Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Monday, January 08, 2007
That was then, this is now: Bush on more troops in Iraq
Think Progress takes us back to June 28, 2005, when President Bush said this:
Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.
The out here would be if the commanders on the ground were saying we need more troops. But that hasn't been the case here. It's been the politicians in Washington -- not necessarily Bush, by the way, but McCain and Lieberman -- who have been pushing to escalate the war. The commanders on the ground are getting the troops whether they like it or not; whether they have a mission to fill or not. And some commanders will be dismissed, apparently for not having the forethought to ask for more troops when the President was not willing to send them.
Labels: Escalation, Iraq
