the same thing.
Let me break it down, so that even you can understand it.
The Neo "Con" papers are 27 pages of bars, charts, graphs and tables that show how fucked up the Bush Administration is about Iraq. The document is nothing but a bunch of fucking numbers.
The title of the report is "The Neo CON- Bush Defense record by the numbers."
Here, look at it, if you dare!
http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/58/The_Neo_Con_9.5.06_final_electronic_version.pdfdon't be afraid, it won't bite you. :scared:
This document has the numbers that were used to back up the Democratic congressional leadership letter that was sent to Bush on 9/4.
here's the letter:
September 4, 2006
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
Over one month ago, we wrote to you about the war in Iraq. In the face of escalating violence, increasing instability in the region, and an overall strain on our troops that has reduced their readiness to levels not seen since Vietnam, we called upon you to change course and adopt a new strategy to give our troops and the Iraqi people the best chance for success.
Although you have not responded to our letter, we surmise from your recent press conferences and speeches that you remain committed to maintaining an open-ended presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for years to come. That was the message the American people received on August 21, 2006, when you said, “we're not leaving , so long as I'm the President.”
Unfortunately, your stay the course strategy is not working. In the five-week period since writing to you, over 60 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed, hundreds of U.S. troops have been wounded, many of them grievously, nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and the cost to the American taxpayer has grown by another $8 billion dollars. Even the administration's most recent report to Congress on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq indicates that security trends in Iraq are deteriorating, and likely to continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. With daily attacks against American and Iraqi troops at close to their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, we can only conclude that our troops are caught in the middle of a low-grade civil war that is getting worse.
Meanwhile, the costs of a failed Iraq policy to our military and our security have been staggering. As you know, not a single Army non-deployed combat brigade is currently prepared to meet its wartime mission, and the Marine Corps faces equally urgent equipment and personnel shortages. Lieutenant General Blum, the National Guard Bureau Chief, has stated that the National Guard is “even further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Your recent decision to involuntarily recall thousands of Marines to active duty to serve in Iraq is but the latest confirmation of the strain this war has placed on our troops. At the same time, the focus on Iraq and the toll it has taken on our troops and on our diplomatic capabilities has diverted our attention from other national security challenges and greatly constrained our ability to deal with them.
In short, Mr. President, this current path – for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security – is neither working, nor making us more secure.
Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year.
We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere –consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. From the failure to deploy sufficient numbers of troops at the start of the war or to adequately equip them, to the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the failure to plan for the post-war occupation, the Administration’s mistakes have taken a toll on our troops and our security. It is unacceptable to dismiss the concerns of military personnel and their families when they are affected by the consequences of these failures, as the Secretary of Defense recently did in Alaska by suggesting that volunteers should not complain about having their deployments extended. While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy.
Mr. President, staying the course in Iraq has not worked and continues to divert resources and attention from the war on terrorism that should be the nation’s top security priority. We hope you will consider the recommendations for change that we have put forward. We want to work with you in finding a way forward that honors the enormous sacrifice of our troops and promotes U.S. national security interests in the region. We believe our plan will achieve those goals.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=2624... The letter backs up the Security agenda that Dems put out in March of this year, and again in July.
The letter is not a "third way letter" and the policy that it is supporting....which includes redeployment of our soldiers in Iraq as of December of 2006....is not a third way policy. It is the policy of the Congressional Dem leaders. period.
Murtha signed that letter too.
If it was the way you'd describe it....Guess that would mean that Reid, Pelosi, Clark, Levin, Murtha, Durbin and the rest of them are actually PNACers and we are being set up...right? They are really all Al From in drag, in uniform and in congress...right? Add John Kerry and John Edwards to the list...cause they both had Al From running their campaign...and he runs third Way and third way is linked directly to PNAC cause somebody said it is PNAC but packaged different...... :eyes:
Also add in Howard Dean, Al Gore, and the Clintons...cause hell, they were all associated with Al From and with the DLC recently enough......and so, that's that.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
