From the October 11th edition of the Los Angeles Times:
Does this prove that Bush is lying like a dog when he talks about being a stronge leader in the War on Terror™? Is giving preference to his own re-election chances over fighting insurgents and stabilizing Iraq a smart move, or just a self-serving one? Is Bush ultimately endangering the troops by giving the enemy what’s essentially a three-week break to rest and recuperate?
Holy hell. Is that really true? Since when does any sane commander give the enemy time to rest? And he is doing this to help his re-election bid? Damn right he is endangering the troops. They can resupply, get more ammo and take more territory while GW is out stumping. Is he that blind and incompetent?
You know, I guess it is a statement of how low my opinion of this Administration is that I can’t even get particularly worked up about this. I mean, is it really a surprise? Did you expect better from them?
God, I hate to have become so cynical…But, let’s face it, I haven’t yet been burned by underestimating the veracity and morality of this administration.
I just read in today’s paper (no cite) that our troops are stepping up the fight right now in anticipation of Ramadan (which starts Friday, 10/15). That made me wonder – I mean, do they actually think they can put the hostilities on hold during Ramadan? The insurgents won’t!
Regardless of who wins the election, I wonder?
Registration required for the cite. Anyone have a free cite for this so I can check it out before commenting?
-XT
Surprising? Not at all.
Wouldn’t it make more sense, electorally, to go full-bore with the war effort, crush the resistance, and present the American people with a total victory before the election?
Or has even the Administration decided that’s impossible?
I don’t understand how people believe the US Army, etc. really have the best interests of the troops in their hearts? When they refer to you as GI (government issue), they mean you’re expendible! Even the Pres will do whatever it takes with no compassion for the men on the front lines. Hasn’t the history of recent wars proven this to you?
The Gulf War syndrome? There’s no Gulf War syndrome!
Agent Orange? Neah…coudn’t be!
But, don’t you know? The ends justify the means, so it’s ok, right?
That’s leadership. Do you really expect to hear the truth from the Top Dogs?
My guess is that they don’t want to see the casualty count spike.
Bush blinked last spring in Falloujah. He’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t have the belly for this fight … .
Pfft. No matter how well it goes, there will be more casualties during an all-out assault than there will be during “peace” time.
Can’t have that. We want people to forget that things aren’t going well…until the election is over with.
-Joe, expects this election to be horrid
GI doesn’t come from the army or officers, it comes from slang by enlisted personnel.
The story says there are air attacks and unspecified “support” of Iraqi government troops. Nothing that would lead to an increase in the US body count
OK. And that is a problem because…?
Because the decision to deply/not deploy our forces in that way apparently was governed by considerations of electoral rather than military strategy; and said decision is, therefore, unlikely to be the optimal approach to achieve the forces’ presumed military objectives, and might even make things worse in the long run in terms of U.S. body count, dollar costs, etc.
Any more questions?
… Because it’s not like the rise in our casualties is not going to happen at all, but that the rise in our casualties is just going to be waiting until “after the election”.
This is a repulsive thing for the administration to do. I really do expect to wake up one morning, to find CNN airing footage of Bush and Cheney punching babies, and eating kittens.
LilShieste
Thus proving yourself to be the very model of reasonableness!
Isn’t it a sad and pitiful sight? Won’t you give to Caring Fund for the Hyperbole Impaired?