How does Graham say that to Petraeus and not back a bill that would give our military time to recuperate between tours in Iraq? The Webb, Hagel legislation would only give equal time to recuperate as length of tour. Throughout our history the recommended time off has always been twice as long as the tour of duty.
Lantos' opening statement also stated "General Petraeus is quoted as saying that he anticipates that by June of 2009, Iraq will reach what he calls "sustainable security."
Other military experts think that it will take quite a bit longer -- up to five years, says General John Abizaid, the former commander in Iraq.
And how about a, quote, "stable, functioning representative government?"
When asked when something like this might appear, Ambassador Crocker said last week that he would not even try to give a time line. And I note, Senator Graham, that in David Broder's column in this past Sunday's Washington Post, you are quoted as observing, "if we don't see progress on two of the three big issues -- oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections -- in the next 90 days.... Iraq could be a failed state."
Graham had no ethical qualms-he lied to the Lantos Committee as other GOP goons have lied to all of us.
The GOP has been saying that this legislation is illegal, but Senator Webb cited numerous other occasions in which the identical legislation has been passed.
Richard Holbrooke also testified before the Lantos Committee and among other accusations he labeled the Petraeus Crocker presentations as being solely theatre and ridiculed the lies that their testimony wasn't choreographed to mimic W's wishes. The harshest words though were for the idea that Petraeus hadn't been concerned about the condition of the US military as a result of stretching them too thin in the Iraq theatre of GWOT.
It is all lies. The article "More delays in shift to Iraqi control" at
click here
states "In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July...."The goals are the same," Bush said. "Have we achieved them as fast? No, we haven't. But, however, having not achieved them doesn't mean we ought to quit - means we ought to work hard to achieve the goals. Because the end result is the same, whether the goal is done in November or in July."...
In this month's report, the Pentagon said its "current projection" was that all 18 provinces would move to Iraqi control "as early as" July; that would be eight months later than Bush's original projection."
Why doesn't "bubble boy" just shut up? He got his goons to give him the pleasure of seeing our US boys and girls, almost exclusively drawn from the bottom 99% of the US, get massacred until the end of his presidency? What more does he want?
Richard Holbrooke also pointed out that the insane policy of arming Sunnis, who earlier had been killing our boys and girls, was just a temporary band-aid. As soon as they get al-queda in Iraq out of their area they will go back to killing US soldiers and the Shiites of Iraq and will never be part of a Shiite controlled central government. The Kurds haven't been part of a unified central government since the early 1990s. The Kurds have already cut an oil deal with the Hunt firm of Texas--one of W's cronies no less, with no involvement from Baghdad. They aren't interested in anything other than a federal government with a weak central government.
Bro 43 and the Iraq Study Group are against a federation for Iraq. Why? Because, for among other reason, W is afraid that other companies like Hunt won't get oil deals unless there is a strong central government. Maybe it is because the Iraq constitution has already signified that they want a loose federation, and the ethnic violence and displacement of Iraqis, both within Iraq and in other countries in the region signifies that these people who have been killing each other since before the Ottoman Empire, shouldn't be forced to have a strong central government. Maybe W just wants to push them to do something they can't possibly do so the next president will be up to eyes in the death and mayhem that W has bequeathed to the US.
War is peace and also votes. Maybe W's only motivation is to continue sucking off red state morons who are attached to the idea of killing others for the simple power that it shows the US possesses. Who knows for sure? Few are as psychological maladjusted as those who kill others-so how can we explain the actions of those who, we can make pretty phrase about, but can't really comprehend?
Lantos' opening statement also stated "General Petraeus is quoted as saying that he anticipates that by June of 2009, Iraq will reach what he calls "sustainable security."
Other military experts think that it will take quite a bit longer -- up to five years, says General John Abizaid, the former commander in Iraq.
And how about a, quote, "stable, functioning representative government?"
When asked when something like this might appear, Ambassador Crocker said last week that he would not even try to give a time line. And I note, Senator Graham, that in David Broder's column in this past Sunday's Washington Post, you are quoted as observing, "if we don't see progress on two of the three big issues -- oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections -- in the next 90 days.... Iraq could be a failed state."
Graham had no ethical qualms-he lied to the Lantos Committee as other GOP goons have lied to all of us.
Richard Holbrooke also testified before the Lantos Committee and among other accusations he labeled the Petraeus Crocker presentations as being solely theatre and ridiculed the lies that their testimony wasn't choreographed to mimic W's wishes. The harshest words though were for the idea that Petraeus hadn't been concerned about the condition of the US military as a result of stretching them too thin in the Iraq theatre of GWOT.
It is all lies. The article "More delays in shift to Iraqi control" at
click here
states "In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July...."The goals are the same," Bush said. "Have we achieved them as fast? No, we haven't. But, however, having not achieved them doesn't mean we ought to quit - means we ought to work hard to achieve the goals. Because the end result is the same, whether the goal is done in November or in July."...
In this month's report, the Pentagon said its "current projection" was that all 18 provinces would move to Iraqi control "as early as" July; that would be eight months later than Bush's original projection."
Why doesn't "bubble boy" just shut up? He got his goons to give him the pleasure of seeing our US boys and girls, almost exclusively drawn from the bottom 99% of the US, get massacred until the end of his presidency? What more does he want?
Richard Holbrooke also pointed out that the insane policy of arming Sunnis, who earlier had been killing our boys and girls, was just a temporary band-aid. As soon as they get al-queda in Iraq out of their area they will go back to killing US soldiers and the Shiites of Iraq and will never be part of a Shiite controlled central government. The Kurds haven't been part of a unified central government since the early 1990s. The Kurds have already cut an oil deal with the Hunt firm of Texas--one of W's cronies no less, with no involvement from Baghdad. They aren't interested in anything other than a federal government with a weak central government.
Bro 43 and the Iraq Study Group are against a federation for Iraq. Why? Because, for among other reason, W is afraid that other companies like Hunt won't get oil deals unless there is a strong central government. Maybe it is because the Iraq constitution has already signified that they want a loose federation, and the ethnic violence and displacement of Iraqis, both within Iraq and in other countries in the region signifies that these people who have been killing each other since before the Ottoman Empire, shouldn't be forced to have a strong central government. Maybe W just wants to push them to do something they can't possibly do so the next president will be up to eyes in the death and mayhem that W has bequeathed to the US.
War is peace and also votes. Maybe W's only motivation is to continue sucking off red state morons who are attached to the idea of killing others for the simple power that it shows the US possesses. Who knows for sure? Few are as psychological maladjusted as those who kill others-so how can we explain the actions of those who, we can make pretty phrase about, but can't really comprehend?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
