On NPR today they were talking about how the troop surge of 21,500 is deceptive.. that is the number of troops on the front-line.. when you count the additional support personel the number is actually closer to 50,000.. do you think Bush was deceptive on purpose when giving the surge numbers to America.. or just missinformed about his own plan?
2007-02-02 03:19:55 · 16 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He was purposefully deceptive because he isn't really sure what the plan is.
2007-02-02 03:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
as noted in the answer section, some people seem to take issue with the fact that NPR made note of it. The Congressional Budget Office and the NIE noted that it will take 48,000 troops for this surge. George W Bush has had access to this information for weeks, The NIE is being presented to the Congress today. He was deceptive yet again in stating that it would be 21,500. Considering the source, one should not be surprised that he lied to us yet again. The thing is are people going to sit around and not call him on it. This is the President who cried "WOLF".
Michael Steele can say whatever he wants, we do NOT have the extra bodies to throw on the funeral pyre called the war of choice-Iraq. Our troops are stretched thin, we need more troops in the country that protected and help train the people who attacked us-Afghanistan. Soldiers are going back for 3, 4 or 5 tours with hardly a break in between. The troops being sent are going in with only 40% of the equipment they need. They are going without body armor, bullets, etc. There will be more deaths and maimings of our troops for a war of choice. Iraq was not in a civil war prior to our occupation. The NIE even states that civil war does not even adequately describe the anarchy taking place there. This was not happening until we interfered with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on us. Now, the dominoo effect can be a total destabilization of the region and $5.00/gallon gas. Great job Shrub
2007-02-02 11:55:50 · answer #2 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I cannot belive some of the people that answer these questions 50,000 troopa then some one said send 100,000 and get it over with. You guys are in a dream world im a vietnam vet send 1000,000,000 troops and it would not be enough. More guys will be killed and we will get out any way like nam 52000 there and we left. Same deal here. As long as we support Isreal then we will have problems in that region. and belive me we will always support isreal. We ship more munnitions to them just like the Iraians are helping terroists in Iraq whats the differance. What is the result?? to save Isreal we will continue to fight an loose Marines for a B.S. deal . I have found that help begins at home and Bush has forgotten abot that I dont think he is even aware of us here. he has never had to live in hardship so why would he worry about our needs. No child left behind im still laughing about that one. Medical insurance ill belive it when i see it. Most of the people that leave messages here are to young to even remember Nam and what happened how can i tell ?? because of how the answeres are posed and the dumb go get em additude. Bush has cut Vetrens benifits to the bone and talks about what great guys we are. Iraq has produces over 21000 crippled vets legs blown off parapaligic bad bad stuff. Some of you will say well that is the price of war i say this is not WW2 this is an agenda. so many are there protecting there buddies not the flag. If half of you people would just read up a little you would not be so bold in saying hell just nuke em.
2007-02-02 11:52:03 · answer #3 · answered by bone g 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you honestly think that every solider sent to Iraq is in the same place at the same time? Not to mention all are not on the "front line". They go on conveys continuously, which means many are not always in Iraq. In my opinion it's the media that has hampered the success of this war. Let our boys get the job done & they can come home!
2007-02-02 11:37:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm with Michael Steele on this one. If we are going to surge, then we need to surge 100,000 troops and get it over with. Secure Haifa Street and the other nasty parts of Baghdad, finish training the Iraqis, and start bringing our men and women home.
These "little" surges are not worth it.
2007-02-02 11:24:24 · answer #5 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well the rest of the troops aren't in Iraq, just in the region.
2007-02-02 11:22:48 · answer #6 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its NPR take it for what its worth..1/2 truths
in contrast, the general said only 1/2 of the 21.5 thousand would be sufficient
2007-02-02 11:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by chumpchange 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Neither.
If you are concerned about being misinformed I suggest you get your news from sources besides NPR. NPR is notoriously biased.
2007-02-02 11:25:05 · answer #8 · answered by C B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Or maybe NPR doesn't know the facts. Naw the left-wing media would never mislead us--would they?
2007-02-02 12:02:51 · answer #9 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NPR needs to admit where are they taking their money from; then explain why the do support censorship in Venezuela and then they may use the word "deceptive"
2007-02-02 11:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by Bonneville P 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
NPR is hardly an objective or reliable source. Could be, but I can't take NPR at it's word any more than I could take Michael Savage at his word.
2007-02-02 11:23:25 · answer #11 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋