basically?
Haven't we heard this before?
2007-09-11 12:50:59 · 19 answers · asked by oohhbother 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes that pretty much sums it up. It's working, be patient, wait, give us more time, eventually some troops can come home. The same song and dance from yet another Bush lackey. Those who disagree can save the "he knows more than we do he is the General on the ground" speech also, he is nothing more than another Bush lackey, spinning the agenda set forth by the White House.
We hear the same garbage every 6 months and it never quite comes true.
2007-09-11 12:57:51 · answer #1 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
No. He actually had some encouraging news. And for the first time a time line was given for a draw down.
I'll tell you what is more encouraging. In my business, I have a lot of dealings with the pentagon and opportunities to chat with high ranking officers stationed there. Petraeus is the first commander in Iraq that all the officers at the pentagon speak of highly. In candid remarks, most of them agreed that Petraeus' predecessor was a knucklehead.
2007-09-11 14:07:54 · answer #2 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our troops, as nicely through fact the Allied troops, ought to all pass domicile in case you inquire from me. The communities over interior the midsection East have been engaged in conflict for hundreds of years-----this is what they have executed on account that previous testomony cases. Our involvement and presence over there has led to us unnessary casualties, troop fatigue (the two mentally and bodily), discomfort, melancholy and grief for the families that survives over right here at domicile. to no longer point out procuring greater worldwide enemies than we are in a position to deal with; even some countries that used to love us now no longer do because of this nonsensical conflict. we don't BELONG OVER THERE! President Bush has orchestrated an exceedingly unique and undesirable mess that the subsequent president, whomever which would be, has to spend their first term to freshen up. would God help us all...
2016-11-10 04:20:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the report was written by The White House. His testimony reflects this because he is a soldier. He follows orders, that is what he is supposed to do.
He even fell on his sword by admitting that we would be in Iraq a minimum of ten years.
The President can now say- He said it!
2007-09-11 13:07:30 · answer #4 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Those troops were coming home anyway. Their 15 month tour is up and we don't have the troops to replace them.
2007-09-11 13:00:06 · answer #5 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
30,000 have to come home anyways, the military can not sustain that many troops and still hold retention . The whole entire testimony of the General was, as expected, a total farce.
2007-09-11 12:57:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yes. We have extended the surge until next summer, tours will of course be extended. After next summer we will draw down to pre-surge, unless President Bush does not want to! Right back to where we started from! PROGRESS GUYS!
2007-09-11 12:58:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Now think! Why do they keep buying time. Is it to save the people of Iraq? Hmmmm, don't think so. Is it to find the WMD? Hmmmmm don't think so. Is it so they don't attack us here? Hmmmm don't think so. so what could it be. The followers say it is not for the oil. OK then why are we there?
2007-09-11 13:05:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think he said... Stay the course, and maybe (((maybe))) we'll get back to the original 130,000 troops by next summer.... but we can't make you any real promises.
2007-09-11 12:57:01 · answer #9 · answered by Remember the GOP? 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Well they won, why not bring the troops home.
2007-09-11 13:29:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋