Originally Posted By ElKay Former US Army Major, Paul Hackett, who unexpectedly nearly beat "Mean Jean" Schmidt (the crazy woman who tried to swiftboat Rep. John Murtha last week) in a heavily GOP Ohio district posted his criticisms of Bush's recent speech on Iraq at Anapolis. <a href="http://www.hackettforohio.com/2005/11/ackett_presiden.php" target="_blank">http://www.hackettforohio.com/ 2005/11/ackett_presiden.php</a> >>After two-and-a-half years and 2,110 U.S. fatalities, the Bush administration finally released a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (NSVI). The problem is, it’s not a new strategy for success in Iraq, it’s a public relations document. The strategy describes what has transpired in Iraq to date as a resounding success and stubbornly refuses to establish any standards for accountability. It dismisses serious problems such as the dramatic increase in bombings as "metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use."<< >>NO STANDARDS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Two weeks ago, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed an amendment calling on the Bush administration to provide a "schedule" for meeting U.S. objectives in Iraq, "information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule." The NSVI completely rejects this call. "We will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached," the document states in bold and italicized print, "because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables." The only time frames proposed for achieving U.S. objectives are virtually meaningless phrases: "short term," "medium term," and "longer term." The goals for these time frames are equally ambiguous; the so-called "short term" goals, for instance, are listed as "making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces." << >>EPLACING METRICS WITH EMPTY PHRASES: In late-September, Gen. George Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, revealed that "[t]he number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one." That meant only 700 Iraq Security forces were rated as "Level 1″ on the four point scale created by the U.S. military. Instead of addressing the problem, they’ve abandoned the ratings system.<< >>DISMISSING INCREASED VIOLENCE: The NSVI emphasizes that U.S. officials "track numerous indicators to map the progress of our strategy," and offers websites where some of these reports are publicly available. "Americans can read and assess these reports to get a better sense of what is being done in Iraq and the progress being made on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis." The problem is that these reports have on numerous occasions been found to be inaccurate, or to overstate progress using incomplete or misleading data. << >>IGNORING KEY CHALLENGES: When decorated veteran Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) presented his Iraq plan two weeks ago, he offered two primary reasons for supporting redeployment. One was the heavy burden the Iraq war has placed on the U.S. military and its recruitment and retention efforts, many of which are at historically low levels. The second was the shifting sentiments of the Iraqi population; Murtha cited a recent poll that found "over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified."<< I think this is a pretty good counterpoint to the shallow "plan" that Bush is trying pass on to the nation as some sort of strategic action. What really strikes me is that Bush tries to tout that he is the first president with an MBA. He must not have been paying much attention in this business plan writing class, because if Iraq was a business that Bush was trying to get a venture capitalist to invest in he'd most likely not get a dime.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Bush tries to tout that he is the first president with an MBA." When has he done this? I must have missed it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Paul Hackett is a hard core liberal LOSER. Remember, he tried to act like a war hero but couldn't fool enough people to get elected Elkay? The military rejects guys like Hackett and his nonsense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Beau, the fact that Hackett came so close to winning a district as heavily Republican as his was widely acknowledged (even by objective Republicans) as remarkable.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy He tried to act like a Republican and a pro war guy. You can fool some people with that routine. What was amazing was that Bush beat the entire liberal media ( complete with bogus documets ) to win re election.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Murtha cited a recent poll that found "over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified." >> Murtha is so far off with these numbers it's downright sad and disgraceful. Bush actually has a plan that is working. The demcorats are once again going off the cliff and they can't at this point figure out what side they are on. What great leaders they would have made if they could have won an election.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <He tried to act like a Republican and a pro war guy. You can fool some people with that routine.> He was an actual veteran. What's clear from your post is that the chickenhawk radio noise machine can try to act more-macho-than-thou, and THAT will fool some people every time.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<He was an actual veteran.>> Did Hackett see combat? Does Hackett share the view of most other people in the military? No... Hackett is the typical liberal who went into the military who simply doesn't understand the war on terror or why we are doing what we are doing. He's a Hack.
Originally Posted By Bruiser Did Beau see combat? Does Beau share the view of most other people in the military? No... Beau is the typical right wing extremist who is basically a military groupie who thinks he understands the war on terror and why we are doing what we are doing. He's a Beau.
Originally Posted By ElKay I like your style Bruiser, a truely insightful LP.com-er. ;-) "Did Hackett see combat?" Yes, in fact he saw action in Fallujah, Ramadi and other hotspots in Iraq. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-21-iraq-vet-congress_x.htm?csp=34" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/n ation/2005-07-21-iraq-vet-congress_x.htm?csp=34</a> "Iraq war vet runs for Congress in Ohio SEAMAN, Ohio (AP) — A few months ago, Paul Hackett was flushing out insurgents and avoiding ambushes in Fallujah, Ramadi and other hotspots in Iraq. Today, the Marine is trying to round up votes in small southern Ohio towns like Seaman." So tell us Beau, did Bush engage the godless Communist Vietamese pilots or exactly what were Cheney's "other priorities" that kept him out of military service, defending his country against the Worldwide Communist threat? Beau, by questioning Major Hackett's service to dishonor every single Marine and soldier to serve in combat. For shame on you. Veterans, who are likewise American citizens, have the right to their own opinions, they are not robots as you "ditto heads" want to categorize them. Major Hackett, actually volunteered as a reserve Marine for combat duty, what's keeping you Beau? You talk tough, but you don't hold yourself to the same high standards you bellow at others. "Does Hackett share the view of most other people in the military?" Same USAToday article: >>Army Lt. Paul Worley, 23, of Peebles, said he likes the idea of a congressman veteran as he prepares for Iraq duty later this year: "You can't substitute anything for leadership by example, somebody who's been there and seen it." << Here's an officer and an Ohio voter who seems to share Hackett's views. Why should Beau's rant's count for anything, if he hasn't risk his life for his ideological views?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, in fact he saw action in Fallujah, Ramadi and other hotspots in Iraq.> Sorry, while Mr. Hackett's service was honorable and appreciated, he was a civil affairs officer who apparently only say combat once. I very much doubt he ever "flushed out insurgents", although he might have "avoided ambushes in Fallujah, Ramadi and other hotspots in Iraq", probably by staying clear of them. I don't think you can say that he "volunteered for combat duty" anymore than you can say that of every Marine. But besides all that, I don't see anything in his resume that makes him the expert on what is going on in Iraq.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You guys are pathetic. He was in a combat zone, and I think the war in Iraq has shown us that no one is safe there. No one. You're belittling the service of a veteran because you need to discredit him. Winning some political game mean more to you guys than a veteran's service. Just like the White House that you admire so much - winning the argument is more important to you guys than winning the peace.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You guys are pathetic. He was in a combat zone, and I think the war in Iraq has shown us that no one is safe there.> True, but let's not pretend he was a member of a combat squad. That's not accurate. <You're belittling the service of a veteran because you need to discredit him.> I did not belittle him. I called his service honorable. All I did was present the facts after someone else distorted them.
