What Do You Make Out Of Bush's 'Surge' Plan?

[molson_golden2002]

I think he's buying time till he leaves office

[Alaska Darin]

To do what, write his manifesto as a "color by numbers?"

[KD in CA]

I think he's buying time till he leaves office

 

I think he put that plan into effect the minute the Soc Security reform died.

[molson_golden2002]

I think he put that plan into effect the minute the Soc Security reform died.

I'm surprised more people are not angry he is considering extending the stay of more troops.

[Clinton, Bill]

It would be something if there were a real plan on how to use those "surge" troops, but this administration has a real disconnect between theory and reality. He is grasping at straws.

 

The president's preemptive strike

 

As the Democrats take control of Congress this week, George W. Bush is welcoming them with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. The editor's note at the end pretty much says it all: "Mr. Bush is the president of the United States."

 

Maybe they -- Bush and the Journal's op-ed editors -- figure we need a reminder.

 

Bush begins his welcome by reminding Americans that, while he may be a lame duck now, the last throes of his administration will be pretty long ones. He says he'll "have the privilege" of working with the Democratic majority in Congress for the next two years -- "one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people." Bush then lays out his list: a strategy that works for Iraq; a plan to balance the budget by 2012 while making his tax cuts permanent; reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, immigration laws and health care; and progress on energy security. Oh, right, and a presidential line-item veto, too, offered this time around as a way to strike Congressional earmarks from budget bills.

 

It's an ambitious if not particularly specific agenda, and Bush is staking out ground to blame the Democrats when he fails to pull it off. "Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve," Bush writes. "The American people have entrusted us with public office at a momentous time for our nation. Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well."

 

Yes, let them say that. But also let them ask, "What the hell did you do during the six years when your own party controlled Congress?" A plan that works for Iraq? No. A balanced budget by 2012? Only if you fall for the administration's smoke-and-mirrors approach to budget math. Making the tax cuts permanent? Even tax-obsessed GOP leaders couldn't bring themselves to do that in 2006. Real progress on Medicare, Medicare, Social Security, immigration, health care or energy security? Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress had six years to do something on these issues, and the all they could come up with were handouts to the oil companies and a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will probably cost the country more than three times as much as Bush suggested at the time. Earmarks? More than $71 billion worth of them made it through the Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican-controlled White House in 2006.

 

Now Bush says it's incumbent on the Democrats to make the sort of progress for America that his Republican colleagues failed to produce. And it is, except that he simultaneously makes it clear that he'll stand in the way if they try to solve the nation's problems their way rather than his. "The Constitution leaves it to the president to use his judgment whether [bills] should be signed into law," he writes. Bush doesn't address any of the proposals the Democrats intend to advance in the first days of the new Congress. There's no mention of increasing the minimum wage, of expanding stem-cell research, of enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Well, not specifically. But we're guessing those are the sorts of things the president has in mind when he warns of "stalemate" if the new Democratic majority "chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements."

 

Maybe this is a good time to remind the president of the "American Values Agenda" the Republican leadership in the House put forward last summer: The Pledge of Allegiance Protection Act, the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the Public Expression of Religion Act, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Some of the agenda became law. Some of it didn't. And then the members of Congress went home early, having put in fewer days of work in Washington than any Congress in the last 50 years.

 

Can Democrats do better than that? They'd better. Will the president let them? We're not holding our breaths.

 

-- Tim Grieve

 

War Room

[Adam]

I'm surprised more people are not angry he is considering extending the stay of more troops.

We should just send a ton of troops there, get it over with, and bring them ALL back...no need to drag it out

[RkFast]

Most people arent "more upset" with this becuase regardless of how you feel about the plan, AT LEAST it represents a change in strategy and not the same old "stay the course" bull sh-- thats worked oh-so-well so far.

 

Ya know when youre on a flight thats bumping all over the place and how reassured you feel when the pilot starts to climb up to get out of the chop? Sure...you dont know if things will be better at the new altitude, but at least you know your pilot recognizes the issue and is doing something....anything...to alleviate it.

[Adam]

Most people arent "more upset" with this becuase regardless of how you feel about the plan, AT LEAST it represents a change in strategy and not the same old "stay the course" bull sh-- thats worked oh-so-well so far.

 

Ya know when youre on a flight thats bumping all over the place and how reassured you feel when the pilot starts to climb up to get out of the chop? Sure...you dont know if things will be better at the new altitude, but at least you know your pilot recognizes the issue and is doing something....anything...to alleviate it.

I prefer a tough pilot, who is willing to put up with the chop.....I hate wimpy pilots!

[/dev/null]

Once the troops are in place GWB will execute his diabolical plan, which he spent 6+ years formulating...

 

1. Steal Underpants

2. ???

3. Profit!

 

Can't be much worse than their last plan

[KD in CA]

I'm surprised more people are not angry he is considering extending the stay of more troops.

 

 

'People' will start getting angry tomorrow when the news media needs to talk about something besides Ford.

[molson_golden2002]

We should just send a ton of troops there, get it over with, and bring them ALL back...no need to drag it out

Get what done? Teach Iraqis to love each other?

[molson_golden2002]

Most people arent "more upset" with this becuase regardless of how you feel about the plan, AT LEAST it represents a change in strategy and not the same old "stay the course" bull sh-- thats worked oh-so-well so far.

 

Ya know when youre on a flight thats bumping all over the place and how reassured you feel when the pilot starts to climb up to get out of the chop? Sure...you dont know if things will be better at the new altitude, but at least you know your pilot recognizes the issue and is doing something....anything...to alleviate it.

Exactly, its all bull sh--. He's just fvcking around with the troops

[Alaska Darin]

Exactly, its all bull sh--. He's just fvcking around with the troops

That based on your extensive experience as a planner in asymmetrical warfare or are you just regurgitating the party line?[/rhetorical]

[molson_golden2002]

That based on your extensive experience as a planner in asymmetrical warfare or are you just regurgitating the party line?[/rhetorical]

No, just my experience studying human nature. You really are a dumb fvck if you think the Iraqis will start liking each other just because there are more Americans in their country. It's not going to work, that is pretty obvious

[rockpile]

No, just my experience studying human nature. You really are a dumb fvck if you think the Iraqis will start liking each other just because there are more Americans in their country. It's not going to work, that is pretty obvious

 

[rhetorical] means he is asking and answering his own question.

 

Darin IS kind of a dumb fvck though !

[Tux of Borg]

[rhetorical] means he is asking and answering his own question.

 

Darin IS kind of a dumb fvck though !

 

Darin is the master of the rhetorical question.

 

We need to stomp the insurgency. If that means beefing up the borders to stop outside influence, as well as putting troops on every street corner, then so be it.

[molson_golden2002]

Darin is the master of the rhetorical question.

 

We need to stomp the insurgency. If that means beefing up the borders to stop outside influence, as well as putting troops on every street corner, then so be it.

 

http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=10262

 

Beefing up the border? We can't even do that here. Or more of the same with no results. Two men a day from one doctor losing their genitals:

 

On New Year's Eve, the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq passed 3,000. By Tuesday, the death toll had reached 3,004 – 31 more than died in the Sep. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

 

But the number of injured has far outstripped the dead, with the Veterans Administration reporting that more than 150,000 veterans of the Iraq war are receiving disability benefits.

 

Advances in military technology are keeping the death rate much lower than during the Vietnam War and World War Two, Dr. Col. Vito Imbascini, an urologist and state surgeon with the California Army National Guard, told IPS, but soldiers who survive attacks are often severely disabled for life.

 

"If you lost an arm or a leg in Vietnam, you were also tremendously injured in your chest and abdomen, which were not protected by the armor plates back then," he said. "Now, your heart and chest and lungs and heart are protected by armor, leaving only your extremities exposed."

 

Dr. Imbascini just returned from a four-month deployment to Germany, where he treated the worst of the U.S. war wounded. He said that an extremely high number of wounded soldiers are coming home with their arms or legs amputated. Imbascini said he amputated the genitals of one or two men every day.

 

"I walk into the operating room and the general surgeons are doing their work and there is the body of this Navy SEAL, which is a physical specimen to behold," he told IPS. "And his abdomen is open, they're exploring both intestines. He's missing both legs below the knee, one arm is blown off, he's got incisions on his thighs to relieve the pressure on the parts of the legs that are hopefully gonna survive and there's genital injuries, and you just want to cry."

 

According to documents obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, 25 percent of veterans of the "global war on terror" have filed disability compensation and pension benefit claims with the Veterans Benefits Administration.

 

One is a Jul. 20, 2006, document titled "Compensation and Pension Benefit Activity Among Veterans of the Global War on Terrorism," which shows that 152,669 veterans filed disability claims after fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the more than 100,000 claims granted, Veterans Administration records show at least 1,502 veterans have been compensated as 100 percent disabled.

 

Pentagon studies show that 12 percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The group Veterans for America, formerly the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, estimates 70,000 Iraq war veterans have gone to the VA for mental health care.

 

New guidelines released by the Pentagon released last month allow commanders to redeploy soldiers suffering from traumatic stress disorders.

 

According to the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, servicemembers with "a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance" may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a "treatable" problem.

 

"As a layman and a former soldier I think that's ridiculous," Steve Robinson, the director of Veterans Affairs for Veterans for America, told IPS.

 

"If I've got a soldier who's on Ambien to go to sleep and Seroquel and Qanapin and all kinds of other psychotropic meds, I don't want them to have a weapon in their hand and to be part of my team because they're a risk to themselves and to others," he said. "But apparently, the military has its own view of how well a soldier can function under those conditions and is gambling that they can be successful."

 

Robinson said problems with the policy are already starting to arise.

 

On Christmas, for example, Army Reservist James Dean barricaded himself in his father's home with several weapons and threatened to kill himself. After a 14-hour standoff with authorities, Dean was killed by a police officer after he aimed a gun at another officer, authorities told the Washington Post.

 

Veterans for America's Robinson told IPS that Dean, who had already served 18 months in Afghanistan, had been diagnosed with PTSD. He had just been informed that his unit would be sent to Iraq on Jan. 14.

 

"We call that suicide by cop," Robinson said.

 

After his death, Dean's friends told the Washington Post that the reservist enjoyed hunting and fishing but had lost much of his enthusiasm for life when he found out that he was being deployed to Iraq.

 

"When Congress comes back in session we're looking forward to accountability hearings," Robinson said. "We want to see veterans helped in the first 100 hours of the new session. We want to see the word 'veteran' somewhere in that first hundred hours."

 

Robinson says his organization has also documented the existence of at least 1,000 homeless veterans of the Iraq war.

 

"We need to get on top of the problem of homelessness," he said. "It's too soon to be seeing homelessness. I want to be seeing a commitment from the Democratic Congress to dealing with the war and the needs of the soldiers in the first hundred hours of them coming to power."

[Alaska Darin]

http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=10262

 

Beefing up the border? We can't even do that here. Or more of the same with no results. Two men a day from one doctor losing their genitals:

 

On New Year's Eve, the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq passed 3,000. By Tuesday, the death toll had reached 3,004 – 31 more than died in the Sep. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

 

But the number of injured has far outstripped the dead, with the Veterans Administration reporting that more than 150,000 veterans of the Iraq war are receiving disability benefits.

 

Advances in military technology are keeping the death rate much lower than during the Vietnam War and World War Two, Dr. Col. Vito Imbascini, an urologist and state surgeon with the California Army National Guard, told IPS, but soldiers who survive attacks are often severely disabled for life.

 

"If you lost an arm or a leg in Vietnam, you were also tremendously injured in your chest and abdomen, which were not protected by the armor plates back then," he said. "Now, your heart and chest and lungs and heart are protected by armor, leaving only your extremities exposed."

 

Dr. Imbascini just returned from a four-month deployment to Germany, where he treated the worst of the U.S. war wounded. He said that an extremely high number of wounded soldiers are coming home with their arms or legs amputated. Imbascini said he amputated the genitals of one or two men every day.

 

"I walk into the operating room and the general surgeons are doing their work and there is the body of this Navy SEAL, which is a physical specimen to behold," he told IPS. "And his abdomen is open, they're exploring both intestines. He's missing both legs below the knee, one arm is blown off, he's got incisions on his thighs to relieve the pressure on the parts of the legs that are hopefully gonna survive and there's genital injuries, and you just want to cry."

 

According to documents obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, 25 percent of veterans of the "global war on terror" have filed disability compensation and pension benefit claims with the Veterans Benefits Administration.

 

One is a Jul. 20, 2006, document titled "Compensation and Pension Benefit Activity Among Veterans of the Global War on Terrorism," which shows that 152,669 veterans filed disability claims after fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the more than 100,000 claims granted, Veterans Administration records show at least 1,502 veterans have been compensated as 100 percent disabled.

 

Pentagon studies show that 12 percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The group Veterans for America, formerly the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, estimates 70,000 Iraq war veterans have gone to the VA for mental health care.

 

New guidelines released by the Pentagon released last month allow commanders to redeploy soldiers suffering from traumatic stress disorders.

 

According to the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, servicemembers with "a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance" may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a "treatable" problem.

 

"As a layman and a former soldier I think that's ridiculous," Steve Robinson, the director of Veterans Affairs for Veterans for America, told IPS.

 

"If I've got a soldier who's on Ambien to go to sleep and Seroquel and Qanapin and all kinds of other psychotropic meds, I don't want them to have a weapon in their hand and to be part of my team because they're a risk to themselves and to others," he said. "But apparently, the military has its own view of how well a soldier can function under those conditions and is gambling that they can be successful."

 

Robinson said problems with the policy are already starting to arise.

 

On Christmas, for example, Army Reservist James Dean barricaded himself in his father's home with several weapons and threatened to kill himself. After a 14-hour standoff with authorities, Dean was killed by a police officer after he aimed a gun at another officer, authorities told the Washington Post.

 

Veterans for America's Robinson told IPS that Dean, who had already served 18 months in Afghanistan, had been diagnosed with PTSD. He had just been informed that his unit would be sent to Iraq on Jan. 14.

 

"We call that suicide by cop," Robinson said.

 

After his death, Dean's friends told the Washington Post that the reservist enjoyed hunting and fishing but had lost much of his enthusiasm for life when he found out that he was being deployed to Iraq.

 

"When Congress comes back in session we're looking forward to accountability hearings," Robinson said. "We want to see veterans helped in the first 100 hours of the new session. We want to see the word 'veteran' somewhere in that first hundred hours."

 

Robinson says his organization has also documented the existence of at least 1,000 homeless veterans of the Iraq war.

 

"We need to get on top of the problem of homelessness," he said. "It's too soon to be seeing homelessness. I want to be seeing a commitment from the Democratic Congress to dealing with the war and the needs of the soldiers in the first hundred hours of them coming to power."

Cliff Notes: War sucks and the government sucks at taking care of people, no matter how much taxpayer money they steal.

[rockpile]

Cliff Notes: War sucks and the government sucks at taking care of people, no matter how much taxpayer money they steal.

 

Agreed, my friend.

[Alaska Darin]

Agreed, my friend.

You know that with this post, you're going to have to spend about 5 pages explaining sarcasm to molson golden showers, right?