You gotta be joking here. This is what corruption does to a military and to a government. This is a human being outfitted for war? Not in my book. This is a human being 'dropped kicked' into a war for oil the Commander and Chief has designed to support his cronies. Our military doesn't deserve this type of treatment in this type of extreme conditions without good reason and more than sufficient personnel to carry out a mission. Noted the dead soldier laying on the ground next to his pier. The equipment didn't save him, did it?
When the Democratic majority of the House and Senate set down 'benchmarks' they weren't asking 'pretty please.' The benchmarks were to be met or the USA military was no longer at the Iraqi government's disposal.
All that clear. What did Bush have to say?
Bush's latest rhetorical tactic is unlikely to win over dissatisfied voters (click on title above)
By Howard Fineman
Updated: 3:33 p.m. ET Oct 25, 2006
Oct. 25, 2006 - Remember Al Gore’s mysterious “lockbox?” Well, I have a new item to nominate for the Museum of Inert Campaign Rhetoric: “Benchmarks.” The president says that they are the keys to victory in Iraq. But if I’m a struggling Republican candidate—buffeted by winds of anger and confusion over the war—I’m not sure “benchmarks” will insure my victory on Nov. 7....
What?
Benchmarks aren't a political tool. They are measures developed by the legislature to influence the 'W'rongful use of the USA miltitary. What's so hard to understand, unless, in the minds of the moronic every legislative agenda is a political agenda. That is not what the Iraq War is or should it ever HAVE BEEN. Our military is supposed to be available to defend the USA, not victimize sovereign countries for oil and the economics of America's wealthy.
The quotes of General Petraeus at the recent Senate hearings:
One of the Republicans who is increasingly skeptical of the Iraq War strategy is outgoing Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who is retiring after 2008. While he has criticized the president's policy, he has never supported a Democratic withdrawal plan.
(Warner) :: "Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you've laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that is making America safer?" Warner asked Petraeus during a charged session of the Armed Services Committee Tuesday.
"Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq," Petraeus answered.
(Warner) :: "Does that make America safer?" Warner pressed.
"Sir, I don't know, actually," the general said. "What I have focused on and riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force in Iraq."
Recent views of the Republican legislature (click here):
..."I think it gets to a point where we have spent enough time and enough lives and enough money in this one particular spot," said Rep. Bob Inglis, of South Carolina, who was one of 17 Republican House members who voted against the U.S. military buildup in Iraq last February.
"Our military has succeeded," Inglis said. "The question is whether Iraqi politicians can succeed. If they fail, it is not a U.S. failure. Let them go baby-sit a civil war."
While several prominent Republican senators have broken with President Bush on Iraq — notably Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, both of whom aren't seeking re-election — their counterparts in the House largely have backed Bush despite ebbing public support for the war.
There are signs the House Republican compliance is fading, especially as Republicans try to recapture control of Congress in next year's elections and lawmakers focus more on their campaigns.
"In general, you're going to see more of a splitting with Bush," said John Geer, a Vanderbilt University political scientist who has written extensively on congressional elections.
Republican incumbents are "going to seek mechanisms by which they can show their opposition on Iraq and gain credibility with the electorate," Geer said. "They will find ways to get those extra few votes to keep their jobs."...
