The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

A Surge of More Lies

White Eagle

JubberClubber
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Posts
10,987
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Kerrville
http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=228



A Surge of More Lies
by Congressman Robert Wexler


A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective – to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops – even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly – despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.

On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.

In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.

The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.

Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.

And on top of all of that, a war with Iran is not entirely out of the question. Can we wait til 2009?
 
WHat a complete joke. Tell the fine congressman to let us know why his very well established political process cant seem to agree on a fucking budget. It is not like it doesnt happen every fuckin year. Even if Bush had not rejected the approved bill based on lawsuits on Iraq, it still took THREE months to hammer out a budget. A bsic function RIGHT?

SO then the violence subsided in December in Iraq. The fine congressman from where the fuck ever wants to think the Iraqi politicians are going to solve 5000 year old strife between different groups inside their country in ONE month. What a fucking ridiculous claim. The surge was to provide security for growth. Growth ad negotiation take time.
 
WHat a complete joke. Tell the fine congressman to let us know why his very well established political process cant seem to agree on a fucking budget. It is not like it doesnt happen every fuckin year. Even if Bush had not rejected the approved bill based on lawsuits on Iraq, it still took THREE months to hammer out a budget. A bsic function RIGHT?

SO then the violence subsided in December in Iraq. The fine congressman from where the fuck ever wants to think the Iraqi politicians are going to solve 5000 year old strife between different groups inside their country in ONE month. What a fucking ridiculous claim. The surge was to provide security for growth. Growth ad negotiation take time.
McCain estimates 100 years ..... at least thats more reasonable than the estimate Rummy gave before we bumbled in there:

Donald Rumsfeld said:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that."[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
The use of force did cease. We are now cops for someone elses security.

P.S. I agree with McCain and it does not matter who the President is we will be there for the rest of my life at a minimum.
 
The use of force did cease. We are now cops for someone elses security.
Cops who not only don't get paid by the people they're protecting, We, as taxpayers and boss of the cops, pay billions each month for the 'privilege' of providing for their security. At least in the 1990s Gulf War the cost was shared by other countries who benefitted from the peaceful end result ..... not so here! Thats why we need to get out as soon as we can before it bankrupts the United States in the process. :mad:
 
Ok so it is exagerated. Would you agree the Sunni Shia strife has existed since the dawn of the muslim religion? So by your statement you believe a month is enough to git them to go kissy face? Come on.
 
The use of force did cease. We are now cops for someone elses security.

P.S. I agree with McCain and it does not matter who the President is we will be there for the rest of my life at a minimum.

Mazda, in your experience do most in the forces accept that war or force is always right because their CIC - who may have p[olitical motives - tells them it is?

A lot of us warned about the extreme folly of going to war in Iraq, a country that did not threaten US, whose military and economy was in a shambles and who could easily have been contained regardless. We were certainly able to contain the USSR with its mighty forces. How much easier Iraq.

This would seem basic to anyone with any basic understanding of world affairs or the region (although some like Hillary Clinton seemed to vote for war as a domestic political consideration and should never be in office as a result) do the forces believe any use of force - however mad and wrong headed it has proved to be - is right?

I had always thought that the military, knowing how dire war was, had a great deal of far sighted leaders who understood that while the US technical might could overcome any other force in the world the ramifications of going to war meant it was a matter of last resort. That was clearly not the case in Iraq. It was clearly also not a military but Rumsfeld run folly. Why did not the senior military people resign when the senior military was over-ruled.

Colin Powell as Secretary of State also let down the nation with his military training of just following orders from the CIC instead of threatening or actually resigning.

This has been one of the worst international disasters in US history but I fear that the military has to shoulder part of the responsibility fot the disaster in not having the guts to stand up when it counted. Am I wrong?
 
They did not just follow orders. We were tired of fighting in the Bill Clinton manner of Nanny wars. Where we get shot at as we stand between the warring peoples but dont do shit about it. That sort of public weakness is the reason we were struck on our shores in the first place. The islamic freaks figured we wouldnt react so much.

I never for a second gave two shits about whether Iraq was a threat or if they had WMD's.

I knew that if we were standing in their land they would send all they had our direction and we would kill them 100 fold to one.

I also feel that we have never entered into any conflict "in the public eye" for the same reasons the leaders of this nation went to war.

Everyone gets their hair on fire because Hillary voted for the war resolution. Nobody seems to notice that she voted to fund a war bill that included funding for permanent bases in Iraq. She knows what is going on. She will change the domestic policy and make nicey nice on the foreign but we will still be doing the same thing four years from now no matter who is in office.

So no i do not think everyone just got their stupid on and blindly followed. I think they knew the game from the start and the public (read lemmings) is still going "HUH"?
 
I love how you read only what you want to hear. I said specificly we will be there for the next four if not the next forty years.

Dont read the writings of many and attribute it to me. BTW Police work is for the Army, thats not what i do so I feel quite justified in bitching. But now the Marines are gonna head to Afghanistan so the police work is done for a bit. You now if NATO would live up to its word and produce the troops it promised Afghaistan could well be on its way to healthy. But just like every other time threats appear the eyes turn to the US in stead of the blowhards.
 
It looks like a certain Congressman wants to make a name for himself. Partisan politics as usual.

And what the heck does "can we wait till 2009" mean?
 
So what you prefer is that we one) leave them alone to trash humanity as they see fit, 2) Stand in as bullet sponges and wait for the next attack on our shores or 3) simply wait for someone else to do something and then decry it as horrible. Inaction is a pathetic excuse for existence.
 
Well, if Rodham wins in 2009, we'll still be in Iraq. She enabled the invasion and she's stated she plans to keep us in there if she was president.

Yeah, I caught that. It's not for sure, yet. I hope it won't come to that.
 
They did not just follow orders. We were tired of fighting in the Bill Clinton manner of Nanny wars. Where we get shot at as we stand between the warring peoples but dont do shit about it. That sort of public weakness is the reason we were struck on our shores in the first place. The islamic freaks figured we wouldnt react so much.

I never for a second gave two shits about whether Iraq was a threat or if they had WMD's.

I knew that if we were standing in their land they would send all they had our direction and we would kill them 100 fold to one.

I also feel that we have never entered into any conflict "in the public eye" for the same reasons the leaders of this nation went to war.

Everyone gets their hair on fire because Hillary voted for the war resolution. Nobody seems to notice that she voted to fund a war bill that included funding for permanent bases in Iraq. She knows what is going on. She will change the domestic policy and make nicey nice on the foreign but we will still be doing the same thing four years from now no matter who is in office.

So no i do not think everyone just got their stupid on and blindly followed. I think they knew the game from the start and the public (read lemmings) is still going "HUH"?

Truly sick logic Mazda.
 
It looks like a certain Congressman wants to make a name for himself. Partisan politics as usual.

And what the heck does "can we wait till 2009" mean?

If you feel anything for the country, you can only be partisan at this point in time. Bush/Cheney has insured that. Hopefully after the next election partisanship will not be so necessary.
 
It looks like a certain Congressman wants to make a name for himself. Partisan politics as usual.

And what the heck does "can we wait till 2009" mean?

"can we wait till 2009" means are we gonna be able to put up with more of boy georges shit till 1/20/09!!!!
I am more than tired of it.
 
"can we wait till 2009" means are we gonna be able to put up with more of boy georges shit till 1/20/09!!!!
I am more than tired of it.
Try to bear up, ol' chum! Our Constitution ensures that new leadership gets to row the boat every few years. Your long nightmare will come to an end soon enough. Who will you have to blame then?
 
Try to bear up, ol' chum! Our Constitution ensures that new leadership gets to row the boat every few years. Your long nightmare will come to an end soon enough. Who will you have to blame then?

This administration has stacked the deck against the next administration, and it is not above Bush/Cheney to further manipulate the deck by bombing Iran before the next election. B/C have an agenda that doesn't include the American people, so they don't give a shit about the consequences of their war mongering.
 
Try to bear up, ol' chum! Our Constitution ensures that new leadership gets to row the boat every few years. Your long nightmare will come to an end soon enough. Who will you have to blame then?

I will keep the blame on boy george and his minions until they are prosecuted for war crimes and shredding the Constitution as we knew it.
 
This administration has stacked the deck against the next administration

Oh great, so we get to listen to you whine into the next decade about how Bush screwed things up so bad that the new administration has no chance? Is that setting up for defeat or what? Nice enabling.
 
Back
Top