The US could send an extra 7,000 troops to implement President George Bush’s controversial Iraqi security plan, it emerged last night — as the country suffered one of its worst recent days of bloodshed when at least 100 Shia Muslim pilgrims were killed and scores more injured.
Gordon England, deputy secretary of defence, revealed that army commanders were requesting reinforcements beyond the 21,500 personnel already earmarked for the so-called “surge” into the capital.
“At this point, our expectation is the number of … troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000,” the official told the House of Representatives Budget committee in Washington.
The news that yet more men are likely to be joining the nearly 140,000 US troops already serving in Iraq came as Mr Bush insisted there were “encouraging signs” that his strategy was working. On Monday US forces suffered their deadliest losses in nearly a month – when nine soldiers were killed in explosions in Sunni areas north of Baghdad, bringing total casualties since March 2003 to at least 3,185.
George W. Bush can’t add any better than he can tell the truth!
#18 – Why are you guys so worked up? The Democratic Congress will take care of this…
LMAO
Comment by James Hill — 3/7/2007 @ 11:21 am
You know… I thought that joke would get old really quick, but every time you say it remains as fresh and new as the first time you said it.
/sarcasm off
Let’s see… we’ve had about 2 months to fix the historically unprecedented clusterfuck created in 6 years by Bushco.
Obviously, if America isn’t a golden utopia of peace and prosperity by the end of April, all the Democrats will simply resign and admit that the Republicans are superior and bow to your better wisdom.
/crazy fantasy mode off
#18
The Democratic Congress will take care of this? Maybe, if Bushy wasn’t there. We’re CONSTANTLY reminded by this chimp that he’s the Commander in Chief…he’s “The Decider(tm)”, and he can do any damn thing he wants. Congress has no ability to stop him from screwing the country over, other than stop funding. Of course if they do that, folks like you won’t accuse them of hating the troops right? You’ll understand it’s a strategic move to PROTECT our country by ending a disastrous pointless war, not an attack on our troops right? Not likely. Besides, so much ‘emergency’ cash has been already authorized that this idiot’s war is funded for at LEAST another year even if we cut off the money today.
#7.
How about sitting reading a children’s book during the 9/11 attack?
I sure get tired of this one, since it may have been the last sensible thing W. did.
In that school, the presidency was safe until people knew enough to decide where he should go. The correct deciders did NOT include the president, since the protection people and the military had far more resources to deal with the situation and more information than he did.
The revolutionary right-wing loonies sure came out in force for this one. Some of them really know how to leave a constitutional and fiscal conservative feeling slimed.
u mean ‘Bush the Butcher”
#20,
It’s something that the main stream media passes up for bombings, but the positive impact of the U.S. military working side by side with the Iraqis in Fallujah will change the citizens lives for quite some time.
So if this is an Army project, then where is Haliburton?
My comment about Haliburton concerned the supplying of the troops, including barracks, feeding them, supplying munitions and equipment, transportation, and washing their dirty undies. The other no-bid contracts are just gravy for Haliburton.
Although I am sure Haliburton is doing some wonderful work in Iraq. I do have a real issue with the process used to award the contracts and as has been shown, the kickbacks and other unsavory financial conduct unearthed.
I still refuse to call this a “surge”. It’s not a surge… it’s a relatively minor (14%) increase in the clearly losing strategy. Upping that to 18.75% isn’t going to swing this war around.
Who honestly thinks this a 14% (or 18.75%) increase is going to work?
I don’t. You probably don’t. I seriously doubt that even Bush thinks so.
I think you guys are missing the real story here. George Bush and the Army are sending LESS troops then the generals are requesting. I’m not sure if this is the same story as what you posted, but the army needs a certain number of support troops to go along with the compat troops, and they are only budgeting 7000 while what’s needed is about 20k. If this is what the article is talking about, then this is not an unadvertised increase, but rather the number of support troops, which is too low.