime since the "Mission Accomplished" speech due to an overturned call by the refs.

[OklahomaTuba]

how many would make a difference then? if 20K is just a "dog and pony" show and wont have any effect

then whats the right number.....please, do tell

We had half a million liberate Kuwait.

I wonder how many we have in Germany, protecting them from the USSR.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All tax dollars should be spent on social welfare programs. The he*l with national defense...and this isn't even national defense at all. It's just blood for oil, and contracts for Haliburton. They should just go ahead and de-fund the whole war effort-too expensive, after all.

[jk the sooner fan]

did i say it wouldn't have any effect?

how about i retort with something equally as innocuous as asking you to provide what our goal/mission/plan is that will be completely fulfilled with 20k troops.

no, you agreed it was a dog and pony show

unless you consider dog and pony show's effective.....then set me straight