Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

sadly, it looks like "and not a day longer" is getting farther and farther away.

according to a general (ret) i heard interviewed the other day, we have a year before the military starts to "go over the edge". "we can't keep up this kind of sustained deployment with the same troop levels" he continued.

it's been mentioned often that bush is concerned about a legacy. well, looks like he's going to have one.

the worst president in modern american history. certainly in my lifetime.

There's a difference between fact and opinion. Lets take a look at just one example referrenced by Cyc in the article he just cited.

Sure, the lootin' was a tragedy, and armed with hindsight, the liberatin' forces might have prevented it. However, some folks seem yet committed to makin' more of it than there was. Somehow, these stories didn't get as much play as did some others surroundin' the events alluded to.

May 7, 2003 Thousands of Iraqi artifacts found - Many items found in museum vaults

May 8, 2003 Looted Iraqi artefacats 'returned'

June 11, 2003 Iraq: Most Museum Treasures Found Intact Despite Reports Of Looting

Sep 10, 2003 Transcript: Briefing on the Investigation of Antiquity Loss from the Baghdad Museum

Oct 22, 2003 Transcript: EXPLORATIONS - October 22, 2003: Iraqi Treasures Recovered

Nov 11, 2003 Hundreds of looted items returned to Iraqi museum


Screed is not evidence, no matter how entertainin' it may be.

Artifacts can be returned and so can the looted munitions. The problem of course they are being returned as bombs and bullets. The lack of sufficient forces because of Rumsfelds playing soldier should not and cannot be excused. Why, is that sh@@ head still secretary of defense. No doubt because the other sh@@head is still president. The present insurgency which gets stronger and more effective daily would have been short lived was it not for the military genius of Rumsfeld.

Amusin' too that Anti-Bushbots see no irony in their plaint that the folks who continually trounce the Dems in the polls are a buncha morons.

Polls, did you say polls.

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

By E&P Staff

Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM

NEW YORK It's not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a "popular" leader or even a "very popular" one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.

President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.

Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.

Bush's current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.

More bad signs for the president: Gallup's survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the "state of the country" while 59% are "dissatisfied." One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it "only fair" or poor.

Gallup noted that more challenges lie ahead for Bush, including public doubts about his Social Security plan and Iraq policies.

Here are the approval ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup (all for March):

Truman, 1949: 57%.

Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.

Johnson, 1965: 69%.

Nixon, 1973: 57%.

Reagan, 1985: 56%.

Clinton, 1997: 59% .

Bush, 2005: 45%

It looks as if even the slow learners are beginning to see the light.

er, timber. not to be a nudge, but the race did turn out to be 48-51%. not quite a trouncin'.

i know that "close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades" an' all, but doesn't that look to you like nearly half of the country was against a continuance of the bush policies ?

as i remember, even clinton left office with a rating in the mid 60s.

World > Terrorism & Security
posted April 26, 2005, updated 11:30 a.m.

Iraqi insurgency far from 'fizzling'

Experts say insurgents have retaken momentum as politicians 'dither' over cabinet posts.

By Tom Regan| csmonitor.com


Just a few weeks after US military officials optimistically predicted that the Iraq insurgency was 'fizzling' because the number of attacks per day was down, many of those same officials now believe they were wrong, and that the insurgency is strengthing again. The Boston Globe reported Sunday that US military officials now believe that the greater coordination and sophistocation of attacks demonstrated by insurgents in recent weeks means they have changed their tactics, rather than disappeared or given up.
'One of the insurgency's strengths is its capacity to regenerate,' said retired Army General John Keane, who returned recently from a fact-finding mission in Iraq. 'We have killed thousands of them and detained even more, but they are still able to regenerate. They are still coming at us.'
.

More troublesome is that these same military experts also believe that the insurgents "are making inroads toward sparking a full-blown sectarian war," and that it may not be possible for the US to reduce its troop strength as quickly as some recent Defense Department statements have indicated.
The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday that internal US Army analysis, writtenfor US troops going to Iraq to prepare them for the kind of dangers they will face, concludes that the number of attacks in recent months haven't lessened very much, but have shifted away from US troops to attacks on Iraqi civilians.
The Army report catalogs the five most deadly tactics employed by insurgents. It concludes that the most deadly threat to Iraqi civilians and security personnel comes from small-arms fire - typically AK-47 rifles or machine guns - and not roadside bombs. "Firing small arms in close combat remains the No. 1 casualty producing tactic," the report states. Iraqi army and police forces, which typically patrol in unarmored white pickup trucks, are especially vulnerable to attack from small arms.
The report also found that, increasingly, insurgents are pairing remotely detonated bombs with ambushes. In one example cited in the report, the insurgents used a remote-detonated bomb to stop a convoy of private security contractors. When the contractors got out of their vehicles to assess the damage, the insurgents began shooting at them. The report describes the incident as a 'disciplined' attack, noting that the insurgents collected their own casualties before fleeing.
The Belfast (Ireland) Telegraph reports on the inability of the US and Iraqi forces to quell the violence, particularly in Baghdad, and how that is being viewed by the local population.
The inability of the US army to secure the seven-mile road between Baghdad and the airport, also the site of the main US military base, has become a symbol of the failure of the US in Iraq. Heavily armored US patrols, prone to open fire unpredictably, are regarded as being as dangerous as the insurgents.
The Washington Post reports that many of the attacks have gone unchallenged by the Iraqi forces, particularly in areas of the country largely controlled by insurgents. US officials are also privately saying that "violence is getting much worse."
'My strong sense is that a lot of the political momentum that was generated out of the successful election, which was sort of like a punch in the gut to the insurgents, has worn off.' The political stalemate 'has given the insurgents new hope,' the official added, repeating a message Americans say they are increasingly giving Iraqi leaders.

dtom, mid-term gains in Governor's Mansions and Statehouses and in both houses of Congress, followed 2 years on by further gains at both State and Congressional level, accompanied by retention of the incumbent amount to a helluvalot more than squeekin' by. I'd call it trouncin'.

au, consider the opinion polls that had Kerry all but inaugurated. Only one poll counts.

As for the insurgency, no one contends it is over. However, the Iraqi populace itself is tirin' of it, increasin'ly providin' the authorities with actionable intelligence. Such a development greatly limits the insurgent's freedom of action, and increases the oportunity cost of that action. Bear in mind as well it is an insurgency, not an open rebellion or popular uprisin'.

d'ya think it's gonna be the same next year ? or do you think that bush's current rating of 43-44% is gonna hurt the republicans coming up for re-election ?

clinton lost the edge on congress to gingrich in the same time span. so isn't it fair to say that the only sure thing is that there's no sure thing ?

btw, kerry had the election to lose, imho. unfortunately, the ass kicker that i'd hoped he would be just sort of.. uh.. umm... err...

There is no sure thing in politics, thats for sure. I seem to recall, however, The Dems were confident of significant victories in '02 (Nov 6, 2002: Republicans Stun Democrats :cool: )
- and held great hopes for at least some recovery through the special elections in '03.

I note too that much of the criticism and anger directed toward The Current Adninistration and its principals in large part echoes the Reagan Adminmistration's critics' blatherin'.

could be timber, could be. now hold on to something solid and steady yourself, cause this is gonna be a shock.

i voted for reagan.

even though i thought some of his ideas were a little chancey, i trusted him. i respected him as a person.

and that is exactly why i didn't vote for george bush.

you may be right that critics are echoing some of the same things about bush as was said about reagan. but that is where any comparison between those two presidents ends.

just my opinion though. :wink:

Timber wrote
.

I of course agree. However I was responding to:
Timber wrote

Predictably, Timber turns the topic of any thread into a criticism of Democrats. This is the fiftieth or so time it has happened.

Why don't you add into your sig "I look down upon and insult Democrats" and save both you and us a bunch of time, Timber?

Cycloptichorn

www.dailywarnews.blogspot.com

Meanwhile, In The Real World: War News For Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Bring ?'em on: At least 16 people killed and 57 wounded in double bombing in Baghdad's al-Shu'lah neighborhood. At least six killed and 26 wounded in double bombing at Iraqi police academy in Tikrit. Three insurgents killed in premature detonation of a roadside bomb in Mahawil. One US sailor killed in combat operations in Fallujah. Seven Interior Ministry commandos wounded in mortar attack in the al-Baiya neighborhood of Baghdad. One AP cameraman killed and an AP photographer wounded in a crossfire between guerillas and US forces in Mosul. Nine Iraqi soldiers killed and 20 wounded in roadside bombing near Abu Ghraib. One Iraqi contractor working for the US military shot to death in Baghdad's Jami'a neighborhood. (Note: This entry includes some attacks previously reported in posts on Sunday and Monday, but with additional information or changes in casualty counts.)

Bring ?'em on: One Jordanian businessman and six Sudanese drivers working for the US military abducted by militants.

Bring ?'em on: The toll from Sunday's two double bombings in Baghdad and Tikrit has risen to 24 dead and 58 wounded.

Bring ?'em on: Oil pumps blown up near Kirkuk.


Desertions: Iraqi army and police units are deserting their posts after the recent escalation in insurgent attacks, according to reports from around the country yesterday.

The end of a relative period of calm after the election has posed the first real test for the embryonic security forces since coalition troops started cutting back on their military operations in February.

On average 20 Iraqis and two coalition soldiers have died every day this month.


We never thought they were right to begin with: Just a few weeks after US military officials optimistically predicted that the Iraq insurgency was 'fizzling' because the number of attacks per day was down, many of those same officials now believe they were wrong, and that the insurgency is strengthening again.

More troublesome is that these same military experts also believe that the insurgents "are making inroads toward sparking a full-blown sectarian war," and that it may not be possible for the US to reduce its troop strength as quickly as some recent Defense Department statements have indicated.

The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday that internal US Army analysis, written for US troops going to Iraq to prepare them for the kind of dangers they will face, concludes that the number of attacks in recent months haven't lessened very much, but have shifted away from US troops to attacks on Iraqi civilians.

The Washington Post reports that many of the attacks have gone unchallenged by the Iraqi forces, particularly in areas of the country largely controlled by insurgents. US officials are also privately saying that "violence is getting much worse."


Airport road: Samson has been delivering supplies to US military bases for a year. It's a good business that sends him to Baghdad International Airport daily. He reads Psalm 91 before every trip.

He prays because the four-lane, six-mile stretch of road leading from central Baghdad to the country's main airport remains one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in Iraq, if not the world. It functions as a critical supply line into and out of the country, traversed daily by US military convoys as well as Iraqi and foreign businessmen, journalists, and aid workers.

So why is this vital strip of concrete, which takes only minutes to travel, still so difficult to protect?

--

Links inside the link, once again.

Cycloptichorn

Some folks see the assault on DeLay as a purely partisan power play, Cyc - and I'm with that group. Who else is to be criticized for this particular purely partisan power play? While we're at it, I believe you yourself rather typically voice displeasure with conservatives in general and Republicans - particularly Republicans closely associated with the upper echelons of The Current Administration ... or do I misperceive your sentiment in such regard?

What was Whitewater if not a purely partisan power play?

My first preference -- that non-governmental malfeasance be ignored, since nobody's perfect.

My second preference -- once it becomes standard to hold people accountable for non-governmental malfeasance, that the standard be applied consistently.

(And that's not getting into whether DeLay's malfeasance is more or less governmental than Clinton's...)

No, you do not misperceive my sentiment, Timber.

As for DeLay, he got himself in hot water last year and did nothing to get out of it. It's not a partisan power play, though the dems are jumping on it just as the Republicans would (did) in the same circumstances.

It's a case of corruption, lies, and greed, that strikes to the very core of your party. You should be scared, seriously, that this is going to break the back of Republican dominance in Washington; not that you guys can get anything substantial done anyways, these days....

Cycloptichorn

Dunno if I'd go so far as to ignore all non-governmental malfeasance, but in general I agree with both your alternatives Soz, with a heavy lean toward equal and consistent application. Power plays do nothin' but obstruct the business of governin' the nation. Then again, the business of politics is purely power play, so what's to choose?

Anyhow, this is s'poseta be a Rummie-(as proxy for Bush)-bash thread - and I think the DeLay digression here was pretty much my fault. There's already a DeLay-(as-proxy for Bush)-bash thread, which would be a more appropriate spot for this particular silliness. The discussion here prolly oughtta turn back to Rummie-(as proxy for Bush)-bashin' silliness.

But that presupposes that there is no valid reason to bash Rummy -- and that's quite a presupposition.

(There, hope that brings things back around to the point.)