I can't imagine it being anything other than "A lie told often enough will become true."
How else could anyone rationally explain his incessant attempts to link Iraq with 9-11, despite the fact that the President, the military, and just about everyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid has conceded that Al-Qaeda WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN'S GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!
Listen. I'm all for asking for continued support of the troops. I don't even mind people rationally debating for a continued presence in the nation where "as [the Iraqi forces] step up, we will step down." But to try to twist conventional wisdom with what can not be described as anything less than a blatant lie is not just painfully wrong, it's a disservice to those who have gone and fought, and to do so in Iraq to a military audience belittles their intelligence.
It's gone beyond "have you no shame." It's now reached a "do you need to be medicated" point.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Progress!
The President, as predicted, has announced that due to the progress we've seen under the Surge, he has chosen to listened to General Petraeus's advice and will start to draw down troops. He hopes to bring home some 7000 by the end of the year and reduce strength by about 30,000 by next summer. What he didn't say, though, was that the troop reduction he approved is the same amount of troops that were involved in the Surge originally. He also didn't mention that this reduction was part of the Surge strategy (indeed, by definition, a surge is a short-term concept). Another thing he didn't mention was how the Iraqi army led the surge, as was sold to us in January, though he did note that the Iraqi army training was going well, and noted some difficulty with the Iraqi police force.
As for progress, he failed to mention his own definition of the Surge's goal from January - the Iraqi government working together - as one of the signs of progress. This, of course, is because the Iraqi government hasn't progressed. He also mentioned the number of troops that will be allowed to re-enter the military, without mentioning that it was under his permission that they were disbanded originally (though he did try to discredit Bremer for that, who, learning from the mistakes of others, kept a paper trail) - though that might have been because he "can't remember."
In other news, the President apparently used this speech to try to tie in as many references to past and potential future events as possible. Of course he invoked 9-11, despite the fact that the war in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!!!! He also mentioned Iran. He repeatedly referred to "terrorists and insurgents" as though they are one and the same - again failing to note that the terrorist presence in Iraq is the direct result of our meddling (as is the current threat to our security from any Iraqi instability). He also made a fleeting comment to the "Taliban-like control of al-Qaeda in Anbar Province." Again, the goal was to try to subtly connect the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. And of course, some people will buy it, because some people are stupid.
But one thing I noticed was how well his speech echoed the same progress report given by General Westmoreland that I commented on just yesterday, and which Just Wondering so kindly cross-posted on her blog today.
All in all, I was not impressed with the speech. I'm sure that it will keep his base happy ("But there's progress!") and probably keep a couple Republicans in check, but he didn't really say anything other than "I'm bringing home the troops that I said would only be there a limited time after a limited time because I've decided that the parameters we set for success in January were met close enough, so long as you ignore the overarching goal of the whole thing." And with the President's credibility, even that is suspect.
UPDATE
One thing I'd forgotten to mention was the President's tossing in of a new concept - a long term (open-ended) commitment or "security arrangement" that the Iraqis apparently want. I don't know where the government found the time to ask us to provide them with a security arrangement, but I guess when you're busy not meeting benchmarks or passing laws, you are able to squeeze that in... The problem, as someone else (I've been to many sites tonight and can't remember where I first read this, though I'm willing to bet it was from a link on the Moderate Voice) pointed out, in the other nations where we've kept forces under a security arrangement (the "tripwire troops" such as the famous "Berlin Brigade" necessary to invoke the presidents inherent rescue powers under the Constitution), in Iraq, our forces would be there to protect Iraqis from Iraqis, instead of some outside threat (such as communism). This seems to run contrary to the concept of a security arrangement, but I'm sure we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what the President wants us to hear.
As for progress, he failed to mention his own definition of the Surge's goal from January - the Iraqi government working together - as one of the signs of progress. This, of course, is because the Iraqi government hasn't progressed. He also mentioned the number of troops that will be allowed to re-enter the military, without mentioning that it was under his permission that they were disbanded originally (though he did try to discredit Bremer for that, who, learning from the mistakes of others, kept a paper trail) - though that might have been because he "can't remember."
In other news, the President apparently used this speech to try to tie in as many references to past and potential future events as possible. Of course he invoked 9-11, despite the fact that the war in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!!!! He also mentioned Iran. He repeatedly referred to "terrorists and insurgents" as though they are one and the same - again failing to note that the terrorist presence in Iraq is the direct result of our meddling (as is the current threat to our security from any Iraqi instability). He also made a fleeting comment to the "Taliban-like control of al-Qaeda in Anbar Province." Again, the goal was to try to subtly connect the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. And of course, some people will buy it, because some people are stupid.
But one thing I noticed was how well his speech echoed the same progress report given by General Westmoreland that I commented on just yesterday, and which Just Wondering so kindly cross-posted on her blog today.
All in all, I was not impressed with the speech. I'm sure that it will keep his base happy ("But there's progress!") and probably keep a couple Republicans in check, but he didn't really say anything other than "I'm bringing home the troops that I said would only be there a limited time after a limited time because I've decided that the parameters we set for success in January were met close enough, so long as you ignore the overarching goal of the whole thing." And with the President's credibility, even that is suspect.
UPDATE
One thing I'd forgotten to mention was the President's tossing in of a new concept - a long term (open-ended) commitment or "security arrangement" that the Iraqis apparently want. I don't know where the government found the time to ask us to provide them with a security arrangement, but I guess when you're busy not meeting benchmarks or passing laws, you are able to squeeze that in... The problem, as someone else (I've been to many sites tonight and can't remember where I first read this, though I'm willing to bet it was from a link on the Moderate Voice) pointed out, in the other nations where we've kept forces under a security arrangement (the "tripwire troops" such as the famous "Berlin Brigade" necessary to invoke the presidents inherent rescue powers under the Constitution), in Iraq, our forces would be there to protect Iraqis from Iraqis, instead of some outside threat (such as communism). This seems to run contrary to the concept of a security arrangement, but I'm sure we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what the President wants us to hear.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
At Last! Troop Reductions!
President Bush is expected to say that he plans to reduce the US troop presence in Iraq by about 30,000 starting next spring, according to this article.
My guess is that he will make some statements to the effect that because of the successes of the Surge, we now have the flexibility to begin to bring home troops. Of course, the troops we're bringing home will be about the same number as we sent over for the Surge, which, by definition, and by the President's design, was to be a short-term operation. So what the President will be doing, essentially, is what he said he'd be doing when he started this whole thing, but he'll be adding a PR twist.
The problem with the twist is that the surge, according to both the President and General Petraeus standards at the beginning, is not working. It did not accomplish what the President claimed to be its goal. Read this article by Real Clear Politics writer George Will. Here are a couple of snippets:
My guess is that he will make some statements to the effect that because of the successes of the Surge, we now have the flexibility to begin to bring home troops. Of course, the troops we're bringing home will be about the same number as we sent over for the Surge, which, by definition, and by the President's design, was to be a short-term operation. So what the President will be doing, essentially, is what he said he'd be doing when he started this whole thing, but he'll be adding a PR twist.
The problem with the twist is that the surge, according to both the President and General Petraeus standards at the beginning, is not working. It did not accomplish what the President claimed to be its goal. Read this article by Real Clear Politics writer George Will. Here are a couple of snippets:
The purpose of the surge, they said, is to by time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?"Of course, there has been some Iraqi political progress - they took August off. Some more from the article:
The progress that Petraeus reports in improving security in portions of Iraq is real. It might, however, have two sinister aspects. First, measuring sectarian violence is problematic: The Washington Post reports that a body with a bullet hole in the front of the skull is considered a victim of criminality; a hole in the back of the skull is evidence of sectarian violence. But even if violence is declining, that might be partly because violent sectarian cleansing has separated Sunni and Shiite communities. This homogenization of hostile factions -- trained and armed by U.S. forces -- may bear poisonous fruit in a full-blown civil war. Second, brutalities by al-Qaeda in Iraq have indeed provoked some Sunni leaders to collaborate with U.S. forces. But these alliances of convenience might be inconvenient when Shiites again become the Sunnis' principal enemy.In other words, the surge might not have been as effective as advertised (then again, it might be - we don't know). Perhaps the more important question, as Mr. Will suggested, is "If the surge indeed is working, why didn't the President go to Baghdad during his surprise visit?" And the question to be asked regarding the return of the troops is "Why are you selling us a car you sold a year ago and telling us it's new?"
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Rank Has It's Privileges
We first were taught that in Basic Training. What it means is that you get certain bits of preferential treatment the farther you are promoted. The most glaring example of this that I saw in the Air Force was when I had to abdicate my chair so the XO (A Major) wouldn't have to stand.
But there are more beneficial applications of the RHIP concept. Let's say, for example, that you are the commander of a group of reservists, enlisted people and NCOs. Under your leadership, these soldiers participate in various human rights and Geneva Convention violations. Their pictures are posted all over the internet, and you did nothing to stop it, curtail it, or even know about it. Or even worse, you knew about it, and implicitly authorized it, or you deliberately turned a blind eye to it.
The enlisted soldiers and NCOs who were involved? They get prison sentences (Remember Lynndie England? She got three years in jail) up to 10 years. You, the Commander, the person who is overall responsible for the actions of your soldiers? You get a reprimand. Not for what your soldiers did - they've already been scapegoated. No, you get a reprimand because you discussed the investigation after a General told you not to. You will forfeit a month's pay ($7400 - more than I made my first 9 months in the military), and get to consider retiring next year.
Lieutenant Colonel Jordan was understandably relieved that he is finished with this ordeal, "When I first saw photographs of the horrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, I was shocked and I was saddened. After today, I hope the wounds of Abu Ghraib can start to heal." Other people who are not able to start healing? Those subjected to the dehumanizing treatment, Former PFC England, former Cpl Charles Graner, and former Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick.
For the record - every other officer implicated in the action received administrative reprimands. LtC. Jordan was the only one who went to trial. Let's not forget that Lynndie England was not even allowed to plead guilty, yet she is sitting in jail. Enlisted members are doubly screwed in situations like this - they are supposed to not obey unlawful orders, yet they are precluded from questioning the orders they are given. Rank Certainly has its privileges. And the Army is full of crap when it comes to accountability.
But there are more beneficial applications of the RHIP concept. Let's say, for example, that you are the commander of a group of reservists, enlisted people and NCOs. Under your leadership, these soldiers participate in various human rights and Geneva Convention violations. Their pictures are posted all over the internet, and you did nothing to stop it, curtail it, or even know about it. Or even worse, you knew about it, and implicitly authorized it, or you deliberately turned a blind eye to it.
The enlisted soldiers and NCOs who were involved? They get prison sentences (Remember Lynndie England? She got three years in jail) up to 10 years. You, the Commander, the person who is overall responsible for the actions of your soldiers? You get a reprimand. Not for what your soldiers did - they've already been scapegoated. No, you get a reprimand because you discussed the investigation after a General told you not to. You will forfeit a month's pay ($7400 - more than I made my first 9 months in the military), and get to consider retiring next year.
Lieutenant Colonel Jordan was understandably relieved that he is finished with this ordeal, "When I first saw photographs of the horrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, I was shocked and I was saddened. After today, I hope the wounds of Abu Ghraib can start to heal." Other people who are not able to start healing? Those subjected to the dehumanizing treatment, Former PFC England, former Cpl Charles Graner, and former Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick.
For the record - every other officer implicated in the action received administrative reprimands. LtC. Jordan was the only one who went to trial. Let's not forget that Lynndie England was not even allowed to plead guilty, yet she is sitting in jail. Enlisted members are doubly screwed in situations like this - they are supposed to not obey unlawful orders, yet they are precluded from questioning the orders they are given. Rank Certainly has its privileges. And the Army is full of crap when it comes to accountability.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Clutching at Straws - Another Historical Rewrite
I watched part of the President's speech today, but I was not really surprised by what I heard.
The President's foreign policy for the past six years has been one of "if I repeat it enough, it will become true." This policy has been applied to his attempts to label his legacy, as well. President Bush invoked Korea and the difficulties Truman faced in 1950, noting that history has been kind to the ex-haberdasher, implying that he is the Truman of the 21st Century.
This is a nice idea, but it's intentionally incomplete. President Truman is remembered fondly in relation to Korea because history proved his claims accurate. North Korea invaded the South with the approval of China and the Soviet Union (indeed there were Soviet pilots in the air over Korea during the war). The U.S. intervened with the approval of the United Nations. The attack was part of a larger plan to spread Communism.
History has not been so kind to the President's rationales for invading Iraq. First off, we were the aggressors in Iraq; we were not defending an attacked state. There were no WMDs being produced, and none found of the vintage claimed. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link was refuted. There were no plans to invade the United States. The Iraqi people did not view us as liberators (at least, not in the long run), and the country was not ready for democracy. In short, the similarities are skin-deep.
The President also made comments referring to the need to fight the terrorists in Iraq, lest we fight them here. This is a rather disingenuous statement, in my opinion. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the ISG and CIA found no link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein and no terror threat from Iraq, at least, not until we liberated the country and provided what terrorists we now face there. The President also (during the part I watched), while referring to the terrorists, made no mention of the insurgents or the Iraqi military who have been fighting us - just a coincidence, I'm sure. I recognize that it would be ludicrous to think that our President would actually come out and say "I'm responsible for a complete mess in Iraq, but unless we stick to it, it's going to be even worse. I need your help to try to fix what I've broken," but that's exactly what he needs to do. Trying to paint a picture that glosses over his errors in judgment (such as not listening to his Generals, such as Shinseki who stated the need for 5-600,000 troops to secure victory in Iraq) only shows his contempt for the sensibilities of the American People, including the families of the soldiers fighting the insurgency he created.
Like I said, I didn't see the whole speech, so maybe he did throw in a mea culpa, but I somehow doubt it. Instead, he wants to pretend he is what he isn't - a Great Leader, a man with the statement "The buck stops here" on his desk, Harry S Truman. Instead, history is more likely to view him as a different Democrat from the 20th Century - Lyndon Johnson.
The President's foreign policy for the past six years has been one of "if I repeat it enough, it will become true." This policy has been applied to his attempts to label his legacy, as well. President Bush invoked Korea and the difficulties Truman faced in 1950, noting that history has been kind to the ex-haberdasher, implying that he is the Truman of the 21st Century.
This is a nice idea, but it's intentionally incomplete. President Truman is remembered fondly in relation to Korea because history proved his claims accurate. North Korea invaded the South with the approval of China and the Soviet Union (indeed there were Soviet pilots in the air over Korea during the war). The U.S. intervened with the approval of the United Nations. The attack was part of a larger plan to spread Communism.
History has not been so kind to the President's rationales for invading Iraq. First off, we were the aggressors in Iraq; we were not defending an attacked state. There were no WMDs being produced, and none found of the vintage claimed. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link was refuted. There were no plans to invade the United States. The Iraqi people did not view us as liberators (at least, not in the long run), and the country was not ready for democracy. In short, the similarities are skin-deep.
The President also made comments referring to the need to fight the terrorists in Iraq, lest we fight them here. This is a rather disingenuous statement, in my opinion. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the ISG and CIA found no link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein and no terror threat from Iraq, at least, not until we liberated the country and provided what terrorists we now face there. The President also (during the part I watched), while referring to the terrorists, made no mention of the insurgents or the Iraqi military who have been fighting us - just a coincidence, I'm sure. I recognize that it would be ludicrous to think that our President would actually come out and say "I'm responsible for a complete mess in Iraq, but unless we stick to it, it's going to be even worse. I need your help to try to fix what I've broken," but that's exactly what he needs to do. Trying to paint a picture that glosses over his errors in judgment (such as not listening to his Generals, such as Shinseki who stated the need for 5-600,000 troops to secure victory in Iraq) only shows his contempt for the sensibilities of the American People, including the families of the soldiers fighting the insurgency he created.
Like I said, I didn't see the whole speech, so maybe he did throw in a mea culpa, but I somehow doubt it. Instead, he wants to pretend he is what he isn't - a Great Leader, a man with the statement "The buck stops here" on his desk, Harry S Truman. Instead, history is more likely to view him as a different Democrat from the 20th Century - Lyndon Johnson.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Hearts and Minds
Every day we hear new reports from some officer, general or otherwise, some politician, some DoD or Executive Branch spokesperson who speaks as though he or she has some great insight as to the situation in Iraq. That's all fine and good, but as many (including me) have said before, these people aren't the ones on the ground in Iraq. To get a better picture of what the soldiers in the field think and see, it doesn't help to have DoD PR release statements and PR interviews that are selected and screened. The best way to do it is to hear soldiers speak candidly, as these Specialists and Sergeants did recently. (Hat Tip, Vim and Vinegar)
It's easy to see how people will be able to point to things and say "these are just democrat talking points," except, the information is gleaned firsthand, from the field, from those who speak with and see the situation in Iraq. The quote people with whom they've spoken ("we need security, not free food"). They see history being repeated (a la 1920), not being rewritten. In other words, these are people who know the story and who share their opinions (and at risk to their careers, for putting it on an op-ed with their names on it), and that is what the people need to hear.
It's easy to see how people will be able to point to things and say "these are just democrat talking points," except, the information is gleaned firsthand, from the field, from those who speak with and see the situation in Iraq. The quote people with whom they've spoken ("we need security, not free food"). They see history being repeated (a la 1920), not being rewritten. In other words, these are people who know the story and who share their opinions (and at risk to their careers, for putting it on an op-ed with their names on it), and that is what the people need to hear.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Iraq Wins Asia Cup
In a bit of good news coming from Iraq, the Iraqi National Soccer team won the Asia Cup, despite being quite an underdog.
President Bush did not say that this was evidence that the surge was working, though I wouldn't rule his making such a connection out. Or his suggesting that this is a major victory on the War on Terror.
President Bush did not say that this was evidence that the surge was working, though I wouldn't rule his making such a connection out. Or his suggesting that this is a major victory on the War on Terror.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
If only...
United States intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda is has rebuilt to an operating capability it has not had since just before the 9-11 attacks. The intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has been gathering strength along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
It's tragic. If only there was some way we could have had more forces available to fight this war on terror. If only we could take several hundred thousand soldiers from one nation and use them to fight a war declared by our Commander-in-Chief.
But, we fight with the army we have, not the army we wish we had, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld. Of course, that seems somehow less effective a defense when the army we had was taken away from our total strength to fight in a war that needn't be fought at the time. A war that now has the administration referring to every act of insurrection against our "liberating" forces as Al Qaeda - which, incidentally, is the organization now as strong as it was in 2001, according to our own Department of Defense.
Fortunately, Al Qaeda's days are numbered. We were told two years ago that the insurrection was in its last throes, so they should be throwing in the towel, soon. We just have to be patient, and not set any arbitrary dates for defeat. Then we can finish what we started in Afghanistan, and then Osama Bin Laden better watch out!
It's tragic. If only there was some way we could have had more forces available to fight this war on terror. If only we could take several hundred thousand soldiers from one nation and use them to fight a war declared by our Commander-in-Chief.
But, we fight with the army we have, not the army we wish we had, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld. Of course, that seems somehow less effective a defense when the army we had was taken away from our total strength to fight in a war that needn't be fought at the time. A war that now has the administration referring to every act of insurrection against our "liberating" forces as Al Qaeda - which, incidentally, is the organization now as strong as it was in 2001, according to our own Department of Defense.
Fortunately, Al Qaeda's days are numbered. We were told two years ago that the insurrection was in its last throes, so they should be throwing in the towel, soon. We just have to be patient, and not set any arbitrary dates for defeat. Then we can finish what we started in Afghanistan, and then Osama Bin Laden better watch out!
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Irony
From Yahoo!: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into Northern Iraq."
You see, Turkey claims that terrorists are entering Turkey from Iraq, and they want to invade the country to attack the source. They can't do that. We weren't invaded by Iraq, we had no Iraqi forces attacking us, and were under no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, so we invaded them and brought them freedom - the freedom to launch terrorist attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq, as it were.
Heaven forbid we accept any help in combating terrorism - the war against which we ostensibly were fighting when we went into Iraq, stopping our search for the leader of Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Heaven forbid we allow another nation to defend itself. We empathize with Turkey, but tell them not to defend themselves when attacked.
I thought terrorism was being defeated by the surge? I thought that the president urged other nations to take a stand against terror (the "entity" we are fighting). I think it's ironic, this situation and our position, and I think it's another example of the issues this administration has with anything that isn't done exactly "his way."
You see, Turkey claims that terrorists are entering Turkey from Iraq, and they want to invade the country to attack the source. They can't do that. We weren't invaded by Iraq, we had no Iraqi forces attacking us, and were under no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, so we invaded them and brought them freedom - the freedom to launch terrorist attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq, as it were.
Heaven forbid we accept any help in combating terrorism - the war against which we ostensibly were fighting when we went into Iraq, stopping our search for the leader of Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Heaven forbid we allow another nation to defend itself. We empathize with Turkey, but tell them not to defend themselves when attacked.
I thought terrorism was being defeated by the surge? I thought that the president urged other nations to take a stand against terror (the "entity" we are fighting). I think it's ironic, this situation and our position, and I think it's another example of the issues this administration has with anything that isn't done exactly "his way."
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Isn't it Ironic?
President Bush accused Democrats of using troops as leverage to win political battles.
He then said that the budgets for Afghanistan and Iraq must be approved "without strings and without delay," so that Congress can prove that they support the troops. Because the only way to support the troops is by giving President Bush exactly what he demands, even though his direction has, by his own admission, not gone well.
I think it's high time Congress showed the President, through its at least six separate Constitutionally granted national defense provisions, that troop support does not equate to blind allegiance to a general who declared Mission Accomplished in 2003 to a job we're still working on today.
And perhaps the President should not suggest that those who don't follow him blindly do not support the troops. Someone might consider that using the troops as leverage.
He then said that the budgets for Afghanistan and Iraq must be approved "without strings and without delay," so that Congress can prove that they support the troops. Because the only way to support the troops is by giving President Bush exactly what he demands, even though his direction has, by his own admission, not gone well.
I think it's high time Congress showed the President, through its at least six separate Constitutionally granted national defense provisions, that troop support does not equate to blind allegiance to a general who declared Mission Accomplished in 2003 to a job we're still working on today.
And perhaps the President should not suggest that those who don't follow him blindly do not support the troops. Someone might consider that using the troops as leverage.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The New Math
President Bush a short time ago announced that after listening to the input of such sources as the ISG, the military, and anyone else he could say he talked to, he had decided to increase the troop strength in Iraq by 21,500. He assured us, on national television, that this increase would be all the extra forces we would need to secure Iraq and end the sectarian violence - the violence that didn't exist until we invaded Iraq based on faulty premises (seriously, if the President truly believed that they were responsible for assisting Al Qaeda, as he said he believed after every other reason he fronted fell apart - and don't give me that shit about how democrats believed the same thing, I don't care - THEY DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ BECAUSE OF IT - then why did he insist on a new authorization for use of military force, when the one issued after 9-11 clearly authorized using any means necessary to destroy those who supported the people the president determined were responsible for the 9-11 attacks? I really want to know), and that we would then win the war that he and his administration up until recently insisted was going well and that the damn MSM was losing us this war. He insisted this was the case. I remember, because I posted on it shortly thereafter, saying I hope he's right, but I'm skeptical.
Apparently, he was lying to us. But he's not known for that, so this is a shock to the american public. It seems he approved sending an additional 4400 troops to Iraq for necessary support for the surge. As you can tell by the title, I think I've figured out the way for the President to sell this to his base, since nobody else is likely to believe anything he ever says again (and this was before this latest bit of silliness) - use new math.
You see, we did send 21,500, and that's all that is needed. But we need to augment that number by adding 4400 people. That normally would be 25,900 people, or 100 short of 26,000. Since we're short of that amount, we don't estimate 26,000 - we would estimate low, or 25,000. That of course, leads us to being over by 900 people. You add that to the 100 we were short on the initial estimation to keep us from 26,000, and you get 1000. You subract 1000 from the 4400 that we sent, because they didn't go under our estimate, and you get 3400. Now, you take that 3400 and you subtract them from the 25,000, because we didn't send 3400, we sent 4400. That gets you to 25,000 - 3400 = 21,600, or an increase of only 100 people, which, if you remember is the same number we were short on 26,000, so we can take that off and leads us to the proper equation - 21,500 + 4400 = 21,500.
Can't be simpler than that.
Apparently, he was lying to us. But he's not known for that, so this is a shock to the american public. It seems he approved sending an additional 4400 troops to Iraq for necessary support for the surge. As you can tell by the title, I think I've figured out the way for the President to sell this to his base, since nobody else is likely to believe anything he ever says again (and this was before this latest bit of silliness) - use new math.
You see, we did send 21,500, and that's all that is needed. But we need to augment that number by adding 4400 people. That normally would be 25,900 people, or 100 short of 26,000. Since we're short of that amount, we don't estimate 26,000 - we would estimate low, or 25,000. That of course, leads us to being over by 900 people. You add that to the 100 we were short on the initial estimation to keep us from 26,000, and you get 1000. You subract 1000 from the 4400 that we sent, because they didn't go under our estimate, and you get 3400. Now, you take that 3400 and you subtract them from the 25,000, because we didn't send 3400, we sent 4400. That gets you to 25,000 - 3400 = 21,600, or an increase of only 100 people, which, if you remember is the same number we were short on 26,000, so we can take that off and leads us to the proper equation - 21,500 + 4400 = 21,500.
Can't be simpler than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)