“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007

On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007


If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?

On 9/5/14 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?




Of course not. His neocon veep or secdef told him to say that.

Military budgeting and manpower planning has everything to do with
maintaining as many officers in uniform as possible within whatever the
political atmosphere allows. You seem to like to ascribe Arthurian
romance tradition characteristics* to our military and its motivation.
That's really quite charming.


* No, I am not referring to boy-girl relationships in my mention of
Arthurian romance characteristics.

On 9/5/2014 9:10 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to
confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?




Of course not. His neocon veep or secdef told him to say that.

Military budgeting and manpower planning has everything to do with
maintaining as many officers in uniform as possible within whatever the
political atmosphere allows. You seem to like to ascribe Arthurian
romance tradition characteristics* to our military and its motivation.
That's really quite charming.


* No, I am not referring to boy-girl relationships in my mention of
Arthurian romance characteristics.



You truly are a strange duck.

On 9/5/14 9:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 9:10 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It
would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to
confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?




Of course not. His neocon veep or secdef told him to say that.

Military budgeting and manpower planning has everything to do with
maintaining as many officers in uniform as possible within whatever the
political atmosphere allows. You seem to like to ascribe Arthurian
romance tradition characteristics* to our military and its motivation.
That's really quite charming.


* No, I am not referring to boy-girl relationships in my mention of
Arthurian romance characteristics.



You truly are a strange duck.




More cynical than strange. Quack.

On 9/5/2014 9:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 9:10 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq
now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It
would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the
probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to
confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave
anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military
budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?




Of course not. His neocon veep or secdef told him to say that.

Military budgeting and manpower planning has everything to do with
maintaining as many officers in uniform as possible within whatever the
political atmosphere allows. You seem to like to ascribe Arthurian
romance tradition characteristics* to our military and its motivation.
That's really quite charming.


* No, I am not referring to boy-girl relationships in my mention of
Arthurian romance characteristics.



You truly are a strange duck.




More cynical than strange. Quack.

Too much cynicism can poison one's mind. We have another poster here
who's cynicism borders on paranoia. I'd be careful where you draw the line.

On 9/5/14 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 9:21 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 9:10 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq
now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready
would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It
would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean
we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace
the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the
probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to
confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave
anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military
budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?




Of course not. His neocon veep or secdef told him to say that.

Military budgeting and manpower planning has everything to do with
maintaining as many officers in uniform as possible within whatever the
political atmosphere allows. You seem to like to ascribe Arthurian
romance tradition characteristics* to our military and its motivation.
That's really quite charming.


* No, I am not referring to boy-girl relationships in my mention of
Arthurian romance characteristics.



You truly are a strange duck.




More cynical than strange. Quack.

Too much cynicism can poison one's mind. We have another poster here
who's cynicism borders on paranoia. I'd be careful where you draw the
line.




Oh, I'm not even slight paranoiac, although I am looking for that hidden
camera...and what did *you* do with my stapler?

On 9/5/2014 7:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007

There is no question that GWB IS smarter than O'Bama.

If O'Bama does anything, it's usually the wrong thing. It'll be
wonderful when he's gone.

On 9/5/2014 8:10 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/5/2014 8:53 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/5/14 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To
begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that
we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to
confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

George W. Bush - July 12, 2007



If you leave it entirely up to "commanders," we'd never leave anywhere,
because overseas deployments mean billets for officers and continued
military employment.

That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of military budgeting
and establishment of manpower requirements. They have nothing to do
with current deployments.


Now, back to the point ...

Did GWB demonstrate a clear understanding of a premature exit of Iraq?




Of course not. His neocon veep or secdef told him to say that.

Military budgeting and manpower planning has everything to do with
maintaining as many officers in uniform as possible within whatever the
political atmosphere allows. You seem to like to ascribe Arthurian
romance tradition characteristics* to our military and its motivation.
That's really quite charming.


* No, I am not referring to boy-girl relationships in my mention of
Arthurian romance characteristics.


Man, are you screwed up.