The mutha of flip flops...

Basso and giddy are right. The Bush Administration is not announcing a change in policy, their announcing a shift in language. Which is ridiculous in itself. Who announces that you're going to change the way you talk about something?

The fact is Bush is going to try and hold on by his fingernails in Iraq until he's out of office, so (in his mind) the coming catastrophe can't be blamed on him. The question is will conditions deterioate so much between now and '08 that the Republicans think it is endangering their presidential run and force him to pull out before then.

 

I bet it would really help the image for the war if they changed the semantics and now called Iraq "Victoryland". That would be a cool semantic shift.

"Today in Victoryland U.S. troops increased their control over capital city Success."

 

The other side? Did you read rimrockers post listing countless times that the strategy was spoken by Bush?

 

Precisely.

 

Please. "Stay the Course" was a creation of political rhetoric designed only to label Dems as "Cut and Run" and by implication, cowards and traitors. Dems have shoved this rhetoric up Karl Rove's ass and kicked him down the road and the Repub candidates out in the districts have been squealing like stuck pigs... rhetoric must eventually give way to reality... it's just been 3 years later than I wanted. Now, they are changing how they talk about the war, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that nothing real has changed... that they have no clue how to get out and the only thing they can keep doing is more of the same. Bush has already said we'll be in Iraq as long as he's President... the way they talk about it... "Stay the Course" or "Adapt" or "Stand up so we can stand down," does not matter. People are starting to understand this.

 

Also, here's another point. You can have the field generals adjust tactics as much as you want... and indeed, they should adjust and adapt... that is what commanders in the field do and have done for the whole history of warfare. There is nothing new or novel in having field commanders "adapt." It is stating the obvious. And if a political leader has to tell you that he allows the field commanders room to adapt, that should be a huge red flag about the effectiveness of that leader.

If you don't have a good, well-defined strategy, it doesn't matter what you do in the field because you're doing it in response to actions, not towards accomplishing a goal. The strategy for this war has always been ill-defined and more domestic political slogans than any real thought out strategy.

 

UH NO. This admin has the same basic approach to the ground campaign as ever. It's been 3 year long game of whack a mole, where the president wants our troops killing as many terrorists as possible. Unfortunately, most of those "terrorists" weren't terrorists before we invaded. The violence in Iraq is a complex web of common criminals, people with vendettas, religious killings of all sorts, Al Qaeda etc. etc.

Further, the often heard claim of "If the generals ask for more troops, they'll get them" is a huge load of horse sh(t. The generals that asked for 3-5 hundred thousand troops in the beginning were removed. No general will ask for such a thing now because those troops don't exist in practical terms. Asking for those troops is asking the president to commit politcal suicide (draft). Generals don't ask their leaders to fall on their own swords, for better or worse. To really change things on the ground... to stabilze Iraq with U.S. forces, would take 500,000+ troops on the ground for a long period of time.

It drives me up the wall to hear Bush talk about how good the enemy is and all that crap. It's not like this is the first time in history an insurgency has been fought with conventional forces. History tells you it takes anywhere from 6-8 to one ratio to defeat an insurgency. This was absolutely within our grasp when we first invaded and saw the emerging threat.
Now, it might not be... There might be 100,000 insurgents fighting in Iraq, and we don't have 800,000 troops.

Sure, in Republican fantasy land, the Iraqi army is almost ready to take up the fight. Except reality keeps slapping them down when the entire country is corrupt, from the political leadership to an unknown number of the Iraqi army and police force. It doesn't matter how many Iraqi troops we train if they can't stand and fight as a unit.

 

I think you've made my point for me. "Stay the course" has been converted into a mantra akin to "our eyes are closed and we just keep doing the same old same old."

I think the broader meaning of "stay the course" is still alive, but in specific it is being abused by the political opponents so they are dropping it. Wouldn't you?

 

No, I didn't make your point for you and furthermore, I don't think you know what my point is.

In answer to your question, I wouldn't fight a war and define global, long-term strategy with rhetoric designed solely for domestic political advantage.

 

come on yall! the neocons dont need a bunch of easy slogans and catchphrases to push their agenda.

stop playing the "blame game".

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s5c4rEcj5SI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s5c4rEcj5SI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

"Abused??" Where do you get that, giddy? We're being abused by this President, who is living in a fantasy world, where the truth is too difficult for him to face. He blew it. Absolutely blew it.

Have you read Woodward's book? There was a team in Iraq right after the invasion, and they recommended that the Iraqi army be kept in being, with a purge of only the very top officers. They were busy negotiating the terms of this with lower level officers representing the rank and file. The grunts, if you will. These people wanted $25 dollars per soldier, in order for them to feed their families and pay some expenses. Now, $25 bucks is nothing to us, but in Iraq, it was enough to tide these people over until a transition was made, replacing the top people, getting the military into their barracks, and insuring continuity for those soldiers, who were family men, for the most part, just like our own people. It was all set up, when the new head of the political team sent by Bush arrived and announced that they were going to "de-Baathisize" the Iraqi army, and purge the top five levels of the officer corp, not those at the highest level, and that, "you can forget about giving $25 to this supposed Iraqi army. They don't exist. Just forget it." The guy being replaced (I can get the names of all these people, but I don't feel like doing it right now) said, "What?? Where did this come from? It's madness. The Iraqi army went home, with their weapons, which are probably in their garage, and they're waiting to be sent back to their barracks, with this small amount needed to tide them over. Doing this would be a disaster!" (I'm paraphrasing... it's much more damning than this) He was told that the order, "comes from the top."

The result is going on now, for all to see. The first big mistake in this misbegotten folly was not following the generals recommendation to have several times the troops to put into Iraq and secure it. The second was this. It's enough to make one ill, thinking about it. You should read the book, giddy. Woodward didn't make this stuff up. He recorded the interviews, and got verification from independent sources, like any good reporter would.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

You think the war effort was ill-conceived and too reactive. No sufficent plan moving forward. Disorganized and ineffective.

"Stay the Course" has been mocked by political opponents and it does have a dangerous interpretive nature. The Republicans choose to move away from it and so would you if the shoe were on the other foot (don't bother telling me that the shoe wouldn't be on the other foot-- I know).

Was "Stay the Course" rhetoric by design or just an off-the-cuff thing that caught on?

 

President Bush created the meaning of "Stay the course" by what has been done in Iraq and how many times he's repeated the phrase. Getting this administration to take responsibility for ANYTHING is like playing "Kill the man w/the ball" with this guy

There is no discourse with our leadership, because minds are made up, and all it does is regurgitate the same dogma garbage.

--jo mama--
That was unwatchable.

--rimrocker--
It's not just the strategy that is flawed, but the execution of that strategy.

Not everything in a war is going to be under your control, but that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what happens after you start it. If a blackjack dealer screws up and gives away ton of money, you can bet the Pit Boss/floor is going to get creamed.
Yes Giddyup, I'm saying that the U.S. military is giving away lots of money... not raping Iraqis.

 

president bush: I will consider any proposal that leads to victory in Iraq.

OMG!!!! This guy is hilarious without even trying.

Any suggestions?!!?!!??!!!!!

It's either going well or it isn't!!!!!!! Which F!#$%^& one is it?

 

It's amazing that this administration, with a congressional majority doing it every bidding, is trying to act like its not responsible for anything.

How can people be so dumb as to let him get away with it?

Either he is the "commander in chief" or he isn't.

Seriously, it's as if Bush is saying "I have all the power but trust me, I have no influence over anything at all". What a sap.

 

Wake up.

 

WHO CARES? What difference does it make? Why do you keep trying to throw in off the cuff as an excuse when somebody says something wrong. The fact that the administration adopted as their response and message regarding Iraq shows that even if it was an intitially made off the cuff, they still liked the message and used it again and again.

If somebody says something off the cuff it doesn't excuse them saying it. They are still responsible for what comes out of their mouths. When it happens time and time again, it makes the irrelevant point of whether it was intially off the cuff even more irrelevant.

 

"We're winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done."

--Bush at today's Press Conference

Stay the course.

“As the enemy shifts tactics we are shifting our tactics as well.”

--Bush at today's Press Conference

Shouldn't we be making the enemy adjust to us? If we're always responding, we're losing. Just saying.

"...a fixed timetable for withdrawal in my judgment means defeat."

--Bush at today's Press Conference

He also talked about "benchmarks" in the "Plan for Victory." So, that means we have no timetable for withdrawal, but I guess we have a timespreadsheet? At any rate, If W has anything to do with it, nothing's happening until he leaves office.

"You asked me about accountability. It rests right here. That's what the 2004 campaign was all about."

“Absolutely, we are winning.”

--Bush at today's Press Conference

 

Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job