Choose Victory Over Running

[jimnyc]

President Bush has now done what Democrats have been demanding of him for years. But are they satisfied? Of course not.

They make sure of that by forever moving the goal posts.

Democrats have constantly complained that President Bush never admits mistakes and is too stubborn and inflexible to change his strategies. But on all these counts, his speech on Iraq should give Democrats much to cheer about.

He admitted he has made mistakes in Iraq and that his policies were not working. He accepted responsibility for his failures and laid out a new strategy specifically to address and remedy them. But instead of praising him, Democrats redoubled their criticism and reaffirmed their resignation to our defeat.

How about the president's new strategy?

The press is heavily emphasizing his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, but is ignoring the other equally important aspects of the strategy.
The president intends to close several debilitating loopholes in our strategy to date. He is changing the rules of engagement and demanding the removal of restrictions on attacking Shiite militias, which have been insulated by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/12/84657.shtml

[TheSage]

The president intends to close several debilitating loopholes in our strategy to date. He is changing the rules of engagement and demanding the removal of restrictions on attacking Shiite militias, which have been insulated by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.



I think we should implement this key change WITHOUT a surge, and see what happens.

[jillian]

I so hate to say this, but I agree with Jason. What Bush is talking about is raising troop levels to the same place they were a year ago... something which was part of his failed policy.

The "loopholes" and changes he's talking about are things which should have been done 2 years ago, not now after the country has turned against his war of adventure, but at least it would have been a starting point that wouldn't have been a huge "screw you" to the people who just voted against those policies.

Perhaps Newsmax isn't the best place to get a view of what's really going on?

[Gunny]

I so hate to say this, but I agree with Jason. What Bush is talking about is raising troop levels to the same place they were a year ago... something which was part of his failed policy.

The "loopholes" and changes he's talking about are things which should have been done 2 years ago, not now after the country has turned against his war of adventure, but at least it would have been a starting point that wouldn't have been a huge "screw you" to the people who just voted against those policies.

Perhaps Newsmax isn't the best place to get a view of what's really going on?

At what point are you going to quit attempting to use the results of the past election dishonestly? The election was nto a referendum on the Iraq War, much as you lefties and the MSM keep trying to brainwash everyone into believing.

It was a referendum on conservatives' dissatsifaction with the Republicans in Congress.

Then there's the fact that you keep attempting to portray the people's dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war with the war itself.

A change in strategy and tactics would make your continual assault on his "failed policies" and dishonest representation of what the people voted for irrelevant.

[Pale Rider]

I so hate to say this, but I agree with Jason. What Bush is talking about is raising troop levels to the same place they were a year ago... something which was part of his failed policy.

The "loopholes" and changes he's talking about are things which should have been done 2 years ago, not now after the country has turned against his war of adventure, but at least it would have been a starting point that wouldn't have been a huge "screw you" to the people who just voted against those policies.

Perhaps Newsmax isn't the best place to get a view of what's really going on?

You "do" realize how important it is for us to have a foothold in that region don't you?

[jillian]

You "do" realize how important it is for us to have a foothold in that region don't you?

Absolutely. I just don't think destabilizing Iraq was the means of getting it. I think Iraq served us better when it could act as a buffer against Iran. Just my opinion.

[Dilloduck]

I think we should implement this key change WITHOUT a surge, and see what happens.

Surge schmurge--and additional 2,000 troops doesn't mean a thing ether way.
What kind of skills do these troops have and what is the plan for using them? A unanimous vote from Congress to authorize the use of all means of force against Iran and Syria would do wonders.

[Pale Rider]

Absolutely. I just don't think destabilizing Iraq was the means of getting it. I think Iraq served us better when it could act as a buffer against Iran. Just my opinion.

Well that's pretty much where we're at now Jill. "If" we can stabilize Iraq, we've got it made. I think it's worth the effort. We'll have a peaceful place right next to Iran, and that's the LAST thing they want. That's why Iran is in Iraq causing so much trouble. The stakes are high, to both us and Iran. We HAVE to win.