"Troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress" - New England Patriots Forums

***PressCoverage*** · 01-08-2007, 01:04 PM

Novak: Powell ‘caustic’ over escalation plans. Robert Novak writes, “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell…is caustic in private about the proposed ’surge’ of 30,000 additional U.S. troops. Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops. ‘The colonels will always say they need more troops,’ the retired general says. ‘That’s why we have generals.’” Novak adds, “Senior Republican senators are trying to get word to the president that any troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress.”

Real World · 01-08-2007, 01:26 PM

Technically speaking, it's irrelevent what Congress thinks. They have no say in the matter. If Bush wants to send 100,000 more troops, he has the power to do so. Congress has didly. The only thing congress can do is scrutinize funding. Think they want to do that? Doubt it. Of course you probably knew that, which is why you chose to headline your thread "Troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress".

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/08/D8MH66Q00.html

3 to be 4 · 01-08-2007, 03:04 PM

If this happens, if we send in that many more troops, with the way a majority of americans feel about the war, it will gaurantee a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.

wistahpatsfan · 01-08-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 to be 4

If this happens, if we send in that many more troops, with the way a majority of americans feel about the war, it will gaurantee a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.

That's exactly what I was thinking today. It seems crazy to risk completely losing the government to the Democrats, and a final slap in the face to the American People.

And what's the strategy that goes along with increased troops? How could it possibly improve things there? Does anyone believe that we are close to asserting control in Iraq? We must be close and this surge of troops will put us over tha edge, right? Who believes that?

No answers to this mess other than get the hell out. The questions far outnumber the answers.

Pujo · 01-08-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Technically speaking, it's irrelevent what Congress thinks. They have no say in the matter. If Bush wants to send 100,000 more troops, he has the power to do so. Congress has didly. The only thing congress can do is scrutinize funding. Think they want to do that? Doubt it. Of course you probably knew that, which is why you chose to headline your thread "Troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress".

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/08/D8MH66Q00.html

That's assuming the US has troops to send. Sending 20,000 troops is going to require increasing the size of the military as a whole... where's the money going to come from if not congress?

That said, I'm in favor of boosting the troops if the administration wants it. For 2 more years, and my feelings for him notwithstanding, GW is still the commander-in-chief. If he wants to send in more troops, it'll be the sword he and his party die by. He's come this far, might as well let him finish out his "strategy" until the Dems can get someone in the White House.

scout · 01-08-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 to be 4

If this happens, if we send in that many more troops, with the way a majority of americans feel about the war, it will gaurantee a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.

Not only that, but the Republicans may not even have a filibuster option as there will be 21 Republican seats up for re-election vs 11 Democrat. Bush is still voicing his 'victory' line, the question is what Republicans will support him knowing that it might cost them their job. BTW, I really don't want to see one party have that much power.

Holy Diver · 01-08-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Not only that, but the Republicans may not even have a filibuster option as there will be 21 Republican seats up for re-election vs 11 Democrat. Bush is still voicing his 'victory' line, the question is what Republicans will support him knowing that it might cost them their job. BTW, I really don't want to see one party have that much power.

I've been reading today that there are only approx. 9,000 troops available.

can this be right?

CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/...ble-for-surge/

3 to be 4 · 01-08-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

That's exactly what I was thinking today. It seems crazy to risk completely losing the government to the Democrats, and a final slap in the face to the American People.

And what's the strategy that goes along with increased troops? How could it possibly improve things there? Does anyone believe that we are close to asserting control in Iraq? We must be close and this surge of troops will put us over tha edge, right? Who believes that?

No answers to this mess other than get the hell out. The questions far outnumber the answers.

the frightening part is that on all the reports i saw on it, even the commanders asking for the troop increases say it will take 2 to 3 YEARS and door to door combat in the cities to even stabilize the situation.

With Rumsfeld/McNamara leaving and this insanity continuing this is not just becoming another Vietnam, it IS another Vietnam.

And once again, numbers are thrown out against a wall. These are 20,000 more of our finest young people.

And the real threat isnt even in Iraq, its in Iran and North Korea.

Bush will be remembered as one of the worst, if not worst, Presidents in U.S. history and his claim to fame will be that Saddam Hussein got hanged.

Yippie, what a legacy.

Holy Diver · 01-08-2007, 03:56 PM

"Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."

- GW Bush, June 28th 2005

All_Around_Brown · 01-08-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

"Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."

- GW Bush, June 28th 2005

Two lies: 1) we never intend on leaving, certainly not while he's still in charge as he has since said.
2) he hasn't been listening to commanders unless Rove is now considered one