Posted on 07/08/2007 12:59:06 PM PDT by bnelson44
The Republican rebellion against the war in Iraq widened over the weekend as more of the party’s senators voiced dissent against President George W. Bush’s strategy.
Republican unity on Iraq has shattered in recent weeks, amid mounting pessimism about the ability of US forces to bring stability to the country.
Weakening Republican support for the war has left Mr Bush looking increasingly isolated as Congressional Democrats prepare for a fresh barrage of votes aimed at forcing a US withdrawal from Iraq.
Three Republican senators have joined the calls for a change of course in Iraq in recent days, adding to a steady trickle of defections.
“It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy,” Lamar Alexander, Republican senator for Tennessee, told the Los Angeles Times on Saturday.
Speaking to the same newspaper, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said efforts to quell the violence in Iraq by increasing US troop numbers “don’t seem to be making a lot of progress”.
In common with most Republicans, Mr Alexander and Mr Gregg stopped short of backing Democratic calls for legislation to force an immediate withdrawal. But Mr Gregg said it was vital to have “a clear blueprint” aimed at reducing troop numbers.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Lamar! is at it again
Yeah, it's really sad how Al Qaida owns Anbar Province...oh wait...
Some of these rather hyper individuals are quick to call for “new strategy”, but are remarkably short on making some sort of declaration of just what the “new strategy” should be.
Either stay in and get the job done, or cut and run. If these “armchair gernerals” are so all-fired good at creating and conducting a better strategy, then by all means, let us hear what that strategy is.
All the competent staff officers with potential to become the good or even great generals today, skipped out and took retirement during the decade of the ‘90’s. Bush inherited a hollow shell of a military establishment in 2001, in which the positions were filled, but with officers of little or no combat experience, and with only the shakiest of resumes. But they had survived the “screening” process to bring them up to “politically correct” standards.
People cursed and blamed Donald Rumsfeld for seeming to not be able to get a handle on the problem in the early days after 9/11, but as Rumsfeld remarked at the time, you never go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have. It took a long time to ramp up the readiness of the military to the state that they only now can perform the way that was so desperately needed in 2002 and 2003. And even now, they are forced to go into battle with one arm tied behind their backs, to satisfy all the criticism, just and unjust, that gets hurled their way.
One of these days, that fence he keeps trying to perch upon is going to impale him like he deserves.
We never should have put a single soldier on the ground in the Middle East post 9-11.
We should have instead at random picked two Muslim cities and killed every living thing in them by whatever means we chose, be it carpet bombing or nukes.
The we could have warned the goons, hit us again, and we take out millions more of you.
This is the only way that will work with these "religious" animals.
Sorry for insulting all animals, these muslim turds are beneath them.
I am coming back to what I figured was our best option from the get go. That is a 3 way split.
Thats because the Clintons have the FBI files to blackmail them if they show the slightest sign of breaking ranks. The DNC is like the CCCP in that regard. Fear is a powerful weapon.
ping
Calling them traitors or cut-and-runners is disingenous. I know you like to live in your little FR bubble where you can beat your chest all day long, but there are folks out in the real world who are letting these Senators hear it, and they have a right to do so just like we did when we stopped the amnesty immigration bill.
“It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy,”
A new strategy was just implemented a couple of weeks ago, hold your horses opinion poll chaser.
They're being killed now, albeit at a slower pace than if we weren't there at all. Please tell me how long would we have to remain there to kill an inexhaustible supply of terrorists that regenerate like the ghosts from the Gauntlet video game.
It's obvious that Iraq can't handle democracy. I say secure our borders, deport radical Muslims in our country, and put Iran and other terrorist states/nations on notice that they'll be a smoking hole in the ground if they dare try anything funny. Bush has refused to take off the gloves and he let the MSM/Dims dictate the war strategy.
And that, mes ami, is why you never, ever believe ANYTHING that the MSM says about this war. "The surge isn't working" would be MSM lie #1...not chronologically, but you get my point.
Yeah, great plan. Are you for machine gunning muslims here in the U.S.?
Well, what the hell. The surge has barely been fully implemented, and these jackballs are already giving in.
I am damn sick and tired of spineless weasels in my party.
Never expect honor from a U.S. Senator.
> I’m from NH, and am sort of in agreement with Gregg on
> this.
>
> We never should have put a single soldier on the ground
> in the Middle East post 9-11.
>
> We should have instead at random picked two Muslim cities
> and killed every living thing in them by whatever means
> we chose, be it carpet bombing or nukes.
>
> Then we could have warned the goons, hit us again, and we
> take out millions more of you.
I’m from NH, too, and I’m with you 100%.
I didn’t think putting boots on the ground in Iraq was a good idea in the first place.
But now that we have American soldiers in harm’s way, we need to do EVERYTHING we can to support their mission to pacify that steaming dog pile.
The change in strategy that’s needed is to untie the hands of the American soldiers and start the bombing of Iranian military installations and positions along the Iraqui border.
Every Iranian military installation should be shelled to powder.
Every Iraqui “insurgent” should be treated the same as the Nazi “insurgents” were in the first five years after the “end” of WWII.
Summarily executed on the spot.
That's the question. Too many here at FR are answering it like this:
"BUG OUT!"
Friggen moron. More troops engaging the enemy more often and in greater numbers = more "violence"
VOTE THESE SCHMUCKS OUT IN '08!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.