Doubling down in Iraq

[Mucho]

[R.R.]

"The house has cut off your credit"

LOL!

The Dems in the house are too much of chickenshits to cut off funding for the war.

We need 100,000 more troops in Iraq, along the lines of what Gen. Shinseki was calling for.

[Mucho]

"The house has cut off your credit"

LOL!

The Dems in the house are too much of chickenshits to cut off funding for the war.

We need 100,000 more troops in Iraq, along the lines of what Gen. Shinseki was calling for.

RICKEEEEEE! I am SO glad you are finished licking your wounds are are back in our loving midst once again.
BTW- I would not bet on his credit being cut off. There are many ways to skin a cat and many of these Dems have skinned elephants before. Maybe they will raise your taxes before sending good money after bad. I bet even you would turn against the war if they took away your beloved tax cuts.

[Lanya]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops23dec23,0,2094099,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Generals: More troops needed in Iraq
Commanders made their decision before meeting with Defense Secretary Gates.

[..............................]

Gen. James T. Conway, the new commandant of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs, emphasized the drawbacks of adding troops in public comments last week.

"We would fully support, I think, as the Joint Chiefs, the idea of putting more troops into Iraq if there is a solid military reason for doing that, if there is something to be gained," he said. "We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers — just thickening the mix — is necessarily the way to go."

Like Conway, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, has said extra troops must be given a clearly defined mission.

"We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker said recently. "And that purpose should be measurable."

Conway suggested that adding troops now would mean the military would be less ready to deploy in the future.

"You better make sure your timing is right," he said. "Because if you commit the reserve for something other than a decisive win or to stave off defeat, then you have essentially shot your bolt."

[R.R.]

I would not bet on his credit being cut off.

I won't. Most Dems are dishonest hypocrites. They are not going to cut off funding for the war that they say they despise so much.

[Mucho]

I would not bet on his credit being cut off.

I won't. Most Dems are dishonest hypocrites. They are not going to cut off funding for the war that they say they despise so much.

 

We shall see. 

[R.R.]

a decisive win

I hope this is what Bush and the commanders on the ground are aiming at. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. A second front if you will. This is supposed to be Bush's strong suit. He needs to show progress in Iraq. We need to rout the terrorists over the next year and hand over security to the Iraqis. Bush got elected because he was the right guy to lead the war on terror. It's time for him to show it in Iraq.

[Mucho]

a decisive win

I hope this is what Bush and the commanders on the ground are aiming at. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. A second front if you will. This is supposed to be Bush's strong suit. He needs to show progress in Iraq. We need to rout the terrorists over the next year and hand over security to the Iraqis. Bush got elected because he was the right guy to lead the war on terror. It's time for him to show it in Iraq.

And it  will be about time to , dontcha think? Even if one thinks he was right to invade in the first place, you gotta admit he has fucked it up royally up to now. You cant even blame US anti war protesters. Bush never paid a shit worth of attention to anyone that didnt kiss his ass like you guys do.

[R.R.]

you gotta admit he has fucked it up royally up to now.

It's easy to carp from the sidelines. Kerry or Howard Dean wouldn't have done any better, that is for sure. They would have cut and run and given the terrorists a huge victory and morale boost.

I think we need more troops in Iraq in the 100,000 to 120,000 range, to clear and hold Bahgdad and move to Anbar. Really rout the fuckers.

[BT]

The stars are perfectly aligned to do something decisive. No reelection to worry about, no midterms to be concerned with.

The dems will have to either cut funding or de-authorize and i doubt they will do that, it would play right into the weak on defense mantra.

You know it's almost like Rove sandbagged the last election

[Mucho]

The stars are perfectly aligned to do something decisive. No reelection to worry about, no midterms to be concerned with.

The dems will have to either cut funding or de-authorize and i doubt they will do that, it would play right into the weak on defense mantra.

You know it's almost like Rove sandbagged the last election

Not to worry , guys. Your inamorato, the Bushidiot , will nuke Iraq long before his second term is up. Unfortuneately, this will not have the salutory effect that bombing Japan did because we were the heroes then and are the villains now. The world will gang up on US and we will lose. Shit we cant even defeat an unarmed weak old lady country like Iraq, for chrissakes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I won't. Most Dems are dishonest hypocrites. They are not going to cut off funding for the war that they say they despise so much.

=============================================================================
If and when they do, you will be right on them, calling them traitors, predicting more terrorist attacks. No Democrat has EVER done anything you approve of, and you worship the memory of a brain-dead old actor who was only good at reading scripts written by his puppetmeisters.
-----------------------------------------
The surge is probably a good thing as a determining benchmark: it will prove whether the military and the politicos can actually plan anything worth a damn, and it will cost a ton of money. If it is a flop (and I would not give it better than a 50-50 chance) then it will make it a lot easier for Congress to cut funds on the grounds that they shoiuld not throw more good money after bad.
 

[yellow_crane]

a decisive win

I hope this is what Bush and the commanders on the ground are aiming at. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. A second front if you will.

I won't.

Stating that Iraq is part of the war on terror is the mantra of the Rove/Cheney White House.

From reading and watching lo these many months, it is clear that the predominant number of at least semi-credible journalists and pundits (of course not FOX or Rush radio types) agree that our presence there is fertilizer for the terrorist movement, and in fact gives them a focusing point which they never had before. 

Most of the entire world realizes that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/ll, if you don't.

The presence of the US military in Iraq GALVINIZES the terrorist movement.

All the more reason to end this fiasco, and quickly.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Kerry or Howard Dean wouldn't have done any better, that is for sure.

Bullshit! Kerry and Gore would not have mongered this stupid, unwinnable piece of crap war in the first place.

What is for sure is that NO ONE would have done a less competent job than Juniorbush and Cheney.

More incompetent buffoons have never ruled this country. Not even Ronnie  Altzheimer

[Michael Tee]

I interpreted this a little differently.  The two guys behind Bush are Middle Easterners, "the house" that cut off his credit is the casino in which he's gambling (the Middle East) and they're not so much refusing him the troops he requested as just dramatizing the fate of an unlucky gambler who wants one more shot at recouping his losses.  They're replaying a classic gambling drama of loss and desperation. 

The point of the cartoon is not that the House of Representatives is going to deny Bush 20,000 more troops, the point is that he's simply a gambler, a loser and a pathetically desperate and unfortunate one, one without any realistic prospects left.