Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

10
Letters
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:00 AM

Joint Chiefs oppose troop "surge"

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 02:45 PM

Do you notice how this turns abstract?

Now we have "The Surge Idea." And the twits in charge debate "The Surge Idea," rather than admitting what actually is happening, and attending to recent history.

In actual fact, "The Surge Idea" is a small incremental move which will not solve anything, certainly will not fix anything.

But the pompous big-shots and the pompous pundits can debate it abstractly, within its own irrelevant concept-boundries. This is a great issue for Bill Kristol: win the duel of zingers, and lose the world and your own soul.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:09 PM

Why Do the Joint Chiefs Hate America?

I favor increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq, because it increases their chances of success in their mission of finding Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of WMD and capturing Osama bin-Laden and the other al-Qaeda leaders responsible for planning the terrorist attacks that took place on 9/11 and in Bali, Madrid, Amman, etc.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:16 AM

nukes over Iran? Nah

I ain't sayin' it's impossible. But with Gates over the the Pentagon, even with his ass-kissing history taken into account, I doubt there will be any nuclear weapons on the table in any war-plan for Iran.

And I doubt we're going to bomb Iran. The air is just blasting out of the Bushco dirigible at this point. Those guys are going to have trouble staying in the air at all, let alone starting another major war.

No, I think they're about done. Not to say they won't try it though. I do believe Cheney may well be certifiable at this point, so, like I say, anything's possible

I'd be surprised by an Iran war though, at this point, and I'd be stunned if nukes were involved.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 08:44 AM

1st the Iran Report and now this! Amazing!

For the JCs to rebuke a plan so publicly of the present is not something seen very often. Hopefully the pres will get the message but I don't hold out much hope for that.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 08:37 AM

Breaking! Dems Surrender!

Not even in power yet and already Harry Reid has surrendered. He announced he supports a troop surge in principle.

Jesus Fucking Christ Jumped Up On A Stick. Eight-nine percent of the American people oppose adding troops, but the dems are so habituated to sucking shrub's dick on everything they can't see a huge opportunity when it jumps up and down in front of them, screaming "Me! Take Me! I'm a Guarantee of Victory in '08!"

No, no, no - much more comforting to just keep slurping that tiny, nasty dick while the world falls apart.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 08:08 AM

Wow...

...who knew the Joint Chiefs were "cut and runners"? They must hate America, too.

Does Rush know about this?

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 07:52 AM

But seriously...

An army is not a police force. An army's function is to kill people and break things.

Apparently Bush wants our men and women to die and be maimed trying to keep the hateful faithful Iraqis from chopping and dicing each other. That's not what our military is for.

If the Joint Chiefs, the guys who live to kill people and break things is willing to put their careers in jeopardy by saying a surge won't work, then maybe our insane little Gen. Custer in the White House better think twice about riding into another ambush.

With Iran funding the Shiia and now Saudi Arabia funding the Sunnis, the American military, still reeling from the bloody mess Von Rumsfeld created, can expect huge casualties.

The only "surge" that I can see is a huge "surge" in the number of aluminum coffins and mangled soldiers coming into Dover in the middle of the night.

Why should my brothers in arms continue to die for Bush's legacy and so that Iraq can become an Islamic theocracy?

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 07:39 AM

The Real Plan

Theory in Comments at Political Animal is that the "Surge" is actually the prelude to - or distraction from - an all-out air attack on Iran, complete with nukes.

That's been predictable for a good year now, but the timing is off. Could have saved the GOP Senate as an '06 October Surprise, but something stopped it. Could work in '08, with the added bonus of allowing the Usurper to declare martial law and stay in office indefinitely.

But now? The only reason I can see to start the war on Iran now is to derail impeachment procedings, which haven't even been proposed.

This bunch must be really, ass-puckering terrified.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 07:31 AM

Those 11%

have been invited to Mr. Bush's Christmas Party where Barney the dog will take the opportunity to piddle onto thier highly polished tasseled loafers. Pity, really. There are better spots to "mark" than neo con shoes...

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 07:24 AM

Oh boy!

I can't wait to hear the Tony-Baloney spin on this one. What a clown. The Press Corp will have yet another chance to soft-ball question a Bush lie flip-flop.

Most Active Letters Threads

530

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
408

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
332

Palin: Birthers have "fair question" about Obama

Of Obama birth, the ex-governor says, "the public is still, rightfully, making it an issue" (Updated)
128

Is my kids making me not smart?

Stay-at-home fatherhood dulls my intellect to a nub. Excuse me while I ponder the subtext of "Hippos Go Berserk"
126

Trig, the anti-abortion straw baby

Sarah Palin's son is being used to demonize pro-choicers

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon