18 Iraqi brigades?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by TheBreeze on January 11, 2007 - 3:49am

Did I hear the President right? Did he say that Iraq has committed to supplying 18 brigades to help with the U.S. troop surge? Didn't the Iraqis commit to 6 brigades last time and only 2 showed up?

Jesus. This president is delusional. I hope you enjoy drinking his Kool-Aid all you rightwing nutjobs out there. As for me, I'm looking forward to Obama bringing some real leadership, forthrightness, and good, old-fashioned common sense back to the office of the presidency in '08.

I'd say this half-assed plan the president outlined tonight has almost guaranteed that a Democrat will be president in '08.

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 18, 2007 - 2:34pm.

The reason there have been no Al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11 is that Al Qaeda no longer needs to stage attacks here in order to achieve their political objective of bankrupting the United States. We have given Bin Laden exactly what he wanted by occupying Iraq. The recent Al Qaeda attacks in Madrid, London, and Bali were designed to force the Spanish, British, and Australians to withdraw from Iraq, thereby increasing the isolation of the US and forcing us to bankrupt ourselves that much faster. It is a common belief that Al Qaeda will attack US interests to force us to leave Iraq, but in fact the opposite is probably true. The neocon maxim of "fighting them there instead of fighting them here" is actually true with respect to Al Qaeda, although I doubt that most people who use this phrase actually understand why that is the case...

When you find yourself losing in a contest, you should take a moment to ask yourself if your opponent is playing the same game that you are.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 3:31pm.

"When you find yourself losing in a contest, you should take a moment to ask yourself if your opponent is playing the same game that you are."


Submitted by sdnativeson on January 19, 2007 - 8:06am.

jg, I don't think it's particularly hilarious, but there is a certain type of.... wit to it. Now if she said sdnumbnuts,
that would be hilarious (IMO)

Submitted by PerryChase on January 24, 2007 - 1:55pm.

Prominent Republicans are speaking out against Bush


"I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed," said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, senior Republican on the committee.

"There is no strategy," he said of the Bush administration's war management. "This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."

A Vietnam veteran, he fairly lectured fellow senators not to duck a painful debate about a war that has grown increasingly unpopular as it has gone on. "No president of the United States can sustain a foreign policy or a war policy without the sustained support of the American people," Hagel said.

At least eight other Republican senators say they now back legislative proposals registering objections to Bush's decision to boost U.S. military strength in Iraq by 21,500 troops.

The growing list -- which includes Sens. Gordon Smith, George Voinovich and Sam Brownback -- has emboldened Democrats, who are pushing for a vote in the full Senate by next week to rebuke the president's Iraq policy.

"I wonder whether the clock has already run out," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. She said she was worried that U.S. troops in Iraq are already perceived "not as liberators but as occupiers."

Submitted by jg on January 24, 2007 - 2:02pm.

Yeah, but Joe Lieberman is on the President's side!

I feel the 'Jo mentum' building!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.