Results 31 to 45 of 142

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Road
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default What A Surge Really Means

    IAVA Blog
    January 5, 2007
    Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
    Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

    Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

    By MICHAEL DUFFY

    Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
    For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

    *More*

    http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408
    Last edited by jillian; 01-07-2007 at 01:20 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums