Now that bush seeks another 35,000 troops, did he lie yet again when he asked for 30,000 troops earlier this?

Question

year for his surge plan? Did he knowingly mislead Congress by saying he wanted only 30,000 and not 65,000 because he knew asking for 65,000 would meet with greater resistance? And is the current number of 65,000 for his troop surge honest? Three months from now, will he ask for yet another 35,000 troops for a total of 100,000 "surge"? When will bush's lies end?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070508/us-iraq-troops

Answer 1

Yes, because every time some plan changes, that automatically makes everything that has happened before a lie.

Answer 2

a million/2 white barry is pushing the recent Obama policys, and its getting problematical, he's making an attempt to tension himself to the middle. So now a million/2 black barrack is in keeping with a million/2 white barry to get this complete. And the interior fights between the two are taking its device. Why somewhat the various day, barrack grew to develop into seen status in front of a mirror slapping a million/2 white barry contained interior the face. It have been given grotesque. Supporters had to chop up the two. as long as this empty in shape keeps to tell the quantity of lies he's telling to optimal of distinct human beings. he will proceed to fall and fail. he's now now no longer talking to little ones, he's now talking to those that surely pay the fees. And he's falling right this moment. he will develop into yet yet another Jessie Jackson.

Answer 3

Don't worry you won't be asked to serve. Only loyal Americans serve for their country, that should disqualify you easily. So basically, 35000 people you don't care about are going to Iraq. You pretend you care so you could put some socialist in the White House

Answer 4

Im not too sure that its Bush that is calling for another 35,000 troops. The article I just read stated that it is Robert Gates that is calling for the increase.

Answer 5

HOW MANY TROOPS WOULD IT TAKE TO GET IRAQ UNDER CONTROL? HERE'S A HINT:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/05/iraq/main2153499.shtml
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Nov 5, 4:48 AM ET


WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.
In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:


"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."


"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."


"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."


"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."


"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."


"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

Answer 6

Yes! Occupy Iraq and crush terrorism for good! That's the master plan! Wussies stay out of the way!

Answer 7

I guess in that dreamworld some live in, wars fit neatly into tight schedules and perfect records.

Answer 8

Copying and pasting from the far left Huffington post gives you so much credibility to call the President a liar. What flavor cool aid do you like best??????

Answer 9

It's all a numbers game - the more numbers he throws out, the more confused he hopes the rest of us become, thereby joining him and not realizing that the war is unwinnable no matter how many troops are "thrown" at the problem.

Answer 10

You had to ask? Given Dubya's history, the answer to that question should be evident. Of course he lied! That's his stock in trade. That's the only way he knows how to get anything done.