Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry, two fine gentlemen who have less time on military bases than most recruits have taking a shit in the head offer up their solution to winning in Iraq. If there is such a thing.
More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.
Brilliant fucking strategists that they are, no one can tell those two know-it-alls that winning the battle is not the same as winning the war.
Certainly none of Kristol or Lowry's relatives will be among the increased numbers of troops, should escalation become a reality. Neither will any with the surnames Frist, Bush, Delay, Hastert, Santorum or legions of other war-mongering republicans/Neo-Cons.
Oh, and by the way, what I don't see mentioned in the article is where the additional troops are going to come from? Are they saying folks should go back for yet another desert sojourn because the Battle Twins are convinced that one more division will turn the tide?
Yeah, that'll play well in Peoria.
I love how they close their thesis:
Sending them would be a courageous act of presidential leadership appropriate to the crisis we face.
The problem is that the current occupant of the White House is anything but courageous, and has never demonstrated leadership at anything other than fund-raising. Kristol and Lowry: a laff a minute. Shame it's not funny.
posted by Jo Fish on 09.12.06 at 05:31 PM
Comments:
Where do the troops come from? They'll take them from the ones stationed in South Korea, so that Kim Jung will have a free hand for precipitating the NEXT crisis.
You know, the one that gets the 2008 elections cancelled.
posted by: Satan luvvs Repugs on 09.12.06 at 09:36 PM [permalink]
Dont forget these 2 morons have for years been screeching that we had plenty of troops already, and not only that we have been winning in irag for years according to those 2 dimwits.
posted by: Randy on 09.12.06 at 10:02 PM [permalink]
As has been said above we don't have two or three divisisons to use to reinforce Iraq unless we deploy the troops in South Korea O R just not allow any US troops to rotate back to the US between their annual Iraq deployments.
I see this possiblity as confusing, since it will be a BIG boon for divorce lawyers, and I always thought the Fascist Party considered lawyers as evil because they always seem to donate to the Democratic Party.
Having 400,000 troops in Iraq is ideal though, because after Field Marshal Lowry and Generalissimo Kristol submit their sure-fire strategic plan to get Iraqis to love us, and throw chocolates and flowers at our troops, the soldiers will be well-placed to go on to Syria and Iran.
Is this the same Lowry who said "we're winning"? And the same one who said a couple of months ago that we didn't need more troops?
posted by: merlallen on 09.13.06 at 07:29 AM [permalink]
I think that we are going to lose in Iraq because of the simple fact that the US has not demonstrated the will to win (a serious draft for a true national emergency, low recruiting, the rich haven't taken this seriously) and that the Iraqis are fighting in their homeland. Pretty much the same scenario (minus the draft) that we had in Vietnam.
Ray Robinson: Please be advised that this vet does NOT consider Mr Bu$h's pathetic subconsicious attempt to prove to his mother that he's more of a he-man than his father to be a "national emergency."
Neither is Mr Cheney's desire to further enrich his Big Oil friends.
