posted on February 3, 2007 08:54:17 PM new
IRAQ
Escalation Doubled
A report released yesterday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CB) shows that the real troop increase associated with President Bush’s escalation policy could be as high as 48,000, more than double the 21,500 soldiers that Bush has claimed. Moreover, despite administration assertions that the escalation would cost $5.6 billion, the CBO report estimates that "costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment." The new facts about escalation come just as Congress is set to receive a long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, the first such document from the U.S. intelligence community since 2002. According to the Washington Post, the NIE "outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration."
ESCALATING THE ESCALATION: Combat units being sent to Iraq need to be backed up by "substantial support forces, including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services.” According to the CBO, while the Pentagon has specified the number of combat troops being deployed as part of the escalation, it has "not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved." The CBO’s low estimate envisions at least 15,000 additional support personnel. The alternative scenario “would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops.”
CBO REPORT CONTRADICTS TESTIMONY: The CBO report appears to contradict testimony to Congress by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker, who said at a Jan. 23 hearing that the 21,500 increase included four support battalions. “Right now, we do not anticipate there will be increased combat service support requirements over what is now embedded inside of the brigade combat teams we have." But the CBO report considers Schoomaker's claim and rejects it. "Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate," the report states. "CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel." An aide to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) echoed this point. "While Schoomaker initially said it wouldn’t take extra support troops, CBO doesn’t believe that is possible," the aide said.
$200 BILLION MORE: New estimates of the cost of escalation come on top of the $379 billion that Congress has already appropriated for the Iraq war. Yesterday, the Bush administration announced it will request an additional $100 billion "to cover war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year," about $80 billion of which will be spent on Iraq. "That would come on top of $70 billion Congress already approved for the wars this year." For 2008, the administration will ask for an amount "larger than the $100 billion in the fiscal 2007 request," Reuters reports.
posted on February 4, 2007 09:06:58 AM new
I've even read that some wanted 50,000 more troops sent. [by elected congressmen and military advisors]
And the cost....I've read that he might ask for close to $300 Billion dollars MORE.
Think your gutless dems/liberals aren't going to give him what he asks for?
Think your gutless dems/liberals CAN block how many troops HE decides to sent?
And IF we're just so SHORT on troops just where to the dems/liberals THINK these soldiers are going to come from??? Whether they be 21,000 or 50,000??????
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 4, 2007 09:36:35 AM new
And IF we're just so SHORT on troops just where Do the reps/neocons THINK these soldiers are going to come from??? Whether they be 21,000 or 50,000??????
"""President BUSH'S escalation policy could be as high as 48,000,""""
posted on February 4, 2007 09:46:10 AM new
LOL....I KNOW who said what...dingbat....I'm asking that which AGAIN you choose NOT to answer....
...because it's been you and other liberal anti-war posters who are ALWAYS whining about how 'stretched' our forces are.
Then you ALSO whine about all the addition troops being sent.
So...just WHERE to you think all these extra forces that YOU SAY aren't there....going to come from????
Try to stay focused.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 4, 2007 09:59:43 AM new
How can he be lying when he NEVER said our troops WERE stretched too thin?
How can he be lying when he NEVER said we couldn't send thousands more troops?
It's the left that has been using THAT excuse for their own anti-war agenda.
But once again....I notice that you HAVE no answer for using the issue of additional troops for talking out both sides of your mouth....as it suits you to do.
We either DON'T have enough troops OR we DO.
You can't have it BOTH ways. Trying to get everyone upset about the large numbers of troops SOME want to send.....vs how many troops WE ACTUALLY HAVE to send.
Your game....but I'm not buying it.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 4, 2007 10:02:05 AM new
Again....questions to YOU since YOU brought up the subject of escalation in Iraq.
Think your gutless dems/liberals aren't going to give him what he asks for?
Think your gutless dems/liberals CAN block how many troops HE decides to sent?
And IF we're just so SHORT on troops just where to the dems/liberals THINK these soldiers are going to come from??? Whether they be 21,000 or 50,000??????
posted on February 4, 2007 10:43:46 AM new
And IF we're just so SHORT on troops just where Do the reps/neocons THINK these soldiers are going to come from??? Whether they be 21,000 or 50,000??????
bushy LIED about how many troops he'd be asking for...20,000 sounds bad enough but what he was REALLY planning for was 48,000....he LIED and there is no way out of that....
posted on February 4, 2007 10:53:25 AM new
Again....NO answers to my questions.....because she doesn't WANT to ADMIT they'll do whatever the CIC asks for.
Secondly....I've seen NO QUOTE from our CIC saying any such thing/asking for that number.
Maybe once again, you can go away in shame because you can't PROVIDE us with him call for that many?
Yep...that's your MO....make false statements and then NEVER be able to back them up.
Maybe logansdaddy will try and cover your ass once again...since you can't do it yourself....EVER.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 4, 2007 10:58 AM ]
posted on February 4, 2007 11:03:09 AM new
Lie Upon Lie Upon Lie Upon Lie Upon Lie describes new-cons in general. It doesn't matter if the New-con is a nobody like Liar_k, or a President like our commander and failure BUSHY.
The true gutless one about Iraq is BUSHY by not facing reality. What BUSHY is doing is not bravery its insanity.
Liar_K, how many more Americans will are commander and failure ask to die in his IRAQ INVASION before its over.
posted on February 4, 2007 11:10:21 AM new
and here's 'waco'peepa.....
...who refuses to admit their party LIED to them.
IF elected they were going to withdraw our troops...work towards ending the war.
Maybe one of you liberals should INFORM them the ONLY way they can do that is to VOTE against funding the troops. They don't appear to 'get' that yet. that's why ALL they're doing is TALKING to get camera time.
And what are they ACTUALLY doing?
Wasting their time on a non-binding statement.
Meanwhile....their leaders like pelosi continue to reassure the public that they WILL NOT WITHHOLD FUNDING for our troops.
And they haven't presented a bill to withdraw our troops either.
They are GUTLESS to do the only thing they CAN do....stop funding.
And I don't hear them saying that's what they plan on doing.....NOPE....even as of this past week pelosi is guaranteeing those who are concerned about our troops safety that THEY WILL NOT STOP FUNDING.
I think the dems/liberals are projecting what their own party has lied about to get elected.....vs what their actual ACTIONS are.
Oh and maybe old 'waco' can back up mingos false statement about BUSH calling for 48,000 - 50,000 MORE troops.
We all know mingo won't be able to on her own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 4, 2007 11:16 AM ]
posted on February 4, 2007 11:27:54 AM new
"""Secondly....I've seen NO QUOTE from our CIC saying any such thing/asking for that number. """
Uh, linDUH, just because YOU CHOOSE not to see it doesn't mean it hasn't been in all the newspapers, on all the newscasts, on the Internet, everywhere....I don't have to prove the sun came up this morning, we all know it did except you
And if your godbush said the sun didn't come up today you'd believe him just like the good little Fascist sheep you are
What I've seen is many calling for this many troops...some calling for no more to be sent. Others calling for slow troop withdrawal.
But that's NOT what YOU said, sybil. You said this President had.
and I quote mingo's own words....lol:
"Nice to see you admit bushy is lying ...he's the one who said he wants to send 48,000 more troops."
And again, as ALWAYS happens you can't back up your lie. You NEVER do.
This is just one more example of your inability to EVER support what you say.
I didn't expect anything different this time. Just pointing it out so others don't miss the FACT that you NEVER CAN support anything you say.
It's an issue of lack of credibility on your part. And it's been that way since the first day you posted here. Still haven't changed....you can't when you're LYING.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 4, 2007 11:37 AM ]
posted on February 4, 2007 11:40:15 AM new
It's not only in the OP,stupid, but all over the media .....
so sorry your cave has no access to the outside world....
And I know YOU know you've lost the argument when you start with the "Sybil" thing...
So, according to you, bushy has NO plan for Iraq....Oh, ya, just like when he STARTED the war !!!!!!
posted on February 4, 2007 12:25:02 PM new
All can see you can't back up what you say, mingo, NEVER....and we see it again right here. You're really pathetic.
----
"It's not only in the OP,stupid, but all over the media" .....
REALLY???? LOL....then it SHOULD be SO much EASIER for you to PROVE it. Can't when it's another LIE.
"so sorry your cave has no access to the outside world"....
Don't go projecting about yourself and your living conditions, again....your normal lies are more than I can bear. LOLLOLLOL
"And I know YOU know you've lost the argument when you start with the "Sybil" thing"...
You always CLAIM I've lost the arguement....when it's YOU who can't back up the lies to tell all the time.
The 'sybil' name enters the picture when you forget who you are....mingotree OR crowfarm and you're posting under BOTH in the same thread.
"So, according to you, bushy has NO plan for Iraq"....
SEE, the lies just ROLL off your pointed tongue. I never said any such thing...you're again MAKING IT UP in that sick mind of yours. tsk tsk tsk
"Oh, ya, just like when he STARTED the war" !!!!!!
Our congress and this President started this war. And their continued FUNDING of same proves their REAL position....not their 'talking' a different story.
Can't deny that FACT. [b]They aren't going to withdraw funding - they're saying so themselves...and it's the ONLY action they CAN take - other than to continue TALKING...which is all they're good for.
You were LIED to again....they got your vote....and they're not following through.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 4, 2007 12:30 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2007 12:41:35 PM new
Let's discuss just WHOSE been lied too.
I believe most who voted in the democrats last Nov. were against this war. And I believe most of them took the dems at their word....[WRONG - never should have done that] that they would actually DO something to END it.
Right so far? LOL
But they aren't ending it are they? Who has seen a bill presented to the congress that is calling for our asap withdrawal from Iraq?
Which liberal/dem members of congress are calling for us to GET OUT...asap??
Which liberals/dem members of congress are proposing/presenting a bill to STOP funding the wars?
Which have said they'll VOTE to stop the funding??
This is what I've seen. Most all are all talk and no show.
Obama, kucinish have said they didn't support the war THEN and they still don't.
clinton...lol...for over four years has defended her vote and support of the war....until this past week or so. NOW that she see's OBAMA gaining political ground she's NOW flip-flopping and saying IF she is elected...LOL [where have we heard THAT before] she'll END the war.
Funny how the polls STILL run the clintons lives. tsk tsk tsk Forget our security..forget the slaughter that will come with a withdraw too soon...forget it ALL. Just elected hillary and she too will prove to you that SHE won't actually DO what she promises to do either.
But other than those three....has anyone else here read/heard of other liberals/dems who SAY they're going to vote for a withdrawal now/asap....or who SAY they're going to VOTE to withhold FUNDING????
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 4, 2007 12:59:51 PM new
Again....your mind is totally DISTORTING what is really happening. No surprise there. Normal for you.
So...you can't tell us of any one other than obama and kucinish who ARE actually willing to put their vote where their mouths are huh?
Figures....
So while you won't ADMIT that the liberals/dems AREN'T doing what the voters thought they'd do....lol..lol.....
Their actual LACK of doing anything other than TALKING isn't giving the radical anti-war lefties what they WANTED.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 4, 2007 01:04:30 PM new
linDUH, NOTHING you have said changes the facts of the OP.....keep ranting and screaming "liar" ..."twisting"...and changing the subject....the facts won't change !
posted on February 4, 2007 01:13:30 PM new
What I have noticed is that the topic of this thread was mingo projecting once again.
lie upon lie upon lie upon lie upon lie - yep, that's mingo's MO.
NONE of her statements has she ever backed up with any proof.
She has NO credibility....just a lot of anger - and a daily list of mistatements lies.....none of which she can prove.
She's still struggle with being able to identify the difference between an op-ed piece/editoral and actual NEWS.
She still rarely gives a link or hint to where she gets her copy and pastes from....too embarrassed to let everyone know who they came from - it appears.
And she'll have more rage and anger as she continues to see that the liberals she so wanted in control of our congress DON'T do what she and her ilk THOUGHT they'd do.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
...he's the one who said he wants to send 48,000 more troops.