I didn’t hear about this until this morning, but it certainly boggled my mind and made me practically snort coffee out my nose. Can he really think the American people have such short memories…or are that stupid??

I can’t find an online source, but I heard on the radio news that Iraq, too, is rather surprised by W’s new “strategery".


And many, many more…

Now, the new buzzword is “change”. Funny choice for mid-term election time.

"Wow, I’m all for that!! Change of leadership, change of strategy?? No? Just a change of rhetoric? Oh, darn."

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

Will it work?

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

This whole thing is nothing but a cynical attempt to retain control of Congress. Bush, in my opinion, is getting this advice, not from battle commanders, but Karl Rove.

Will it work?

I don't know, but most of the polls say it isn't. I think it may be the old story about crying wolf one too many times. On the other hand, there are people who will eat this up like honey on sopapilla.*

*Note: I've loved sopapillas and honey for as long as I can remember, but I had to call a Mexcan restaurant to figure out the spelling.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

Remember, every conflict in history, public sentiment gave way and people wanted to stop the conflict(s). From the Revolutionary war to GWII we have seen this. The only wars we have lost is when public skepticism had won the day and we prematurely ended the conflict.

The U.S. lost the war of 1812 because of a lack of popular support? I need to make some phonecalls, apparently all my history teachers have got it wrong.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

Will it work?

While the change in rhetoric is certainly influenced by public perception, the real reason has very little to do with the election specifically. The fact remains that inside the government and without, this sort of language reinforces the perception that there is no coherent strategizing taking place in regards to Iraq. The illusion of flexibility deflects attention from strategy/immediate progress-type questions and allows the White House to focus on long-term goals in shaping the discourse on Iraq... or at least that's what I feel the plan is here.

Firstly, thats not entirely true. Though there were certainly some people tired of war, the majority of Americans remained behind the war and the war effort in The Spanish-American war, the First World War, the Second World War, to say nothing of the minor conflicts of Panama, Grenada and so on. Even in the Korean war, the popular opinion was in favour of Armistics by the start of 1953 (after a bloody year-long stalemate) but remained commited to victory and did not consider the war a mistake.

Secondly, even if your supposition were true, the fact that people have tended to be against some wars in the long run in the past does not make them wrong.

Thirdly, the US has lost two wars, the 1812 war and the war in Vietnam. As has been pointed out, lack of drive on the home front had nothing to do with the 1812 defeat, while only the wildest optimist could claim the US would have 'won' in Vietnam had they 'stayed the course'. That war was lost from 1969, at a time (by the way) when the US public was still narrowly in favour of the war.

I am sure after this war chalks up the third 'loss' in the US column, there will be those who claim the home front collapse lost the war, conveniently forgetting the complete failure on the field of struggle. It is commonplace. The idea of the 'Dolshoss' or 'stab in the back' was a convenient fiction in Post-First-World-war germany, when a people were unwilling to accept the embarassing defeat of their armed forces, and so turned to other (if patently false) excuses to explain a defeat they were simply unwilling to recognise.


Even the economist (a Centre-Right magasine) has stated in the October 21st-27th issue that it is not unreasonable to call the Bush Jr. invasion of Iraq the 'largest strategic blunder of our times'.


Few of those who advocate 'stay the course' (and they numbers are small and dropping) seem willing to go beyond those three words. Ok, so let us say we 'stay the course'... then what? The situation continues to degrade DESPITE the US' presence, casualties continue to mount, the insurgencies continue to get stronger, Al Qaida internationally continues to get stronger and PROFIT from the US' overcommitment to Iraq, and US funds continue to be poured into a black bottomless hole.

So, what now? You cannot speak ill about the hypothetical 'consequences' of pulling out unless you are also willing to look at the consequences of 'staying the course'. It is not about Iraq falling into Chaos or not falling into Chaos, it is simply about how many American lives and how many hundreds of billions of American dollars are going to be carried along in the inevitable progression of events. The US has proven singularily unable to improve the situation in Iraq, and every single measurable sign demonstrates the continuing extent of that failure.

Most infrastucture and basic facilities are not ONLY still at pre war levels, but they are at lower levels than they were a year ago. The insurgencies own the streets of major cities during the day, unhampered (and in many cases, assisted) by the forces of the 'Iraqi Government'. In one case, the Insurgents took over an entire town, almost a week ago, with no response yet from Iraqi forces whatsoever.

There are still a precious few who insuiste you also need to 'look at the good news', but they remain suspiciously silent when asked for examples of ANY of this supposed 'good news'.


So don't just say 'stay the course', because the course so far is an unmitigated failure.

As well we should.

There never was a war started by the public. It's the politicians who do that. They just tell the public to supply the money and soldiers to fight the war.

When the failures outweigh the successes and the reasons that were used to justify the war are proven to be untrue, people lose interest to continue losing their sons and daughters for no good reason. The American people are not cowards or pacifists. They are willing to put it on the line when asked to. All they ask in return is their leaders not lie and deceive them.

When that happens they will turn against the war with a fury.

That's not skepticism. That's intelligence.

You do need to make some calls if your history teachers did not teach you of the Hartford Convention and the Federalist party.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

This is again a tactic by the Bush administration, and it's key architect, Karl Rove, to play to the short memory of the American people. Fortunately, it seems our retention has actually increased in the last two years. Never been about 'staying the course'? That is all I've heard from this administration for 3 years. Since this whole fiaso started.
It's unfortunate that those of us who spoke out very very loudly against the invasion in the first place were labeled unpatriotic, unamerican, and not supportive of our troops. The supporters of this administration have been brutal where this subject is concerned. Now what we said would come to pass, civil war, an active insurgency, and us mired in a unending conflict, has come to pass. But our saying it has conveniently been forgotten. It's as if we somehow never said a word. I have yet to hear one of those who call me one of 100 different names actually say "gee.. now i understand wha' ya ment!".

Even two of our closest allies, France and Germany advised against it. It's not like they haven't waged wars of aggression and have it bite them back! France learned you can't spread democracy from the barrel of a gun. Germany.. well.. they still feel the sting of defeat.
So, what as a nation did we do to thank our close friends for giving us some much needed cold water over the head? Even if we chose to ignore their advise? We called them 'old europe' and boycotted their products.

Now, we as a country are whining that we cannot get any help. Why do you think that is? Because we, or at least those who made the decision, and those who supported it, cannot admit they were wrong.
And even if they weren't wrong (please show me the WMDs), they showed they couldn't plan for the aftermath. Guess what children, when you go it alone, and refuse to listen, you get what you wanted.. you get to go it alone.

Now Bush is trying to say there is a way to salvage this. I do hope he is right. For the sake of our troops, for the Iraqis, for our nation. But I have my doubts.
Anyone notice that they have put an 18 month timetable for pullout? Gee.. how convenient.. just in time for the Presidential elections.

I can tell you this much. Once Bush is out of power, who ever takes his place has a chance to turn this around. The powers in Europe will listen. All we need to do is say... we made a mistake. Please help us.
They will come running.

Will it work?

Maybe to get a few republicans seats secured. But it will have no effect on the outcome of the war.

This is getting a bit off topic, but:

The federalist party existed since over a decade before the start of the war, and they were a small fraction of the Republican party. The Hartford convention was attended by very few people, and was irrelevant to the signing of the treaty of Ghent, which was done entirely because of American military defeat, and complete inability to complete its two stated war aims.

There certainly existed a (small) anti-war movement in the US, but thats a LONG way from saying the war was lost because of the turn of the general population against the war.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

I think it was a feed for The Daily Show/ColBear (Yahhhh!) Repour to do what you've done with the old GWB quotes.

It was hillarious to watch, live and in color, right there on the tube. Either the President has a great sense of humor or he's got a serious memory problem. Steph's expression was richly filled with amazement. Can you imagine what that was like?

The leader of the free world sitting right across the table and telling you that no, grass really isn't green. Never was.

Makes me wish for the lies coming from Richard Nixon's mug. Those were at least a little challenging.

Will it work?

I really can't imagine this sort of denial tactic working. Looks to me that Republicans have met the enemy, and they is them. Of course, maybe the idea is to push Republican moderates away from the machinery that has gone out of control. If so, it's working brilliantly.

You know, if President Bush is secretly a Democrat. I've seen that speculation in the funny papers. I've also heard that maybe Republicans want to lose Congress in order to have a better chance in 2008.

Well, that might work if the Democrats really mess up things over the next two years. Subject for future debates.

from Wikipedia's War of 1812.
Seems more of a stalemate than anything else. Although I would lean towards America because she had once again not fallen to the British. Interesting to note the difference of opinion between American views on 1812 and those influenced from the British (Vermillion).
Going to have to read a high school history book on the American Revolution from the British perspective one of these days. Interesting to hear their side of it. (Damn Yank insurgents)

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?Bush has got to realize by now that "Stay the Course" just makes him sound like he is not paying attention. His "course" is failing and needs a redesign to meet the current needs of his undertaking to succeed.

I don't mean to get us off topic but I find this relevant to the discussion at hand.

The history of the Federalist party was that of supporting the crown and was attempting to succeed from the US. The war, in their eyes, was a just cause against succeeding.

Regarding the loss of the war, that is very debatable (not like the debate of the Vietnam war). The US won most land battles and had some major navel victories over the British. Granted, the embargo was not lifted until the treaty of Ghent. There was nothing of the treaty that indicated the US lost the war. The most decisive victory after the treaty though, was the Battle of New Orleans where where Andrew was outmanned 2-1 and slaughtered the British advancement.

It was also the end of the Federalist party in American politics.

Agreed. But they played an important role in the development of today's political system in the US.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

If I remember correctly the government overall has three means of mandated power to go to war, we are not under congress declared war but that of our dear president, mr.brush. So to me when you say stay the course, what you are really saying is the voice of what is overall a minority, not only in public view anymore but much more in government, its really the view of I would have to say primarily cheney, rumsfeld and bush, along with some other people that changed courses in life after the fact, soime of whom i think always knew it was the wrong decision, like Colin Powell.

Yet for some reason this majority view is left to feel bad for some reason, or itself be open to skepticism. The plan point to me is stay the course is weaselcode for we have no plan, but i can wave a flag really well.

Its this same lack of planning that has lead to all the negativity around the war back home, because this lack of planning is just left things to turn out in ways that may never had needed to be. Yet of course the people pulling the strings in which started this and bear it on their shoulders to a certain extent are left to say stay the course, you the American and any other person have those three words to deal with, that’s it.

OF course politics being what it is, objective unbiased and fallacy free thought on the subject will never come to exist, but with Iraq I am sure we will just stay the course IF anything it should have to do with the reality of Iraq and wanting something other then that when Americans finally get to elect a new head to the regime.

Will it work?

Bush cares only for bush vision, or something that is cut and paste of it. Besides that its insults and an invertebrate pond scum of a rubber stamp congress. The only thing that will work is finally when we get to vote for regime change, then maybe we can elect someone that simply states he or she or it will stop the madness, it should be enough for a win.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

This is a clear attempt at salvaging a mid-term election. The Bush Administration knows that they are going to lose at least the House and possibly the Senate too. They are trying whatever it takes to reduce the damage. The approach by Ken Mehlman of concentrating their resources on close races is an excellent idea, but in the end I do not think that any scheme is going to work. The Republicans are going to be tossed out of Congress and I would not be surprised, well maybe slightly surprised, if the Republicans lose every single election. The American public is being squeezed for every dollar and it is having a massive effect. Foreclosure rates are at an all-time high, nobody can buy or sell a house on the market, healthcare costs are increasing and we are going to see a cleansing of Congress greater than 1994.

As for the President, he needs to have someone publicly scold him and dismiss him from an interview. "Mr. President, I cannot endure your lies any longer, this interview is over, get out!"

Will it work?
Read above

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

Stay the course sounds conotatively inflexible, and therefore Bush is ditching it. I remember one of Bushes minions using the buzz word "adapting to win", but I think they aren't using that one substantially, because it would get old.

Will it work?

His position is still going to be abbreviated by most as "stay the course". No replacing slogan exists, and this one is embedded.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

No it is due IMO to the fact that the DEMs have effectively portrayed this as meaning that Bush just wants to hang in there with tactics that don’t work and never change anything. Meanwhile as usual they have no real answers themselves.

What the adm. has ALWAYS meant was that tactics would change to meet the changing situation. This has been true from day one of course and he is merely making the point CLEAR which is a good thing.

There has never been a “popular” war that lased more than a year or two and this one is no exception. The question is are we prepared to do what it takes to win and the answer at this point is not at all clear.

Ted- GW can't even really define what a "win" would be. He is a chronic flip-flopper at this point.

The lengths to which Bush Jr supporters will go to blame absolutely everything he does on his opponents staggers me. Of course this poost is in itself an admission: months ago when being hammered on the awful and counterproductive tactics Bush jr used in this war, Ted denied it with the passion of the fanatic. Now at least it seems you admit you were wrong, progress to be sure.



That is one of the most Revisionist statements I have ever heard. I am sure if Bush jr is forced to pull out of Iraq, we will have people like Ted claiming loudly (and with no evidence) that the withdrawal was his plan from the very beginning.



Firstly, that claim has ben made before, but your repeating it does not make it any more true. In fact many wars have been popular throughout their duration with the majority of the American people. This desperate attempt to equate Iraq with past wars is based on an absolute fiction.

Secondly: OK Ted, why don't YOU tell us then. What is necessary to win? Is it really that 'the people are not willing to win', or is it that Bush Jr has made a win an impossibility with his staggering blunders and basic mistakes of strategy, all of which were pointed out to him by advisors (who were ignored) long ago?

Who is responsible for this war being on the verge of lost Ted, is it those sneaky 'Dems' who at no point have held any power over the administration in the last 4 years, or is it the party and its leader which chose to go to war for bad reasons, based the war on false pretexts, and blundered every stage of the war from start until now, with the obvious and predictable result you see in Iraq at the moment?

Sorry- meant to bring out a definition of what a "win" would be according to his response- poorly worded on my part-

Ted- what would be the CONSISTANT definition of what a "win" would be, and GWs constant changing of that definition?

It's not revisionist like you claim. The very page to which DaffyGrl links in her introductory post (second quote box) contains this quote from the President from November 2005:


This whole thing is much ado about semantics. Yes, Bush is an embarassingly clumsy speaker, no question about that. But his overall point is sound: Ajust tactics as needed, but don't lose sight of the goal.

Yes, it is revisionism. Firstly, what brilliant changes in tactics has the US employed over the last few years? Yes in 2005, with the war going pear-shaped, he made that speech for the first time. However according to Brigadier General Mark Kimmit, the US forces in Iraq were not allowed to consider overal changes in engagement strategy without direct permission from the White House, and such permission was not given. Only local unit tactics were under the control of commanders.

Strategy, and public comments on strategy were strictly controlled. There was to be no mention of a 'long war' because the White House felt that would 'not play well'. There were repeated calls from ALL quarters for more toops and specialised equipment, but equipment only was forthcoming when the media revealed the embarassing deficiencies in the US armoury.

Bush Jr's 'plan' has been to keep doing what he first planned, and pray that it works (After all, God talks to him). He has received specific and clear advice, advice that turned out to be correct, and ignored it. The only tactics that have adapted, are his excuses and justifications.


Now suddenly Bush supporters are trying to turn him into the master strategist, who has been carefully responding to every situation with a firm hand on the tiller? Nobody buys that, and the bodies keep piling up...

I'm really not being frivolous by asking this, but I've just done a search using various criteria to see where Kimmitt was quoted saying anything of the sort, and I so far have found nothing. Is this an actual quote from him that you're citing, or just something that some author claimed Kimmitt said in a book somewhere?


It certainly would be nice if just once, you could argue a point without adding your own embellishments to what your opponents have said. It might make your arguments a bit more plausible. To put in more specific terms, allow me to quote from the survival guide:

I don’t remember what issue it was, or even the name of the paper, it was some stars and stripes paper you could get overseas. In it the generals were like talking about the ten thousand mile screwdriver or something, or really overall how bush is all up in the dealings with Iraq, of course nothing that bad of it all was said if I remember, just that the white house was always wanting in on everything. I think another article in the paper was about how scared that technology would allow micromanagement to cripple the troops ability to make a decision and by extension truly give that soldiers life or decisions to some 2lt or something, I thought it was a bit odd in teh placement but hey, you work with what you have.

I don’t know the extent of the bush vision on controlling generals in Iraq. I know overall that a marine officer got into trouble initially on the rush to Baghdad because he knew they were rushing past all kinds of combatants lying in ambush, simply it was bush vision to take Baghdad really quick. Overall the bush party had a plan, it did not work, but simply because it don’t fit that means force it or something, like putting a round peg in a square hole, makes you wonder.

Staying the course has never really had any definition, save adapt and overcome, which again is code for no real plan exists, with an exit strategy that could be in like 2120 or something at that rate. He does not want the American public to know the reality of Iraq via certain views, such as intelligence reports that have to be leaked. I do support a change in course at this point, I think its the only thing you can support if you are compassionate and conservative, after all its our people and image overseas that’s at stake, we worry so about failure, but care less about working towards anything past stay the course, with no outline of even what victory is. If its an Iraq that mirrors our culture, well then its always going to be a failure, unless you are prepared for Nazi type activity and few generations of people to come and pass. If its a secure Iraq, that might never come too, the Palestinians happen to still fight from refugee camps, and have been fighting a war they cant possibly ever win for over fifty years with no real end in sight, so again what is a secure Iraq. The idea of a federal Iraqi army was are only chance to leave on some winning grounds, but hey, a civil war I am sure will help that come right quick, talk about genius in planning, someone is very very bad at planning, and should be fired, then deported to Iraq.

No this is an actual quote from Kimmit. Last year he came to Oxford and lectured about the Iraq war, both at All Souls College and at the IISS in London. I was at the lecture. It was quite a lecture, and by the way Kimmit is an absolutely charming and charismatic speaker.



It is called sarcasm, and it is entirely legal. It is also a tactic used REGULARILY by many other members of the board, such as a fellow called Blackstone. You may have heard of him. Shall I quote you some of the bountiful cases where he has done exactly the same thing?

Oh and by the way, its not even that sarcastic, its almost true in form. Have you read Lordhelmet's post where he does EXACTLY that, blame everyone else but good old trustworthy Bush for the errors of the war?

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

Will it work?

The Bush White House has a long history of playing semantic games with the American public. I'm pretty sure we have debated some of his other linguistic two-steps before on this board.
Previous changes in White House terminology have been relatively successful as far as I can tell. The difference this time is this: In the past Bush had a much higher approval rating. My experience alone tells me that, when people approve of a public figure, they are much less likely to be critical of them or introspective of their own beliefs regarding them. Thus, when more people approved of Bush his semantic juggling was greeted with, at worst, a shrug of the shoulders and an, "Oh, now I see what you mean!"

With his ratings in the toilet Bush (brought to you by Karl Rove and the letter "R") will be under more scrutiny. With more light cast on this PR attempt it will be doomed to fail. Bush can say that he is being flexible and adapting, but Americans are now watching closely and they see no changes.

If, in the next week, Bush manages to conjure some sort of huge, strategic victory (such as bringing in more European allies or getting support from more Muslim groups) then his new turn of phrase will have meaning and might have effect on the election.

It just occurred to me that, during the time that Bush was ignoring much of the advice (warnings) offered to him he had excellent approval ratings. I think that now, with mroe people willing to hear negative critiques of GW, it would be an interesting tactic for the Dems to retell the history of Bush's most prominent, spurned advisors. More people will be willing to hear that story now.

Well then I don't know what to tell you for sure, except that it's difficult to have a debate without verifiable information to work with. But either way, it's really straying from what's at issue in this thread, which is that Bush stands accused of altering his message. It's not about whether his actions have been consistent with his message (that's really a subject for a whole other thread). His message with regards to "staying the course" has not been inconsistent. His semantic klutziness aside, the context behind his every invocation of that phrase (at least the ones that have been catalogued in DaffyGrl's link) has been to stay focused on the goal, not to stay devoted to any one set of tactics. If he had made that statement in response to suggestions that our tactics should be changed, then you could say his message has been inconsistent. But the context has always shown that it was made as a way of saying not to give up on the objective.


That goes right to the exact reason why I posted that excerpt from the Survival Guide. If you have an issue with something lordhelmet said then you're perfectly free to take it up with him. But unless I specifically agree with something someone said, then I can only speak for myself. Statements from others, therefore, don't reflect on anything I've said.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

It’s a bit of everything you mention and certainly a bit of “stratergery” to sway some gullible swing votes back to the GOP. The timing tells the entire story; unpopular presidential polls, mid term elections that could see a shift in power that happens to coincide with one of the bloodiest months in over three years. An ugly combo for the republicans so it’s time to paint the pig a different color. It’s just politics.

Will it work?

The standard bearers for the republicans keep repeating “it’s a better plan than what the democrats are offering”. Well, the personal responsibility party seems to shrug their own responsibility in cleaning up their own mess. Make no mistakes about it, this is President Bush’s war, between him and his staff they “should” know more about what’s going on over there than any congressional candidate, making them the authority on getting us out. So they can call it what ever they choose. As blind as American voters can be at times, when it comes to war all eyes are focused.

CR – Bush has defined what ‘win” means dozens of times. Dems of course jumped at the ‘sound-bite’ of ‘stay the course” because it is so easy to misinterpret. As bush the generals and others in the Admin. Have said numerous times, stay the course never ever ment that tactics would not change – only that we would not run out before the Iraqi government could defend itself. This does not mean everything went to plan. Lets see what magic bullet we get from the Dems – outside of course – cut and run (redeploy).





I was against this war but the reality is we lost because we had an idiot in the White House who never let the military fight to win. You cannot compare this to Iraq. In Vietnam we NEVER invaded the North or deposed Ho. We never had control of the North in any way or its industrial base. To win we would have had to invade the North and Johnson had no intension of doing this and the North knew it.

Come on Ted, that is just being deliberately obtuse, you know full well what he meant.

Yes, Bush Jr had a plan: "Win the war in Iraq!". That was his plan. That is, however, NOT what we are talking about, as you well know. We are talking about HOW he intended to win the war, and far more importantly, win the occupation. Here we have it from a dozen sources that not only did he have no plan, but he deliberately ignored anyone in his administration who tried to present him with plans or suggestions, meaning he made some of the most staggeringly ignorant and obvious mistakes imaginable.

THAT is the reason why the US is caught in this bloody losing situation at the moment. Or do you think the US is winning the war in Iraq at the moment? Do you think things are going swimmingly? The war is a functional disaster, and the ONLY people to blame are Bush Jr and the Republican party. Not Nancy Pelosi, not John Kerry, not Ted Kennedy.


Tactics will change as the war proceeds you say? OK Ted, if that is your assertion, give us an example of one of these 'new tactics' that has been deployed in Iraq by Bush jr and Rumsfeld, and how is had helped the situation. We're waiting.


The US won't leave before the Iraqi government can defend itself? How's that going Ted? Do you even realise what a debacle the Iraqi military has become?

-Iraqi police are thoroghly implcated in many of the death squads that prowl Iraq, now during the daylight, unchallenged. They are even rumoured to be involved in yesterday's attack on Government offices. According to US experts and western traders on the ground, as much as 70% of the Iraqi police has been infiltrated by Insurgents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6103001323.html

-Two years ago the Iraq military has three level 1 ready combat companies. 1 year ago they had only 1. 6 months ago they had None

-Desertion rates among the Iraqi military are regularily as high as 20%, and if the units are deployed to regions where they might be required to fight, as high as 50%.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...334/1002/NEWS01

-And in the most telling of all, in the last 6 months, Insurgents have openly taken several large towns around the country. Al-Qaim and Haditha are just two of the 5 or 6 towns which Insurgents have attacked, and after all local Iraqi forces fled or surrendered, openly control the town. How many times has the Iraqi army attacked in an attempt to regain control and reassert its sovereignty? Zero.

This is a direct challenge on national sovereignty, and the 'Iraqi army' has not even TRIED to challenge it.


Ted, the Iraq army is a complete and utter failure. Some units can fight if accompanied and supported by US troops (Though very badly: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/02/...eref=rss_world) but none can operate independently, after 3 full years of training, NONE.

And even with US support and accompaniement, most units simply crumble, as with the 2 Units of Iraqi military who went into Fallujah with the US, they both simply disintigrated.


So given the calamatous level of the failure here, please explain again how this is all part of Bush Jr's clever plan?





Nor did I. Pay attention Ted, my post was describing how the 'lack of public will' had little or nothing to do with the failure in Vietnam, as the war was lost at a time when the majority of the population was still for the war.

The Iraq war is lost, and for heaven's sake, stop blaming the Democrats. Firstly, they are not and have not been the party in power throught this entire debacle. Secondly, in case you didn't notice, among Republicans most are against the war as well.

So, apparently are most of the American people, who now majoritarily favour a withdrawal from Iraq.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13414

Oh, and by the way, most of the US troops on the ground favour a withdrawal as well.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

So do the British troops.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-pol...#036;455580.htm

And while we are at it, the Iraqi people also want the US to withdraw.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...65&lb=hmpg2


So it seems pretty much unanimous Ted... except for you of course. Oddly enough, I looked through all the polling data and could not find ANY examples of anyone blaming the loss of the war on nancy pelosi. Perhaps they didn't include your opinions in the polls?

More specifically, the plan is to prevent Iraq from being used by al-Qa'ida the same way Afghanistan was.


No, what this topic is about is his alleged change of message to the American people. In fact, his message has not changed. It's just a semantic issue, as I've already explained.

I won't address the rest of your claims about how successful we've been in Iraq, because they're not germane to this topic.

Well then it was a pretty bad plan, given how there was no Al Qaida presence in Iraq before he put his plan into motion, and a small presence after he put his plan into motion. In fact, the presence of Al qaida in Iraq, insignificant as it is, is entirely his fault.

ALSO his fault, this 'plan' of his caused the world wide Al qaida to become stronger, better focussed and better organised.

Thanks To Bush Jr's 'plan' Al Qaida world wide is much stronger than it ever has been, and there is now an Al qaida presence in Iraq.

Good plan.




Why do you answer comments specifically directed to somebody else? Ted completely misinterpreted one of my comments, and I was addressing that. What does your comment have to do with any of this?

Be that as it may, you are correct, his message has not changed. It was simplistic and baseless before, and is even more so now. His errors are a matter of fact, and his 'plan', be it one unchanged or one that has been endlessly modified (in ways nobody seems to be able to describe) has proven a complete failure.




Really? The complete failure of the Iraqi military is irrelevant to wheither or not the US leaves Iraq or stays? Interesting.

Is ditching “stay the course” due to public skepticism, or an attempt to salvage mid-term elections? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?
First, when trying to get into the "details", I couldn't find a "course that was stay-able", and so it turned out! Second, "the man can't think (not meant to be pejorative, but just a perception of a fact!)", so I'm not sure he even knows much more than that he's got clear "votes of no confidence all around him", so he's mostly thrashing around. His goal is now his "historical image" and that it be heroic and noble !

Will it work?
We've got a long history of falling for teflon and plastic men. We may fall again! I hope not though! then again there's always the money behind the scenes; what wonders that can do!!!

Watch, the admin is actually going to 'ditch'- 'the course' soon, Mark These Words.
The war is now hurting the US political, economic and corporate interests and the Corporates, so willing to go along 3 years ago are now going to force the clique in power to withdrawl.
As Frank Rich (NY Post) put it, and Newsweek, the Bush family's consigliere James Baker has been called in on the case to save the Presidency. He will configure a way out of Iraq.
We will soon see much rhetoric about a pull out, a turn over, etc etc. Great strides in Iraqi self governing..blah blah blah.
It will have nothing to do with either Bush or the SpinelessOcrats, but they will reap some benefit given the recent takeover of both bodies, but the ultimate prize is the 2008 election, and they can surely screw it up if anybody can.

Watch now....We are going to be closing, in public view, Iraq. That doesnt mean permanent bases will not be estabished there. Look for lots of 'good news' of soldiers being brought back, cheers and jubilation. Victory in estabishing democracy, votes , ect. Lots of brainwash for you. If Iraqi's didnt get it , well, its their fault. This move will be just one more farce in the Iraq war series of lies and farces as the US pretends to pull out, of course leaving peace keeping forces, in the form of permanent bases, to watch over the oil fields, uh, I mean, the peace.

I think a change of course is going to occur from nothing more then how voters voted. Stuff like that would not happen if the people in America at large did not want a change. I doubt for bush to make any real notice of this and I think such is why the republicans suffered so much. I pretty much think it will take the democrats a strong fight to make some change, though I don’t know exactly what they will be. Probably some form of the status quo with stuff written into it to keep it that way somewhat under the radar. I think Americans fear a blood bath in the wake of our departure but I also think Americans at large have lost faith in the war simply because of the reality of it after all these years. Morally I can only point to the growing death toll regardless of presence, and a nation that is only slowly going the route of being destroyed.

My only hope that we will gain some sanity is that the democrats may not want to go the route of the republicans at next round of elections, so again I feel they have to do something, more so when they ran on the idea of time for a change, the problem of course again being bush and the bush party and again the politics of the issue. I would hope that that the plan is not for more money or some small increase in troop levels as some test so we can watch Iraq burn on for another year or two in a state of chaos.

Overall the only thing I want to hear is troop levels being tripled or troop levels being reduced in presence to 0, besides that I think its just pointless garble and status quo, and more over a failure on the government as a whole being its overall appreciation rating I think is not really even breaking 40% regardless of group affiliation.

The war in Iraq at this point has little support at large in America anymore, so why would it have it then in politics, maybe we are all just morally and intellectually confused.