1. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

2. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late,” former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said.

3. “We need more Iraqi troops.”

Who’ll train?????????????

4. Chuck Robb, Jim Webb are bedfellows. Leave Oliver out.

I wonder what he’d have to say about that statement??????

They all do not support the surge. Are you calling all of the above unpatriotic Americans for disagreeing with the President’s plan?

In fact two of them are disappointed they didn’t get more troops to begin with.

Oliver North never supports Biden’s plan and he never would.

Don’t spin. Your disgusting when you spin.

1. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

2. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late,” former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said.

3. “We need more Iraqi troops.”

Who’ll train?????????????

4. Chuck Robb, Jim Webb are bedfellows. Leave Oliver out.

I wonder what he’d have to say about that statement??????

DP-Virginia is home to three gallant, patriotic men with much in common. They are all three ex-Marines. They are all three highly decorated Vietnam veterans. They all sought at one time or another to be our junior senator. One lost his bid, another won his, and the third both won and lost. Our state can be proud of all three, and grateful for their service to our country.

I refer, of course, to Chuck Robb, Jim Webb and Oliver North. Strange bedfellows, nicht wahr? One may challenge any suggestion that the similarities I cited can withstand the drastically divergent political paths they have trodden since Vietnam. Before Wednesday night, I would agree, they had nothing in common. Now, it appears, George Bush has given them common cause.

North writes, “Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: ‘We don’t need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,’ was a common refrain. They are right.”

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/even-oliver-north-is-against-iraq-surge

WP-Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

Bush’s decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872_pf.html

Retired Generals Slam Bush’s Iraq Plan

“The proposed solution is to send more troops and it won’t work. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late,” former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said.

Hoar once commanded all American forces in the Middle East and has nothing good to say about the war.

http://cbs5.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html

Even U.S. generals oppose an Iraq surge

Count the Joint Chiefs of Staff among those resisting an infusion of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq. They raise the same question citizens on the home front are asking: More troops in harm’s way to accomplish what?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003487662_iraqed21.html

What experts?????

You can’t just say “experts” and expect everyone to fall in step with your CUT AND RUN plan.

The problem is the leaders of the Middle East know if we pull without a plan it will become an all out regional civil war. Our best negotiating chip to bring all the regional partners together is to threaten a full pull out. If we propose a phased pull-out based on corporation in the region I do think it will calm down the violence.

We cannot pull this off without corporation of all the players in the region. The key is we most understand that containment with limited violence is a victory. The concept of defining victory as a western type democracy is unrealistic goal in the near future.

Also if we get off the need of Middle East oil we could use the purchases as leverage to help promote reform.