Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[CurveLight]

Bush: Troops to divert to Afghanistan - Washington Times

Bush: Troops to divert to AfghanistanRate this story


By Jon Ward

President Bush will announce Tuesday the diversion of some U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, in a speech that marks a turn in focus for his administration as it approaches its last four months in office.

"As al Qaeda faces increased pressure in Iraq, the terrorists are stepping up their efforts on the front where this struggle first began: the nation of Afghanistan," said Mr. Bush's prepared remarks, which were released to the press Monday evening.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world. And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," Mr. Bush will say.

The president has decided to send a Marine battalion — which are usually between 500 to 1,500 troops originally slated for Iraq to Afghanistan in November.

In January, an Army brigade — of 3,500 to 5,000 troops — will also go to Afghanistan.

The U.S. already has 31,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, up from 21,000 two years ago, according to the White House.

Mr. Bush will also tout successes in Iraq and attribute them to a surge of 30,000 troops last year. He will proceed with the recommendation of Gen. David H. Petraeus, his commanding officer in Iraq, and withdraw 8,000 soldiers from Iraq over the next four months, without replacing them, bringing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 146,000, the Associated Press reported.

The surge of 30,000 troops in the spring and summer of 2007 increased the U.S. presence from 130,000 to 160,000. But those numbers do not represent the total number of U.S. troops, because each brigade of soldiers requires a certain number of support troops.

That is why even though all surge combat troops have left Iraq, the U.S. still has 146,000 soldiers there.

Put the peyote pipe back in the drawer. (repeating bullshit does not transform it into roses)

 

[CMike]

You may have heard of the surge? It much have been somewhere on DailyKos.

Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Bush said the battalion, roughly 1,000 Marines, now headed to Afghanistan in November will be followed in January by an Army combat brigade. A brigade is 3,500-4,000 troops.

Bush said the U.S. and its coalition partners serving under the NATO umbrella have responded to an uptick in violence in Afghanistan by sending thousands more troops. He said in the past year, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and others have sent additional forces to Afghanistan.

"These troop increases represent a 'quiet surge' in Afghanistan. In all, the number of American troops in the country increased from less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today. The number of coalition troops — including NATO troops — increased from about 20,000 to about 31,000. And the number of trained Afghan army and police forces increased from less than 67,000 to nearly 144,000," he said.

Bush said the mission of the forces headed to Afghanistan will be to work with "Afghan forces to provide security for the Afghan people, protect Afghanistan's infrastructure and democratic institutions and help insure access to services like education and health care.

"They will show the citizens of Afghanistan that the government and its partners will stand with them in the battle against the Taliban and extremists," the president said in a speech at the National Defense University.

The move answers in part calls from Democrats to shift troops out of Iraq to a more sizable force in Afghanistan. Still, Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.

Somewhere in all this is the fact that Afghanistan is a NATO operation of which the USA is only a part. Bush was condemned for at least most of six years for being a 'cowboy' and acting unilaterally without support from supposedly ally nations. So when he allowed those allied nations to lead through NATO in Afghanistan, he was condemned for not acting unilaterally. Whatever mistakes were made or however much he did or did not mismanage anything, it is obvious that nothing he was going to do would be right.

Look how long it took Obama, who stated unequivocably that the surge wouldn't work in Iraq, and then stated unequivocably that the surge had failed in Iraq, to finally admit, after repeated direct questioning and not allowed to duck the question, that the surge had worked. It's pretty safe to assume that had he taken over as president about that time, there would have been no surge at all, and by now we would still be fighting a half-assed containment war or would have pulled out, our tail between our legs, and listening to the terrorists chortle about the great victory they had won and how the great Satin had been completely defeated, humiliated, and demoralized.

At least you're competently arguing the issue Cmike, while some here accuse you of going ad hominem as they directly insult you and argue nothing but ad hominem.

Wtf moon dust did you just wake up from? Please tell us how many American troops have served in afghanistan since 2001 and compare that to the other NATO countries. My guess is you don't have the first fucking clue.

At least you are a little more fun than Jake.

 

[CMike]

Bush: Troops to divert to Afghanistan - Washington Times

Bush: Troops to divert to AfghanistanRate this story


By Jon Ward

President Bush will announce Tuesday the diversion of some U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, in a speech that marks a turn in focus for his administration as it approaches its last four months in office.

"As al Qaeda faces increased pressure in Iraq, the terrorists are stepping up their efforts on the front where this struggle first began: the nation of Afghanistan," said Mr. Bush's prepared remarks, which were released to the press Monday evening.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world. And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," Mr. Bush will say.

The president has decided to send a Marine battalion — which are usually between 500 to 1,500 troops originally slated for Iraq to Afghanistan in November.

In January, an Army brigade — of 3,500 to 5,000 troops — will also go to Afghanistan.

The U.S. already has 31,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, up from 21,000 two years ago, according to the White House.

Mr. Bush will also tout successes in Iraq and attribute them to a surge of 30,000 troops last year. He will proceed with the recommendation of Gen. David H. Petraeus, his commanding officer in Iraq, and withdraw 8,000 soldiers from Iraq over the next four months, without replacing them, bringing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 146,000, the Associated Press reported.

The surge of 30,000 troops in the spring and summer of 2007 increased the U.S. presence from 130,000 to 160,000. But those numbers do not represent the total number of U.S. troops, because each brigade of soldiers requires a certain number of support troops.

That is why even though all surge combat troops have left Iraq, the U.S. still has 146,000 soldiers there.

Put the peyote pipe back in the drawer. (repeating bullshit does not transform it into roses)

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

 

[CurveLight]

I know liberals are extremely slow so I'll type slowly.

1) Under Pres. Bush there was a surge in troops that was doing quite well

2) Troop still levels still need to be replenished. Troops leave, get moved etc.

3) The commander in the field wrote a letter stating how bad things have gotten with troop levels in the field. Obama ignored it. Four months later he finally made a decision to replenish the toops in the field.

Now I'll try to make it even simpler so even a liberal may be able to understand it (although that is still very unlikely).

You have a gallon of milk. The milk slowly get drunk and the amount you have left goes down. Soon you have to give less and less to your family for their cereal. You keep asking your wife to buy more milk. She ignores you for four months, until the quanties of milk for your family gets super low. Finally, she decides to buy more milk.

Now because she bought more milk doesn't mean that she created an escalation in the amount of milk that your family has. She just replenished the milk used for the family.

I can try using a marbles example if that doesn't work.

You super dumbass. I already posted a link showing that 2008 was the worst year for Afghanistan. That means after SEVEN FUCKING YEARS under the Bush Admin they still failed to bring any kind of stability. You fail to grasp such an elementary piece of information but you want to accuse others of being slow? Lol. It's like you, Liability, Ollie, Fizz, Divecon, etc are the same dumb bitch with several sock accounts. How else can your endless ignorance be explained?

American Thinker: Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure

That LA Times article included comments from Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. He also expressed himself in a Voice of America article published the day before the LA Times article, creatihg a different impression:


"Those who use the increased levels of violence to try to make a case or an argument are generally going to get it wrong, unless they understand what is causing those increased levels of violence," McNeill said.

...The VOA article explains General McNeill's position:


General McNeill says many experienced Taliban leaders were killed during last year's fighting season, and that while the group is trying to recruit new members the leadership will be difficult to replace. He says the major offensive last spring and summer was by NATO and U.S. forces, and he says that will be true again this year.

General McNeill disagrees, but he also acknowledges that the Afghanistan effort is what the military calls an "economy of force" operation.


The General also said that the reason the violence is up is not because the Taliban is stronger, but because, as reported in this Associated Press article:


"They've stuck their noses in dark holes in which noses that were international have not been stuck before," he added.


"We exposed ourselves to a lot more things than the force has exposed themselves to in times past," McNeill said. "And that more than anything created the increased levels of violence that are so often referred to in the news, and that people fail to realize what caused those. (There) wasn't a resurgent Taliban." [emphasis added]




To you liberals who have trouble "understanding" period. In other words, what the general saying is that there was a surge. In a surge there is violence. When there is violence there are casualties.

The enemy became more desperate and thus there was more fighting.

However, because of the surge we were winning.

This s why you're so fucking pathetic. You are so damned partisan ignorant that even when you try to defend the bush admin you actually expose more failures. I can only guess you're scratching your head in bewilderment. Soon, that will be your personal Olympic sport.

 

[CurveLight]

Bush: Troops to divert to Afghanistan - Washington Times

Bush: Troops to divert to AfghanistanRate this story


By Jon Ward

President Bush will announce Tuesday the diversion of some U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, in a speech that marks a turn in focus for his administration as it approaches its last four months in office.

"As al Qaeda faces increased pressure in Iraq, the terrorists are stepping up their efforts on the front where this struggle first began: the nation of Afghanistan," said Mr. Bush's prepared remarks, which were released to the press Monday evening.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world. And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," Mr. Bush will say.

The president has decided to send a Marine battalion — which are usually between 500 to 1,500 troops originally slated for Iraq to Afghanistan in November.

In January, an Army brigade — of 3,500 to 5,000 troops — will also go to Afghanistan.

The U.S. already has 31,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, up from 21,000 two years ago, according to the White House.

Mr. Bush will also tout successes in Iraq and attribute them to a surge of 30,000 troops last year. He will proceed with the recommendation of Gen. David H. Petraeus, his commanding officer in Iraq, and withdraw 8,000 soldiers from Iraq over the next four months, without replacing them, bringing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 146,000, the Associated Press reported.

The surge of 30,000 troops in the spring and summer of 2007 increased the U.S. presence from 130,000 to 160,000. But those numbers do not represent the total number of U.S. troops, because each brigade of soldiers requires a certain number of support troops.

That is why even though all surge combat troops have left Iraq, the U.S. still has 146,000 soldiers there.

Put the peyote pipe back in the drawer. (repeating bullshit does not transform it into roses)

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

 

[CMike]

Put the peyote pipe back in the drawer. (repeating bullshit does not transform it into roses)

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

I truely am talking to morons

What is bullshit? The numbers are incorrect? The troops weren't sent there? There wasn't a surge? What part specifically is bullshit in your lefty eyes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

cmike's postings merely reveal what we all know -- that George W. Bush let the mission in Afghanistan go to "Mission Uncompleted" because of his mismanagement.

All of cmike's evidence showing what Bush did acknowledges what smart folks already know: Bush did not do enough.

Now BHO has to correct if he can the neo-cons' mistakes.

 

[Liability]

Put the peyote pipe back in the drawer. (repeating bullshit does not transform it into roses)

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

Pssst. Asshole. Yeah, bent tight, you.

The Bush Administration actually DID its job.

Someone should tell the knucklehead you support that HE has a duty along those very same lines.

Go get your meds, you fucking mental case. You are clearly off schedule.

 

[CurveLight]

Bush: Troops to divert to Afghanistan - Washington Times

Bush: Troops to divert to AfghanistanRate this story


By Jon Ward

President Bush will announce Tuesday the diversion of some U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, in a speech that marks a turn in focus for his administration as it approaches its last four months in office.

"As al Qaeda faces increased pressure in Iraq, the terrorists are stepping up their efforts on the front where this struggle first began: the nation of Afghanistan," said Mr. Bush's prepared remarks, which were released to the press Monday evening.

"Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America and our partners in the free world. And for all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," Mr. Bush will say.

The president has decided to send a Marine battalion — which are usually between 500 to 1,500 troops originally slated for Iraq to Afghanistan in November.

In January, an Army brigade — of 3,500 to 5,000 troops — will also go to Afghanistan.

The U.S. already has 31,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, up from 21,000 two years ago, according to the White House.

Mr. Bush will also tout successes in Iraq and attribute them to a surge of 30,000 troops last year. He will proceed with the recommendation of Gen. David H. Petraeus, his commanding officer in Iraq, and withdraw 8,000 soldiers from Iraq over the next four months, without replacing them, bringing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 146,000, the Associated Press reported.

The surge of 30,000 troops in the spring and summer of 2007 increased the U.S. presence from 130,000 to 160,000. But those numbers do not represent the total number of U.S. troops, because each brigade of soldiers requires a certain number of support troops.

That is why even though all surge combat troops have left Iraq, the U.S. still has 146,000 soldiers there.

Put the peyote pipe back in the drawer. (repeating bullshit does not transform it into roses)

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now Liability is trying to defend the indefensible.

Liability and cmike are like the blindfolded kids trying to hit pinata. In this case, they never do and they don't get the candy.

How funny!

 

[Conspiracist]

Thus you are saying, cmike, that Bush did not do enough: thanks for the admission.

What he is saying I think, is that Bush robbed Peter to pay Paul, (moving troops from Afgan to Iraq), to keep Dems from crying their bloody eyes out about troop escalations.

It's really not hard to figure out. He was having more trouble in Iraq than Afganistan at the time so he did some change ups.

Now we need more troops to finish this off since we cannot pull troops from Iraq yet.
I hope you're discussion being directed as it has been is because you just want to argumenative like a child and not actual stupidity.

 

[CurveLight]

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

I truely am talking to morons

What is bullshit? The numbers are incorrect? The troops weren't sent there? There wasn't a surge? What part specifically is bullshit in your lefty eyes?

The first piece of bullshit I saying al qaeda was in iraq. Do you actually buy that bullshit? Are you so insecure you accept whatever the government says? The mere fact you keep referring to me as a Lefty shows you are both ignorant and insecure. Do you not realize the main goal for both invasions was an endless occupation? Are you that fucking far gone you cannot recognize colonialism in raw form?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thus you are saying, cmike, that Bush did not do enough: thanks for the admission.

What he is saying I think, is that Bush robbed Peter to pay Paul, (moving troops from Afgan to Iraq), to keep Dems from crying their bloody eyes out about troop escalations.

It's really not hard to figure out. He was having more trouble in Iraq than Afganistan at the time so he did some change ups.

Now we need more troops to finish this off since we cannot pull troops from Iraq yet.
I hope you're discussion being directed as it has been is because you just want to argumenative like a child and not actual stupidity.

I have been polite, and I have been corrective of cmike's deficiency: Bush did not do enough (I agree that Iraq was part of his mistake in weakening Afghanistan) to finish off the folks who hit us on 9-11.

If you think that is argumentative, then obviously you have cognitive issues.

 

[Liability]

Now Liability is trying to defend the indefensible.

Liability and cmike are like the blindfolded kids trying to hit pinata. In this case, they never do and they don't get the candy.

How funny!

Another remarkably pathetic & douchey post by Jokey, devoid of even a hint of substance.

Jokey is truth averse.

How standard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks for your contribution, Liability!

 

[CurveLight]

I made no comments in that post. I just posted the facts from the article.

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

Pssst. Asshole. Yeah, bent tight, you.

The Bush Administration actually DID its job.

Someone should tell the knucklehead you support that HE has a duty along those very same lines.

Go get your meds, you fucking mental case, You are clearly off schedule.

I've never supported Obushama and have repeatedly pointed out he is a hypocrite and sell out on many levels. You're so fucking stupid arrogant you think you know my politics because I regularly pwn you like a stick of butter dropped into a Volcano.

Then you claim the Bush admin did its job? Oh that's right! I remember now!

In March 02' bin laden was captured and convicted of terrorism. He is now sitting in a prison cell and will be for the rest of his life.

In June 03' the Bush admin found the WMD in iraq and was even able to track the latest suppliers. They are in the same cell block as bin laden.

There has been no violence in afghanistan or iraq for at least 2 years. The genius strategy to win hearts and minds was so successful that McDonald's in both nation have had to mee the consumer demand for Bush Collectible Glasses and Plates.

The illegal production and exporting of heroine in Afghanistan has been slashed so much that the US, Britain, and most of South East Asia is facing an unemployment crisis for all the people who used to be in law enforcement and treatment. They are out of work because the Bush admin did such a wonderful job of eliminating poppy fields.

By August 06 the Bush admin successfully folded Saudi Arabia for being the world's largest financier of terrorism.

In May 08' the successful international OPEC negotiations reduced oil to just under $30/barrel. US automakers are working overtime to keep up with the demand for SUV's and with gas being so cheap, we even lowered the driving age to 14.

The wise use of resources by the Bush admin almost made a history by actually reducing a national deficit during War. Generations will study this model for years to come as it will surely be the international economic planning barometer.

Oh yes, thank you so much for the reminder! How could I have possibly forgotten the tremendous success of the Bush administration?!?

 

[Liability]

Holy shit you are an idiot. I didn't say you made any comments. I said you repeated bullshit. How the hell do you defend the bush admin and not qualify for a straight jacket? It's sick.

Pssst. Asshole. Yeah, bent tight, you.

The Bush Administration actually DID its job.

Someone should tell the knucklehead you support that HE has a duty along those very same lines.

Go get your meds, you fucking mental case, You are clearly off schedule.

I've never supported Obushama and have repeatedly pointed out he is a hypocrite and sell out on many levels. You're so fucking stupid arrogant you think you know my politics because I regularly pwn you * * * *

I notice you engage in an extraordinarily large amount of self-congratulation.

You do this because nobody else WITH a brain would ever congratulate you on any of the stupid shit you spew, you imbecile.

You have never pwnd me or anybody else.

You are a void. Nothing more.

 

[CurveLight]

Pssst. Asshole. Yeah, bent tight, you.

The Bush Administration actually DID its job.

Someone should tell the knucklehead you support that HE has a duty along those very same lines.

Go get your meds, you fucking mental case, You are clearly off schedule.

I've never supported Obushama and have repeatedly pointed out he is a hypocrite and sell out on many levels. You're so fucking stupid arrogant you think you know my politics because I regularly pwn you * * * *

I notice you engage in an extraordinarily large amount of self-congratulation.

You do this because nobody else WITH a brain would ever congratulate you on any of the stupid shit you spew, you imbecile.

You have never pwnd me or anybody else.

You are a void. Nothing more.

Lol......as usual......you ignore everything and focus on the most petty shit. For clarification, there is no self congratulations. That would be like an F-15 bragging about beating a butterfly. I'm simply pointing out the clear majority of your posts are nothing but toddler tear-fests.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CurveLight has annihilated Liability, so all let's move on.

 

[Liability]

CurveLight has annihilated Liability, so all let's move on.

The fart announcing his support for his asshole is is just Jokey sending love letters to his boyfriend, bent tight. Loud, obnoxious and odious noise is still just noise, Jokey.

In this instance, to make things clear for your befuddled and retarded mind, Jokey, that makes you the fart.

Not only has bent tight not annihilated me (the claim is so stupid only a fucktarded lying liberoidal douche like you would mutter it), but he is incapable of annihilating anybody. In that regard he is just like you.

You two make a real couple.