Bush's Troop Strength Flim-Flam in Iraq

[gulliver]

Bottom line, we need to know how many paid "security contractors" are in Iraq. Otherwise, Bush can make the troop strength situation look stable while he hires thousands of mercenaries under the covers. I smell an Enron accounting rat cooking the books on troop counts. I think Bush is -- yet again -- using the taxpayers' credit card to buy political cover.

Someone needs to ask the question: "Is Bush buying political silence from military leaders by supplying unlimited contractors to keep (official) troop counts down?"

Two things are strange to me:

1. Why the stable troop count (140,000)? Why is it exactly at the limit our military can supply without causing an outcry? Why does it never go up or down? How is it that we just happen to have exactly the right number of troops for Iraq?

2. The careful use of the word "troops" by Bush and other Republicans. Some "maverick" Republicans say we need more "troops" in Iraq. The press always asks Bush whether we need more "troops" in Iraq. Bush always answers that if military leaders ask for more "troops," he will provide them. But what if they are just asking for thousands of "personnel" and are willing to take contractors?

Worry Grows as Foreigners Flock to Iraq's Risky Jobs
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-forhire30jul30,0,3163322.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Thanks to RoseSiding for pointing out this article in LBN
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1664676&mesg_id=1664676