What A Surge Really Means

[jillian]

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

I think it's a worthy opinion piece. And apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan vets thought so, too, since they linked it. Reikoff is pretty good about taking positions only for the benefit of the troops, IMO.

Perhaps the reason military folk are speaking their minds and acting as sources for articles like this is that they think Bush isn't listening to them.

[Gaffer]

I have been reading on here and posting and doing other things and haven't looked at the milblogs yet today but I will see what they have to say. Of course most of the milblogs I read are conservative. Haven't really found any liberal milblogs. But maybe I'm not searching hard enough.

I think its just another Bush basher getting in his shots.

[jillian]

I have been reading on here and posting and doing other things and haven't looked at the milblogs yet today but I will see what they have to say. Of course most of the milblogs I read are conservative. Haven't really found any liberal milblogs. But maybe I'm not searching hard enough.

I think its just another Bush basher getting in his shots.

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

[Kathianne]

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

It looks that others don't see the same as you either? That smilie doesn't really apply here, but it's cool.

[jillian]

It looks that others don't see the same as you either? That smilie doesn't really apply here, but it's cool.

But they didn't misread the article. They just disagree with its premise.

[Kathianne]

But they didn't misread the article. They just disagree with its premise.

I didn't misread, I quoted from.

[Gaffer]

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

Or perhaps they have an agenda. I have NEVER read a liberal forum where they weren't on a Bush bashing binge. And out to make the administration look bad in anywaay posible. And in all the years I have been around I have never seen such a venomus attack on a sitting president in the end of his term. He's in the final two years and they are attacking him like he's running for office. This is why I can't take anything said by the dems seriously. They use iraq as a political football instead of supporting the troops and concentrating on the war with islamists.

I have plenty of things I don't like about Bush, but they are overriden by the poison spit out by the dems.

[TheSage]

They use iraq as a political football instead of supporting the troops and concentrating on the war with islamists.

.

You think bush is serious about the war with the islamists? The Bushes have been in bed with the Bin Ladens for at least two generations now.

I wonder if Bush knows our border is wide open. Any president serious about an external threat would SURELY close the border.

[Evil]

You think bush is serious about the war with the islamists? The Bushes have been in bed with the Bin Ladens for at least two generations now.

I wonder if Bush knows our border is wide open. Any president serious about an external threat would SURELY close the border.

Spent much time over the past year reading up on all the good conspiracy stuff did ya? Hey, did ya know the Bush also coordinated the attack of 911 as well?

[TheSage]

Spent much time over the past year reading up on all the good conspiracy stuff did ya? Hey, did ya know the Bush also coordinated the attack of 911 as well?

Let's just debate policy. Border: Important or not? Closed or open? Economic issue or security issue?

[retiredman]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".

[TheSage]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".

It's global fascism or bust.

[Gunny]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".

The left never seems to be able to legitimately question this "new strategy" WITHOUT "bashing Bush."

Matter of fact, the people actually legitimately questioning it on this board are on the right. Obviously, it isn't as much a problem as you think.

[retiredman]

the strategy is flawed, in my opinion, and would be so if John Kerry or John Kennedy or FDR were proposing it. The fact that it comes from a guy whose administration has a pretty incredible record of missteps regarding Iraq is another story entirely.

[Gunny]

the strategy is flawed, in my opinion, and would be so if John Kerry or John Kennedy or FDR were proposing it. The fact that it comes from a guy whose administration has a pretty incredible record of missteps regarding Iraq is another story entirely.

What strategy would that be?