Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (196962)	2/19/2007 2:29:05 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

I'm skeptical that 130k troops over 3 years couldn't achieve American goals in Iraq, but 145k will be able to do that. If all that is changing is the numbers, you are right to be skeptical. But they claim the strategy is changing too. We'll have to wait and see. It certainly isn't aided by confirming Petraeus on one hand, and passing "let's run away" resolutions on the other. However, the change in strategy just reaffirms my lack of confidence in the ability of the people carrying out the mission. If the strategy has changed dramatically, why were they pursuing a failing strategy for the past three years? It's indicative of incompetence. I'd interpret what you call the "lets run away" resolution as a vote of no confidence. The surge looks like an act of desperation to me - why does the "surge" and "change of strategy" miraculously occur just when the Republicans lose control of Congress? If it really is a good idea, it should have been implemented when it was determined that it is a good idea, not when Bush loses some of his power in government.