# Astonishing poll numbers



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

If this doesn't qualify as a vote of no confidence for Bush, nothing does:

https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html

Among other highlights:

-- 54% said the Bush Administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before Bush's invasion.

-- Nearly 60% want our troops home immediately or within one year.

-- 47% said Congress should be directing the war effort in Iraq, compared to 33% who think our Commander in Chief should be directing it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

As I thought and said further up-
"These numbers are the further "tell": About 46 percent of those polled said they approve of how Pelosi is handling her job, down from 51 percent in January. Forty-seven percent say they approve of what the Democratic leaders on the whole have done so far this year.

IMHO that has to be the far left that is mad that Pelosi and Murtha have moderated once they got control - the anti-Steny Hoyer crowd. I've been pleasantly surprised that Pelosi hasn't really done anything and so I would approve of how she's handled it so far."

https://usatoday.printthis.clickabi...3-13-dems-tension_N.htm?csp=34&partnerID=1660


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Certainly, it does prove there is no confidence in Bush. As to why or whether those positions are accurate or how they got to be it really doesn't matter I guess.
> 
> I think the last one is just amazing. Even if you don't like Bush, how anyone could look at our Congress and think they should be directing any war effort is beyond comprehension. That certainly tells me something about those polled or at least I form an opinion on that number. That's just lunacy, IMHO.
> 
> ...


This is just frightening. The politics of the war aside the sheer incompetence with which this comfu is being prosecuted should give overwhelming support to the "anyone but Bush" school.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If this doesn't qualify as a vote of no confidence for Bush, nothing does:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html
> 
> ...


And your point is what? Really, polls and facts are two completely different things.

And for anyone out there claiming that our policy in Iraq is a "failure" or being handled "incompotently" I ask two questions:

1) Do you have some particular expertise in the area or some basis for making these claims and, 2) what is your alternative.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

The idiocy of either the poll design or a plurality of the repsondents is proved by the fact that "47% said Congress should be directing the war effort in Iraq, compared to 33% who think our Commander in Chief should be directing it." Yes, that's what we need war waged by Congress - its staffers, committees and various sub-committees. There was a reason the founders gave war powers to the President........


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And your point is what? Really, polls and facts are two completely different things.
> 
> And for anyone out there claiming that our policy in Iraq is a "failure" or being handled "incompotently" I ask two questions:
> 
> 1) Do you have some particular expertise in the area or some basis for making these claims and, 2) what is your alternative.


Expertise? Bush had to be hounded for OVER A YEAR -- BY HIS OWN GENERALS -- to finally change his tactics in Iraq.

As for your other question, with Bush and Cheney still droning on about the importance of "winning" the civil war of another country, the alternative is exactly what's happening now: Congress is stepping in and putting this ailing horse out of its misery, thankfully before another 58,000 of our kids die for absolutely nothing as they did in Vietnam.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Rocker said:


> The idiocy of either the poll design or a plurality of the repsondents is proved by the fact that "47% said Congress should be directing the war effort in Iraq, compared to 33% who think our Commander in Chief should be directing it." Yes, that's what we need war waged by Congress - its staffers, committees and various sub-committees. There was a reason the founders gave war powers to the President........


Rocker, this is all they have to rely on anymore; polls! They now control the congress and can't even get their act together. In their zeal to win the last election they ramped up the rhetoric beyond their own convictions that now they are paying the price.

FrankDC, then what are the Dems waiting for? Let them do the people's bidding. Cut off funding now! Bring the troops home now! If they really wanted to they could. When the supplemental comes up every Dem flapping his or her gums about how wrong the war is and how its been mis-managed should vote no.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> The idiocy of either the poll design or a plurality of the repsondents is proved by the fact that "47% said Congress should be directing the war effort in Iraq, compared to 33% who think our Commander in Chief should be directing it." Yes, that's what we need war waged by Congress - its staffers, committees and various sub-committees. There was a reason the founders gave war powers to the President........


Huh? Congress was always the only government entity that declares war. But a hoodwinked Congress gave Bush dictatorial war powers in the immediate wake and hysteria of the 911 attacks.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> FrankDC, then what are the Dems waiting for? Let them do the people's bidding. Cut off funding now! Bring the troops home now! If they really wanted to they could.


Not quite. Whatever brake the Democrats fashion on this slow motion train wreck, it has to garner enough Republican votes to override a veto. Fortunately that task is getting easier day by day.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I guess I'm not astonished at all.

I've never been a Bush fan.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Huh? Congress was always the only government entity that declares war. But a hoodwinked Congress gave Bush dictatorial war powers in the immediate wake and hysteria of the 911 attacks.


I didn't make any statement about Congress's ability to declare war; the poll response, stated that a plurality thought "Congress should be directing the war." I take that as meaning the respondents believe Congress should be acting in the place of the Commander-in-Chief, i.e., directing strategy - which would be a terrible mistake.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I didn't make any statement about Congress's ability to declare war; the poll response, stated that a plurality thought "Congress should be directing the war."


That's why I used the word astonishing. I believe it's the first time in U.S. history that a plurality voiced greater confidence in Congress to prosecute a war than a Commander-in-Chief. I think at this point the American people are more interested in simply getting out (as Britain is) with as few additional casualties as possible, and who directs this withdrawal is a secondary issue.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's why I used the word astonishing. I believe it's the first time in U.S. history that a plurality voiced greater confidence in Congress to prosecute a war than a Commander-in-Chief.


Then as I said before every Dem should vote to cut off funding for the war ASAP! So it would appear that the congress is not paying attention to the people either.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> But a hoodwinked Congress gave Bush dictatorial war powers in the immediate wake and _*hysteria*_ of the 911 attacks.


You have a point. People just got a little too wound up after 9/11. Big deal. So what. Three thousand people were incinerated but I agree that the reaction was way overwrought. I mean just look at how fat and happy we were during the 90's when all we did was ignore such threats and didn't have to take seriuos military action. Oh, only to have those heady days back again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Then as I said before every Dem should vote to cut off funding for the war ASAP! So it would appear that the congress is not paying attention to the people either.


And again I say, not quite. More Democrats than Republicans vote in line with the wishes of their constituencies, which means a few more Democrats are going to follow the 21% of us who want our soldiers to stay in Iraq until they "win".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> You have a point. People just got a little too wound up after 9/11. Big deal. So what. Three thousand people were incinerated but I agree that the reaction was way overwrought. I mean just look at how fat and happy we were during the 90's when all we did was ignore such threats and didn't have to take seriuos military action. Oh, only to have those heady days back again.


You bet your Sam Hill the reaction was "way overwrought". It was perhaps the greatest overreaction in U.S. history, but without any question it was the biggest power grab by the Executive Branch in U.S. history, both in foreign and domestic policy.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And for anyone out there claiming that our policy in Iraq is a "failure" or being handled "incompotently" I ask two questions:
> 
> 1) Do you have some particular expertise in the area or some basis for making these claims and, 2) what is your alternative.


Oh please, the failures in Iraq have more to do with honesty and objectivity than they do with strategic expertise. The biggest blunders surrounding post war planning were not because the plan was poor, and it wasn't because they forgot to plan...it was because they were told not to plan!

I think you're selling the American people pretty short.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You bet your Sam Hill the reaction was "way overwrought". It was perhaps the greatest overreaction in U.S. history, but without any question it was the _biggest power grab by the Executive Branch in U.S. history_, both in foreign and domestic policy.


I suppose Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus doesn't mean anything to you. By the way if you understood anything about the way the U.S. Government was set up you'll understand that foreign policy has traditionally been assigned to the executive with the congress having mostly the power to ratify or reject treaties and declare war. I suggest you read the _Federalist._

By the way, has there ever been a instance in U.S. foreign policy that in your eyes was measured?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Spence said:


> Oh please, the failures in Iraq have more to do with honesty and objectivity than they do with strategic expertise. The biggest blunders surrounding post war planning were not because the plan was poor, and it wasn't because they forgot to plan...it was because they were told not to plan!


Excuse me, but did someone force (or even tell) Bush to lie to the American people three days before he invaded, when he claimed there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein still possessed WMDs? Did someone force him to fabricate imaginary uranium sales from Africa, or claim a flatbed trailor was in fact a chemical weapons laboratory? Did someone force him to declare that "we found" banned weapons in Iraq?

Forget bad judgment, the list of outright lies from this man is longer than your arm.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> That's why I used the word astonishing. I believe it's the first time in U.S. history that a plurality voiced greater confidence in Congress to prosecute a war than a Commander-in-Chief. I think at this point the American people are more interested in simply getting out (as Britain is) with as few additional casualties as possible, and who directs this withdrawal is a secondary issue.


I'd guess similar results could have been obtained in mid 1864 when the Civil War was seemingly going so badly, and a failed general, George B. McClellan, felt emboldened to run against Lincoln on an appeasement/surrender Democrat platform.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> You bet your Sam Hill the reaction was "way overwrought". It was perhaps the greatest overreaction in U.S. history, but without any question it was the biggest power grab by the Executive Branch in U.S. history, both in foreign and domestic policy.


See attack of U.S.S. Maine and consequences thereof.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Forget bad judgment, the list of outright lies from this man is longer than your arm.


I'm not sure how much Bush has really known, so it's difficult to use "outright lie" given the evidence.

Additionally his close advisors seemed to be nearly dellusional, so you could argue that they have acted in good faith. Although this proposition is perhaps more frightening than a dishonest one.

But either way you slice it, it's bad for America. We bought into a marketing campaign with disasterous results.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

What I am hearing is this:

Every Dem that voted for the war should be ousted. 
Every Dem that does not whole heartedly pursue ending funding for the war should be ousted.
Lieberman shoud not be allowed to caucus with the Dems (thereby, incidentally, giving control of the Senate back to Repubs).

Money where mouth is time.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> The biggest blunders surrounding post war planning were not because the plan was poor, and it wasn't because they forgot to plan...it was because they were told not to plan!
> 
> I think you're selling the American people pretty short.
> 
> -spence


They had a plan. They were planning for a massive scorched earth policy, they were planning for mass refugees and a humanitarian crisis. Certainly things were happening that were not planned for and that's taken some time to turn around. You could argue that the de-baathification was not a good idea but I'm sure its very easy for you to sit back with such hindsight and boast how everything has gone wrong.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I suppose Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus doesn't mean anything to you.


Lincoln? Are you kidding with this stuff? Kindly remind us, when was Lincoln given the power to invade other countries at will? When did Lincoln attempt to try U.S. citizens before military tribunals even though civilian courts were still operating? When did he attempt to strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship by unilaterally declaring them to be enemy combatants? When did he spy on people's bank records and private conversations? Etc.

If the comparison of Bush to Lincoln wasn't so pathetic it would be downright laughable.



pt4u67 said:


> By the way, has there ever been a instance in U.S. foreign policy that in your eyes was measured?


Sure. In another thread I defended our invasion of Afghanistan. Time will tell if it actually accomplished anything.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> They had a plan. They were planning for a massive scorched earth policy, they were planning for mass refugees and a humanitarian crisis. Certainly things were happening that were not planned for and that's taken some time to turn around. You could argue that the de-baathification was not a good idea but I'm sure its very easy for you to sit back with such hindsight and boast how everything has gone wrong.


Scortched earth? I thought we were going to be greeted as liberators?

I've heard Generals in charge of logistics talk about how they were specifically prohibited from planning for post-Saddam support as it wouldn't be necessary.

I've listened to Senators like Chuck Hagel talk about how he was completely misled by Rumsfeld as to what post Saddam support was in place.

I've listened to those in charge of Congression efforts under Clinton to plan for a post Saddam Iraq have their work (predicting mass looting and chaos) be ignored.

This isn't just a few things not going as planned, it was an intentional gamble. They seemed to believe they could see what others could not. But sometimes the prophet is really just a kook! 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

clothesboy said:


> This is just frightening. The politics of the war aside the sheer incompetence with which this comfu is being prosecuted should give overwhelming support to the "anyone but Bush" school.


Again, Who?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> And your point is what? Really, polls and facts are two completely different things.
> 
> And for anyone out there claiming that our policy in Iraq is a "failure" or being handled "incompotently" I ask two questions:
> 
> 1) Do you have some particular expertise in the area or some basis for making these claims and, 2) what is your alternative.


Great point. And; has anyone else noticed that the new strategy seems to be working?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You bet your Sam Hill the reaction was "way overwrought". It was perhaps the greatest overreaction in U.S. history,


Totally disagree with this. IMHO that's just shameful to say.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Totally disagree with this. IMHO that's just shameful to say.


I'll keep that in mind, next time I see an 86 year-old woman being forced to remove her shoes by a TSA teetsucker.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'll keep that in mind, next time I see an 86 year-old woman being forced to remove her shoes by a TSA teetsucker.


Frank, what would you have done if you were alive during the Civil War or the World Wars where people really suffered. Can you even imagine life in London or St. Petersburg, Russia during WW2?

Removing one's shoes is hardly an imposition or sacrifice. And if; as I do you do not enjoy the security procedures you are welcome not to fly as I do.

As you know, I would rather they nuke a country than make me take off my boots at the airport.

I drastically modified my business so that I was no longer required to fly. Cost me a bundle, but OIA is a disaster and a PITA I'm not willing to suffer. I made my decision after I watched 'some stupid yankee' with Mickey Mouse ears and a metal Lionel train set trying to go thru the scanners. My issue is more with the people that think they are so important they can't check their luggage. I travel for business and I carry on myself, my jacket, and a magazine. People should get over themselves and suck it up for the good of everyone else.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Great point. And; has anyone else noticed that the new strategy seems to be working?


Says who?

Everything I've read indicates the militias have simply gone underground.

-spence


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> See attack of U.S.S. Maine and consequences thereof.


Or the annexation of Hawaii.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Says who?
> 
> Everything I've read indicates the militias have simply gone underground.
> 
> -spence


Spence, militias usually are underground. It's a matter of keeping them there by 1) giving them no reason to come out and 2) making the risk of coming out too high.

For example, there are militias in this country, but the risk to them is so severe that they dare not operate. It's not the mere presence of militias that is the problem, it's militia attacks. Less attacks = a good thing.

https://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365

Cheers!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Spence, militias usually are underground. It's a matter of keeping them there by 1) giving them no reason to come out and 2) making the risk of coming out too high.


Nice spin!

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Scortched earth? I thought we were going to be greeted as liberators?


Not by Saddam or his thugs.



> I've heard Generals in charge of logistics talk about how they were specifically prohibited from planning for post-Saddam support as it wouldn't be necessary.


Who?



> I've listened to Senators like Chuck Hagel talk about how he was completely misled by Rumsfeld as to what post Saddam support was in place.


Who else?



> I've listened to those in charge of Congression efforts under Clinton to plan for a post Saddam Iraq have their work (predicting mass looting and chaos) be ignored.


Who?


----------



## AddisonBelmont (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm smart enough to know that I don't have the solution to the problems that face the country & the world today, but then, I'm an architectural historian & decorator, so I'm not supposed to have one. All I do know is that between the hard-core GWB Bush lovers who will always defend the president & his actions and that of his cronies, no matter how wrongheaded or blindered or foolhardy some of them might be, and who see everything as proceeding according to his wonderful plan and, on the other side, the GWB haters, for whom nothing the president has ever done & nothing he might ever do in the future--no matter how noble-minded or visionary--will ever be acceptable to them, simply because he is who he is, there isn't much left of the middle ground of rationality & common sense. 

It's either charge ahead full steam into a territory & culture we don't understand and where ttrying to tell enemies from friends is tricky at best and fatal at worst, or cover our eyes with our hands and hope and pray--or pretend to pray--that if we just play nice and mind our own business, that everyone else will do the same and, magically, things will go back to the way they used to be. 

Yanking control out of the president's hands and leaving things to Congress seems no more reasonable, especially considering the results of so many people's insistence of getting rid of people with experience & replacing them with new faces with zero experience, as though callow, fresh-faced newbies were the answer. 

Not that "the people" would ever do any better, either. I can't stand Sean Hannity, but the level of public ignorance he highlights every week with his annoying "man on the street" interviews of clueless doofuses--all of whom know who's ahead on American Idol, but few of whom can name the key players in the administration, or even such basics as their own representatives in Congress--is frightening. The more advantages people have, the stupider they seem to become. All those energeteic young voices announce that they're "against the war" and that they hate the president. Just don't ask for a coherent reason why. 

Having said that, I gotta add: although there are a number of AAAC members--on both sides of the political fence--with whom I disagree, between the different factions that make up the far ends of this place and the pool of moderate & reasonable & educated members in between, this group couldn't do any worse, and it could probably do a whole lot better job that that being done--sort of--by the current bunch in Washington. It would definitely be more articulate, not to mention better dressed.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, what would you have done if you were alive during the Civil War or the World Wars where people really suffered. Can you even imagine life in London or St. Petersburg, Russia during WW2?


Well, you bring up two perfect examples of how one defeats an enemy, and it's not by forcing your friends to remove their shoes in airports.

The proper response to 911 would have been to ban box cutters in airplane cabins, to depose the Taliban in Afghanistan and arrest those responsible for the attack, and for all of us to get on with our lives. But instead, Bush has made a political career out of fear and terror, he's played perfectly into the hands of our enemies, and has all but destroyed the nearly unamimous support we had from the world after 911.

The bottom line is, Americans who sincerely believe al Qaeda has the ability to destroy our way of life are in fact an infinitely greater threat to our way of life than al Qaeda could ever hope to be. It pains me to say, both our current president and VP fall into that category.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The bottom line is, Americans who sincerely believe al Qaeda has the ability to destroy our way of life are in fact an infinitely greater threat to our way of life than al Qaeda could ever hope to be. It pains me to say, both our current president and VP fall into that category.


Did you watch the economy at all after 9/11?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> he's played perfectly into the hands of our enemies, and has all but destroyed the nearly unamimous support we had from the world after 911.


Geez, this cliche really irritates me (all this world-wide support we had after 9-11). Words are cheap. Who are all these great friends the U.S. has who would have helped us so significantly but for 'ol George Bush? Russia? France? Germany? Give me a break! Alice, come back throught the looking glass.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Did you watch the economy at all after 9/11?


Yes. Have you seen oil company profits since 911?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. Have you seen oil company profits since 911?


Have you seen my salary since 9/11. Wow! What a jump. I'm sure the VRWC had something to do with that as well.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Geez, this cliche really irritates me (all this world-wide support we had after 9-11). Words are cheap. Who are all these great friends the U.S. has who would have helped us so significantly but for 'ol George Bush? Russia? France? Germany? Give me a break! Alice, come back throught the looking glass.


I said nearly unanimous support. France had over $6 billion of assets in Iraq and they weren't in a great hurry to see them destroyed. Aside from the fact, THEY WERE CORRECT when they said Hussein no longer possessed WMDs.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Well, you bring up two perfect examples of how one defeats an enemy, and it's not by forcing your friends to remove their shoes in airports.
> 
> The proper response to 911 would have been to ban box cutters in airplane cabins, to depose the Taliban in Afghanistan and arrest those responsible for the attack, and for all of us to get on with our lives. But instead, Bush has made a political career out of fear and terror, he's played perfectly into the hands of our enemies, and has all but destroyed the nearly unamimous support we had from the world after 911.
> 
> The bottom line is, Americans who sincerely believe al Qaeda has the ability to destroy our way of life are in fact an infinitely greater threat to our way of life than al Qaeda could ever hope to be. It pains me to say, both our current president and VP fall into that category.


How, How is the Union victory during the civil war which involved the suspension of habeas corpus, the arrest of political opposition, the blockade of thousands of miles of coastline, the death of over 300,000 union troops, the wanton terrorizing of civilian populations and the destruction of civilian property OR the allied victory in WWII with the millions of battle casualties and millions of civilian deaths in any way comparable to your business as usual strategy?

You say the Civil War and WWII were examples of how to defeat an enemy (with all the death and violence that those victories inflicted) and then you go on to suggest that the death of 3,000+ Americans and any future terrorist threats are best left to the local constable........? Do you see the contradictions in your statements?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I said nearly unanimous support. France had over $6 billion of assets in Iraq and they weren't in a great hurry to see them destroyed. Aside from the fact, THEY WERE CORRECT when they said Hussein no longer possessed WMDs.


The alleged world-wide support was shallow and tepid. Nations were willing to offer soft words so long as it cost them nothing. I would suggest that our only real friends were the ones who contributed troops. I don't view nations who express some form of condolence over our dead as any meaningful form of "support."


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Not by Saddam or his thugs.


Did we think we would kill the entire Iraqi Army? A good number of them seem to have just walked off the job.



> Who?


Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division


> Who else?


Sen. Patty Murray is another. I'm sure there are many more, but I must get back to work.


> Who?


https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. Have you seen oil company profits since 911?


Yes, and more I can actually read their financials 

I asked you the last time you attacked oil companies if you really wanted to delve deeper and you declined. Are you ready to do some real research/learning on the industry or are you going to stick to the innuendo?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Nice spin!
> 
> -spence


Spence, that's getting rather obvious. Every time someone presents a view that is counter to yours and makes a good argument you fall back into this tired routine of "nice spin!" I assure you I couldn't find a 'talking point' if my life depended on it. I think my posts are pretty clearly my own opinion and not spin or anything else. If anyone is outside the box, it's me my friend.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division


https://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/Letter-to-Editor/2006-09-29a.html



> Sen. Patty Murray is another. I'm sure there are many more, but I must get back to work.


Failure on their part to ask questions does not lead to being "misled." That's a trite excuse for abdicating responsibility. The fact is that they were all politicians and as such saw a chance to beef up their national security bona fides but when the going got rough they ducked out and now are trying to pretend as though they never voted the war. In defense of Hagel he was opposed to it all along. I'm not sure about Murray but I'm sure she was as well.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> https://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/Letter-to-Editor/2006-09-29a.html


A memo from the General's boss stating he refutes his own comments? 



> Failure on their part to ask questions does not lead to being "misled."


While I agree that Congress all around has failed in many respects to provide proper oversight along the way, I'm speaking here specifically of Senators who believe they did ask the right questions and were given bogus answers that influenced their vote to authorize the use of force.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Every time someone presents a view that is counter to yours and makes a good argument you fall back into this tired routine of "nice spin!"


Tired routine? I've said it perhaps twice?

The militias have not been underground. They've been out killing Sunnis and fighting with US troops. As I said before, the reporting now is that they seem to have evaporated for the time.

Do you think the surge has scared them into their holes?

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Tired routine? I've said it perhaps twice?
> 
> The militias have not been underground. They've been out killing Sunnis and fighting with US troops. As I said before, the reporting now is that they seem to have evaporated for the time.
> 
> ...


So by underground you meant "in hiding". Ok, yes I think the surge has scared them into hiding. If you read the reports that's where Al Sadr has been - in hiding.

But, militias by rule are 'underground'. I happen to have some experience with that  Now militias are illegal in the State of Florida. So they are really 'underground'. As I said, it's militia activity that is the problem not the mere presence of militias.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So by underground you meant "in hiding". Ok, yes I think the surge has scared them into hiding.


Semantics aside, I've not read anything that would indicate they're scared. Rather they are just choosing their battles.

I'd love for it to stick, I just haven't read anything that indicates it's our strategy working and not theirs 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Semantics aside, I've not read anything that would indicate they're scared. Rather they are just choosing their battles.
> 
> I'd love for it to stick, I just haven't read anything that indicates it's our strategy working and not theirs
> 
> -spence


No offense, but maybe it's what you are reading? Have you read anything speculating on the whereabouts of Al Sadr? I read he was hiding in Iran specifically because of Al Maliki's support of the surge.

FWIW, I know someone I can ask on Friday for a more direct opinion / status report.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No offense, but maybe it's what you are reading? Have you read anything speculating on the whereabouts of Al Sadr? I read he was hiding in Iran specifically because of Al Maliki's support of the surge.


I try cover the spectrum. Too much of anything will kill you 

I've read the reports of Al Sadr in Iran, although I'm not sure if I'd attribute it to the surge as much as the increased heat Bush has reportedly been putting on Al Maliki to crack down. After Sadr was said to have left violence went up for a time if I remember correctly.

Heck, for all we know he could have had pressure from a rival militia.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> II've read the reports of Al Sadr in Iran, although I'm not sure if I'd attribute it to the surge as much as the increased heat Bush has reportedly been putting on Al Maliki to crack down.
> 
> -spence


Both the surge and the pressure on Maliki are both part of the new strategy. So either way, you seem to be admitting the new strategy is working.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Both the surge and the pressure on Maliki are both part of the new strategy. So either way, you seem to be admitting the new strategy is working.


No, there's not enough sample data to make that assertion. Granted it was nearly 60 the other day, but much to my surprise spring isn't coming early 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> No, there's not enough sample data to make that assertion. Granted it was nearly 60 the other day, but much to my surprise spring isn't coming early
> 
> -spence


You do want it to work, right?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You do want it to work, right?


I'm for anything that brings lasting progress.

The article sounds great until the "but" in paragraph three 

Sorry if I'm a bit jaded, but looking at the history of Iraqi reporting, the credibility of policy makers to date and the actual trends that have followed, it's going to take some serious substance before I'd be willing to say any tactic is "working".

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Ok ... I received a very enthusiastic affirmative. YMMV, but I'm more hopeful we are turning this around.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6463529.stm

General Petraeus, the US military commander in Iraq, says there are grounds for optimism over the latest security drive.


----------

