free web counter

Maries Two Cents

Far Right Conservative And Proud Of It!..... Stories That I Think Need Special Attention, And, Of Course, My Two Cents :-)

My Photo
Name:
Location: Del City, Oklahoma, United States




Click for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Forecast





Homeland Security Advisory

January 10, 2007

Feed Shark Turbo Tagger

SURGE!!!!!!!!!

PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION...

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.



Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We owe it to our men and women in Uniform to see this through to the end. I like this plan. It is NOT an open ended committment, there is an artificial timetable with no date certain as not to give the terrorist's any ideas. Iraqi money is paying for alot of this. Pressure is being put on Iran and Syria. And the faster we can train Iraqi Troops and secure Baghdad and the Anbar Province, the faster we can get out of there without letting Iraq turn into terrorist haven like Afganistan was. And the Troops armes arent tied down, they are free to "Get 'em" this time! And hey, the Democrat's wanted more boot's on the ground all along anyway, so they are getting what they wanted (But watch them try to back out of it now!!!!) You have my resolve President Bush!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE: Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan (Well Of Course They Do)

Story Here

28 Comments:

Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Marie,

I was out working, so I haven't heard the speech yet.

January 10, 2007 9:46 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

That's ok Word, I put the test version on here for anyone who missed it.

January 10, 2007 10:22 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Text^^^

January 10, 2007 10:23 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

Wordsmith: C-Span has replayed the speech several times already.

The President is bit wooden in this speeches with no audience. Or maybe it's the seriousness of the subject.

But two things are clear:

1. Bush is committed to doing everything possible to win.

and

2. Democrats will do everything possible to stop him.

I visited Iraq the Model and the brothers were reporting that an operation has already begun in Baghdad with heavy military firepower and that many Syrians (you know, the ones the Iraq study group says we need to talk to) have been captured in the fighting.

If (and it's a big "if")the Iraqi government will finally allow us to defang the Shiite militas as they now promise to do this thing may just work.

The Iraqis are also bringing in the Kurdish military which takes no side in the Shiite/Sunni fight.

It's pretty much Iraq's last chance before the Ted Kenney and Nancy Pelousy's of the world get their way and another nightmare dictatorship is established.

January 10, 2007 10:48 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Mike,

I like your #1 and #2 statements lol

I think it was the seriousness of the situation, Bush looked like he has had deep thought on this matter and decided it had to be done.

He looked somewhat depressed. Then again I would be to if I had just ordered 21,000 more troops to a war zone.

I heard about the Syrian's too, yeah those the Iraq Surrender Group suggested we talk to.

The MSM is NOT reporting ANYTHING the Iraqi Army is doing. And they are doing alot, and it's driving me crazy!

January 10, 2007 11:37 PM  
Blogger The Angry American said...

Thanks for posting the transcript Marie I like Wordsmith was also at work at the time,and missed it. At least I was able to catch it from you.

January 11, 2007 12:23 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Didn't the new Democratic leadership promise to work together with the Republicans in a bi-partisan effort to unify the country?

Or was I dreaming?

And now, before President Bush's new plan even goes into effect the Democrats are protesting it.

That's the Democrats idea of bi-partisanship for you.

January 11, 2007 4:45 AM  
Blogger J_G said...

"If you wage war, do it energetically and with severity. This is the only way to make it shorter and consequently less inhuman."

"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

"When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna." (Baghdad)

These quotes are attributed to one of the world's most successful military leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte.

I certainly hope President Bush has resorted to the council of successful military leaders on this last try at victory in Iraq because;

"Speeches pass away, but acts remain."

January 11, 2007 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Mrs. Green said...

2. Democrats will do everything possible to stop him.

Whoever posted this conviently leaves out the fact that 12 of the 49 Republicans in the Senate are against Bush's plan. And many Republican Representatives in the House are too. General Abazaid is against the surge, as is General Powell and many more thoughtful Americans.

So whoever put up that comment is ignorant. It's NOT just the Democrats who disagree on Bush's new tactic.

Iraq is already a failure. Period.

Tragic, but true. Mr. Bush is trying to save his legacy, and is using American lives to do so.

And Marie, the Democrats wanted more troops in the beginning of the invasion, remember the Powell Doctrine? General Shinseki? They were ignored and Rummy got rid of the general who wanted at least 300,000 troops to secure the country once the Americans took Baghdad.

You and your friends may try to pin this disaster on the Democrats, but remember Bush had 6 years of a Republican controlled Congress to do whatever he wanted to "win" this war. He could have sent 21,000 troops in in 2003. Why didn't he? When in the summer of 2003 the surgency really began? Why? Why? Why?

Rummy didn't want them. That's why. And Bush let Rummy run the war.

Why is he sending in more troops now? Eh?

I feel sorry for Bush. Really.

January 11, 2007 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Night Rider said...

Hi Marie,

Looks as if Mrs. Green is living in the fantasy world of her Liberal friends. LOL

Mrs. Green Said: 2. Democrats will do everything possible to stop him.

Whoever posted this conviently leaves out the fact that 12 of the 49 Republicans in the Senate are against Bush's plan. And many Republican Representatives in the House are too. General Abazaid is against the surge, as is General Powell and many more thoughtful Americans.


That figures that Libtards will say that. They always ridicule people when they have nothing more intelligent to say.

Go ahead and Lie Mrs. Green, your party is the cut and run party period.

January 11, 2007 7:55 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Your welcome Angry

January 11, 2007 8:47 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Mark,

Didn't the new Democratic leadership promise to work together with the Republicans in a bi-partisan effort to unify the country?

Or was I dreaming?

And now, before President Bush's new plan even goes into effect the Democrats are protesting it.

That's the Democrats idea of bi-partisanship for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well Mark they have been at this already, they are trying to push through some form of an agenda for them (Something we never heard about on the campain trail) and not even let Republicans have a chance to debate or comment on any of these proposals because right off the bat...The DEMOCRATS changed the rules!

No this doesnt surprise me at all!

January 11, 2007 8:51 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

JG,

"If you wage war, do it energetically and with severity. This is the only way to make it shorter and consequently less inhuman."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you think 21,000 put in the places President Bush want's, along with the Iraqi Troops which now number 300,000 is enough to "Take Baghdad"?

January 11, 2007 8:54 AM  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Boy you didn't waste any time getting this one up! Great post. Did you notice Durbin's Dem respose as usual only gripped and offerd nothing in return. Me-thinks the Dems really want defeat and have no taste for victory.

By the way thanks for the comments. I lost alot of traffic during my down time and hope to build it back again.

January 11, 2007 9:14 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Mrs Green,

So whoever put up that comment is ignorant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wouldnt say that, Mike at one time worked with President Reagan, I think he probably know's more about Politics, and what the President is thinking than any of us!

And you know it's true, no matter what the President want's the Democrats truly believe they are going to round up enough votes out of Republicans to stop this.

As early as this last December Harry Reid was even asking for a Troop increase, and most Democrats were barking about that all last year on the campain trail, well they are getting it now.

Why now? Because it's kind of like what the Dems wanted, they wanted Rummy out of the picture, a fresh look at the matter, and they have it now. All fresh eyes and ears and if the Generals on the ground say "We need more Troops to win this" then President Bush said long ago that's what they will get. President Bush has said that all along.

Iraq has NEVER failed, we are changing strategy to fight the insurgents. By saying Iraq has failed that demeans the Troops every step of the way and just told them "They Failed" THAT IS NOT TRUE!! I hardly call 3 elections, Saddam gone, and them writing thier own constitution a failure!

They are a little slow, which I will agree on, but then they have been oppressed since they could remember.

President Bush is trying to save his legacy my ass!

I will say it again as early as THIS last December Harry Reid was calling for more Troops on the ground.

Why is it so difficult for you on the left to understand leaving Iraq to turn into a terrorist playground will harm America!

Dont feel sorry for President Bush, this is going to sweep the Insurgents out, create jobs for the Iraqi's, secure Baghdad and the Anbar Province, allow the Iraqi's all to share in the oil wealth, (and remember they are paying for most of this), and get this training of Iraqi troops moving along alot faster so we can get the heck out of there.

I'm all for it after reading the plan. Time to squash the insurgents and put an end to this crap for good!

January 11, 2007 9:23 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Night,

I knew it was just a matter of time before she blew a fuse lol

January 11, 2007 9:25 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Ken,

Thank You

I know sometimes I'm fast lol

Yeah I noticed Durbin had NOTHING to give in return.

Hannity on his show last night started a clock ticking for a Democrat solution to any of these proposals, and last I saw it was still ticking.

January 11, 2007 9:31 AM  
Blogger J_G said...

It's not just the number of troops Marie, it's the tactics that are employed with the number of troops that you have.

The militias have to be targeted and especially the Mahdi militias run by Sadr.

Mrs. Green is just another one of those the follow along with anything that is said by people with a political stake in George Bush failing. She has no idea of the consequences that are involved if this mission in Iraq fails. This is our security and power at stake here and apparently liberals understand neither and they will never be taken seriously with comments like;
"Iraq is already a failure. Period."

"Tragic, but true. Mr. Bush is trying to save his legacy, and is using American lives to do so."

If our security was left to the democrats we would be in worse shape now than we ever would. They would be begging bin laden not to attack us and trying to talk with him.

The time for talk was over in 1979 when useless Carter lost the embassy in Tehran and again when they bombed the Marine barracks in 1983 and when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and when the bombed the USS Cole and when they bombed the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1999 and when they committed a full frontal assault on us on September 11, 2001.

What is it that liberals don't understand? I don't mean to single out just Mrs. Green but she is symbolic of the problem any President has to deal with when it comes time to take action against and enemy that is bound and determined to destroy us and our way of life. The liberals just treat it like that it is just not a factor and war with these people is some kind of political game.

Lincoln went through many Generals before he found his answer in US Grant. Rumsfeld should have been relieved much earlier because the job just wasn't getting done. I've said that all along and make no apologies for it. On the other hand for liberals, no matter what George Bush does it is going to be wrong. Even if we were to have the al Qaeda guys coming out of their spider holes waving white flags swearing and allegiance to the US the liberals would find something to hate George Bush for.

Excuse my French, it's time to go in and kick ass, take names and get in the face of every nay saying liberal to sit down shut or pitch in! This is not rocket science and why has that not sunk in? There are thousands of years of lost lives and bloodshed to learn the lessons of the past and to not repeat them. Limited warfare never worked and it will never work.

Maxim VI. At the commencement of a campaign, to advance or not to advance is a matter for grave consideration; but when once the offensive has been assumed, it must be sustained to the last extremity. However skillful the maneuvers in a retreat, it will always weaken the morale of an army, because in losing the chances of success these last are transferred to the enemy. Besides, retreats always cost more men and materiel than the most bloody engagements; with this difference, that in a battle the enemy's loss is nearly equal to your own--whereas in a retreat the loss is on your side only. Napoleon Bonaparte

January 11, 2007 9:49 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

JG,

It's not just the number of troops Marie, it's the tactics that are employed with the number of troops that you have.

The militias have to be targeted and especially the Mahdi militias run by Sadr.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How do you pesonally feel about this plan knowing the Troops arms wont be tied behind thier backs this time, knowing the Iraqi's are paying for most of this, and knowing that President Bush has a lot of targets and real solutions in this plan?

January 11, 2007 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Mrs. Green said...

Looks as if Mrs. Green is living in the fantasy world of her Liberal friends. LOL

Mrs. Green Said:
Whoever posted this conviently leaves out the fact that 12 of the 49 Republicans in the Senate are against Bush's plan. And many Republican Representatives in the House are too. General Abazaid is against the surge, as is General Powell and many more thoughtful Americans.

That figures that Libtards will say that. They always ridicule people when they have nothing more intelligent to say.

Go ahead and Lie Mrs. Green, your party is the cut and run party period.
--night rider

Um, night rider, not to make too fine a point of it, but where exactly am I ridiculing anyone in that statement? And it is not a lie to say that 12 out of 49 Senators are against Bush's surge. Conservative columnist Robert Novak reported that in one of his columns.

And in November at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing (while the Republicans were still the majority), CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’”

So where exactly am I lying. Could you point it out? Thanks a bunch, dear.

January 11, 2007 11:27 AM  
Blogger RoxieAmerica said...

Don't believe the psycho-babble coming out of the major media. This is NOT an escalation, but rather THE HANDOFF to the Iraqi Government. This is the beginning of the end, and the road to success.

January 11, 2007 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Night Rider said...

Mrs Greene

Um, night rider, not to make too fine a point of it, but where exactly am I ridiculing anyone in that statement?

When Libtards say what you have said, your the one who needs to be posting links to what you claim other wise it's just a lie or hearsay.

You said: Conservative columnist Robert Novak reported that in one of his columns. Link post Links.

January 11, 2007 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Mrs. Green said...

night rider,

Too lazy to find it yourself? Okay, I'll do the work for you. Typical of your ilk.

Here's the conservative, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war columnist Robert Novak saying 12 out of 49 Senators are NOT for the Bush surge:

http://tinyurl.com/whtf7

You wouldn't see the truth if it sat on your face. You're blinded by worshipping a man rather than your country. Too bad.

January 11, 2007 6:26 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

Marie asked...How do you pesonally feel about this plan knowing the Troops arms wont be tied behind thier backs this time,

I'm all for it Marie if they are serious about letting the dogs out. That's the only way we are going to bring this situation in Iraq under control.All this bullshit talk about a political solution is just that, nothing but bullshit. The fellas need to go in and shoot the f-ing place up, kick down the doors kill the enemy that won't surrender and let them know we mean business. There can be no more pussyfooting around. This message has to be clear on both sides; to the Iranians backing the Shia militias and to the Saudi's that are financing the Sunni's. They have to be pinned down with our boot across there throat and an M-16 pointed at their head asking ever so politely, do you surrender now?

Once that is done then things can move on but until then chaos will prevail. Physical force and diplomacy by the gun is the only thing those people understand and it will be the only thing that can make them pull back and negotiate a workable peace in Iraq. There is no other choice if victory and satbility is the objective.

January 12, 2007 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Night Rider said...

Mrs. Green

Ok Mrs. Green you didn't lie my apology, but any time you post something that someone else says or did, it's your job to post the link to prove it that is what is known as common blog courtesy.

January 12, 2007 8:21 AM  
Blogger J_G said...

but any time you post something that someone else says or did,

Not only do you have to question what liberals say you also have to verify the sources they use.

I don't argue much with liberals anymore because they are full of it and their sources are usually the same old misquotes and downright misrepresentations of what someone else said. Liberals have no ideas of their own and choose to follow mantras that are espoused at sites designed specifcally for the purpose of informing the mind numb masses of the mantra of the day.

I answered my email nightrider

January 12, 2007 8:48 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Haha WOW I abandon you people for a bit and all heck breaks loose.
But hey, feel free to knock each other out lol I would!

JG,

Well great assessment lol

Tell me how you really feel.

So you think this will work, That's what I was thinking, without the threat of Political pressure on our Troops and all the strategies and plans the President came up with, I have a good feeling about this. I also saw oh I forget where the Marine's started building "Berms" in Haditha. I think they should have been doing that all along, just like the huge sets of Berms they have like 6-10 of them when you start to approach the Kuwait/Iraq border and you have to pass through a checkpoint at every single one of them.

They need to build those along the Syrian and Iranian borders. Those things are so sturdy you CANT ram a truck through them let alone a car.

If they put those Berms in place along the borders (Like I said should have been done long ago), and all these other plans fall into place I think this will work. And the Iraqi's can take full control in what did the President say? November?

Either way I think the troops deserve one more shot at this.

January 12, 2007 9:32 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Roxie,

Don't believe the psycho-babble coming out of the major media. This is NOT an escalation, but rather THE HANDOFF to the Iraqi Government. This is the beginning of the end, and the road to success.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's the way I feel about it too.
I never believe the MSM.

January 12, 2007 3:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

RepublicanGOP.com The Ring of Republican Websites
Ring Owner: Republicans Site: republicangop.com/ - The Ring of Republican Websites
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Free Site Ring form Bravenet

Proud Member Of The Alliance

........In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan....................................................................In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan........


Click for Harbor City, California Forecast


Click for Carthage, Tennessee Forecast


Click for Dekalb, Illinois Forecast