Monday, August 23, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, August 23, 2010


God bless Phil...

(Thanks again for the "upgrade" my brother!)

And now we return to the Age of Obama...
Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/dn-brigades-stay-under-different-name-081910/

As the final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., entered Kuwait early [last] Thursday, a different Stryker brigade remained in Iraq.

(*SMIRK*)

Soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division are deployed in Iraq as members of an Advise and "Assist" Brigade, the Army’s designation for brigades selected to conduct security force "assistance."

So while the “last full U.S. combat brigade” have left Iraq, just under 50,000 soldiers from specially trained heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades will stay, as well as two combat aviation brigades.

Compared with the 49,000 soldiers in Iraq, there are close to 67,000 in Afghanistan and another 9,700 in Kuwait, according to the latest Army chart on global commitments dated Aug. 17.

There are seven Advise and "Assist" Brigades in Iraq, as well as two additional National Guard infantry brigades “for security,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Craig Ratcliff.

(*SMIRK*)

August 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/22/us-soldier-killed-attack-iraq

An American soldier was killed by a rocket strike near Basra [yesterday], in the first US fatality since the last combat troops left Iraq.

* THE SOLDIER HAD NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME THIS STORY WENT TO PRESS.

August 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
midcon said...

of course, Obama's rather low key marking of the event is in sharp contrast to "Mission Accomplished" episode.

The fools errand named Iraq is far from over. I wonder if Americans knowing what they know now would have voted even once for our former chief of state?

August 23, 2010 at 1:18 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439543402718272.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Federal] spending has exploded since Democrats took over Congress in [January of] 2007, first with the acquiescence of George W. Bush and then into hyperdrive after Mr. Obama entered the White House.

To appreciate the magnitude of this spending blowout, compare CBO's budget "baseline" estimate in January 2008 with the baseline it released Thursday. ... [I]n a mere 31 months [the Democrat-controlled] Congress has added more than $4.4 trillion to the 10-year spending baseline. (As recently as 2005, total federal spending was only $2.47 trillion.)

* IN HONOR OF MY BUDDY "RL" THINK OF IT THIS WAY:

Let's assume the recession that Mr. Obama "inherited" (Mrs. Pelosi was already in power) was responsible for causing $1 trillion or so in deficit spending. That still doesn't explain why the annual deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion will be nearly as high in fiscal 2010, after a year of economic growth, as it was in 2009. (Or why CBO says the deficit will still be nearly $1.1 trillion in 2011 even if all of the Bush-era tax cuts are repealed.)

(*SHRUG*)

* AGAIN... IN HONOR OF "RL" PONDER THIS:

The annual average increase in domestic, nondefense discretionary spending - on the likes of education, food stamps, and things other than Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security - was 6.4% from 1999-2008. Yet in 2009, nondefense discretionary spending rose by 11.2%, and in 2010 it will grow by another 14.7%.

(*SHRUG*)

* OH... AND BTW...

Much of this increase has been added directly to the CBO baseline, compounding future spending levels as far as the green eyeshade can see.

August 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

@ Midcon --

"Low key marking," huh?

O.K. If that's how you choose to term it.

(Perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is to you...)

(*SMIRK*) (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Anyway, Dave... is falling back on Bush bashing the best you can come up with?

Hey... if you don't believe that Obama and his allies in the MSM are pushing a false narrative - being "a bit disingenuous" - with regard to whether U.S. combat forces have been withdrawn from Iraq then you don't.

(*SHRUG*)

Me? My preferred reality is... er... umm... actual reality.

(*SMILE*)

BILL

August 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM
midcon said...

At some point in time the academic exercise of contrasting and comparing needs to be able to include Bush without it being labeled "Bush Bashing"

So just an intellectual pursuit, I would ask that you compare the POTUS response to this non-event to the non-event marked by the mission accomplished banner.

Also note the designation of both events as "non events" The current one because US military members remain in Iraq and will come under fire and the previous one because um... well, I guess for the same reason. So, yup I assert that comparatively one was relatively low key.

Now if you are including MSM in the deal, you know how they are, everything is an event to them.

August 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM
William R. Barker said...

@ Midcon --

It's August 23, 2010 and you want me to discuss something that occurred... er... when?

(FYI - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml)

Reiterating my reply to your initial post... (*SHRUG*)... I still fail to see how you read my newsbites and immediately connected the news somehow to some imaginary "contrast" with Bush.

(Seriously, Dave... I'm not getting your point.)

On the other hand, surely you get my point - no?

(Feel free to air any confusion on your part!)

(*WINK*)

Dave... seriously... as you ask "if Americans knew then what they knew now" concerning hypotheticals about the Bush election(s), I could throw back at you "if Americans knew then what they know now about Obama's Hope and Change..."

I suppose I could ponder the question, but... er... umm... there'd be no more "point" to my doing so than to your throwing out an off the cuff shot at Bush.

(Seriously... I'm not getting your point in context with my newsbites and my points...)

Anyway... if you insist on comparing/contrasting Bush's statement with Obama's statement...

(*SIGH*)

Bush's statement was more honest. The term "major combat" had a meaning we were all familiar with - organized fighting, national military against national military, tanks against tanks, artillery/missiles against artillery/missiles... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Did Bush fuck up Iraq? Yeah! You know I think he did!

Thing is... here's the difference between Bush and Obama: I believe that Bush actually BELIEVED what he was saying. I don't believe that Obama's comments (and media portrayal) on "the last combat troops leaving Iraq" are honest in the sense that Obama is simply... er... "confused" about what U.S. forces remain in-country and staged right next door.

(*SMIRK*)

Again... to reiterate... I believe Obama is quite content knowing (and you KNOW he knows!) that tens of millions of Americans if quizzed right now by a pollster concerning whether U.S. Combat troops are now "out of Iraq" would reply "yes" in the context of not knowing that we still have over 50,000 boots on the ground just a prepared to wage battle today as 50,000 "withdrawn combat troops" would have been.

(*SHRUG*)

See what I'm saying...???

If you disagree - say so.

BILL

August 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)