Troop Surge Already Under Way

[bananas]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2785532

Troop Surge Already Under Way
90 Advance Troops from 82nd Airborne Arrive in Baghdad

by JONATHAN KARL

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007— President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.

ABC News has learned that the "surge" Bush is expected to announce in a prime time speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad today.

An additional battalion of roughly 100 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday.

It is the first small wave of troops in a new White House strategy that is expected to put more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and likely require new call-ups of the National Guard.

<snip>

[aquart]

1. 190 soldiers dragged from where?

What isn't getting done because George can't admit he's got a limp dick?

[hang a left]

5. Aren't there some in Kuwait waiting??

I believe that is what I read a couple of days before.

[TexasLawyer]

13. Yes, there are already thousands in Kuwait

See below. There are also thousands of US troops on the second aircraft carrier headed toward the Gulf, but apparently they will not be counted toward the "surge" forces.


82nd Airborne troops arriving in Kuwait on rapid deployment

(Fort Bragg, NC-AP) January 8, 2007 - The Army says most of an airborne brigade rapidly deployed from Fort Bragg to Kuwait as a reserve force for combat in Iraq has arrived at their base camp.

The 3,500-member Second Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division was told December 27 to begin moving to Kuwait to help troops already in the region. A spokesman says there now are about 2,900 paratroopers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait.

Elements of the brigade, known also as the Falcon Brigade, have had six deployments on short notice since the terrorist attacks of 2001. This is the first time the entire brigade has been deployed at once.

The brigade logistics officer says the units moved 3,000 soldiers, 3,900 containers of equipment and 100 vehicles in less than a week.

<snip>


http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5910363

[bananas]

23. *** UPDATE *** "An additional battalion of roughly 800 troops ..."

The article in the OP has been updated, the third paragraph now reads:
"An additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday."

It used to say "100 troops".

[wryter2000]

2. Good lord

Of course, many of the surge will be troops who are already there who won't be allowed to go home on time, but still...

[janx]

3. Oh man...

Congress is not going to like this, to say nothing of the American people.

[humbled_opinion]

11. Congress...hahaha

I strongly support a Democrat controlled Congress because the leading Democrats have verbally opposed this illegal and ill thought out war since approximately mid 2003. Now that a majority of Americans have finally come to their senses and voted in NOV to give these Democrat leaders a chance to turn their verbal opposition into active opposition they do nothing... Symbolic gestures? What is that.... In case they forgot they received a mandate vote in NOV they have an Overwhelming Majority in the House and a Majority in the Senate. They could, should and now CAN take corrective action not symbolic gesture. Where are the hero's. Where are the leaders of the Democrats. Stand up and take action. Dennis Kucinich has it right. I vote that all the Democrats follow his lead. http://kucinich.house.gov/

[aggiesal]

14. What are you writing about "... They do nothing ..."

They are doing everything they said they would. Pelosi and Reid tell the president not to do anything.
Sen. Kennedy has introduce legislation that calls for Congressional approval for the "SURGE", fulling knowing that all Dems (Lieberman is Independent and for the "SURGE"), and at least 10 Senate Repubs are ready to vote against the "SURGE".
And the House has the votes to vote this plan down as well.

King George is jumping the gun, intentionally. Basically, he's flipping off Congress, saying "Watch me!"

This guy needs to be impeached.

[merwin]

24. Didn't you hear that Pelosi struck down Kennedy's plan and is introducing

a non-binding resolution instead? That sounds like doing nothing to me.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. One little, two little, three little indians...

This turkey is getting quite a roll-out isn't it?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

6. Rove played a winning hand again.

This means the debate on cutting funding is moot.
Democrats will be positioned into undercutting our boys-in-harms-way if any funds are cut.

What this means: WAR for two more years.
Our elected reps won't have the guts to do anything to stop this.

Sorry if I sound cynical. But with a razor thin majority, and a man down in the Senate, I see NO changes.

Please someone, tell me I'm wrong.

[Double T]

10. You can't cut additional funding when it has NOT yet been approved...........

perhaps bush will have to use part of the $9 Billion dollars that went missing to fund his new political salvation 'surge' battles.

[peacetalksforall]

17. DOD missing money is either 444 billion, 1.3 trillion, or 2.3 trillion

depending on the source.

The Comptroller can't account for it. Happened between about 2001-2004, I believe. The dates are not always clear.

[Double T]

30. A lot of SOMEBODIES should be wearing orange jumpsuits and.......

shackles.

[Rebellious Republican]

7. I believe the term is ESCALATE..........

As per Merriam-Webster Online

escalate
2 entries found for escalate.
To select an entry, click on it.
escalatede-escalate

Main Entry: es·ca·late
Pronunciation: 'es-k&-"lAt, ÷-ky&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from escalator
intransitive verb : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope <a little war threatens to escalate into a huge ugly one -- Arnold Abrams>
transitive verb : EXPAND 2
- es·ca·la·tion /"es-k&-'lA-sh&n, ÷-ky&-/ noun
- es·ca·la·to·ry /'es-k&-l&-"tor-E, ÷-ky&-/ adjective

:argh:

[bananas]

18. I'll start using "surge [sic - escalate]" when quoting articles. nt

[Rebellious Republican]

21. Excelent, we all need to do this, thanks. N/T

:toast:

[Double T]

8. "I''ll show THEM who is running this war and calling the shots,...........

I'm the decider and NOT those damn Democrats" says the defiant five year old minded pissypants-in-chief.

[PFunk]

9. I hate to say this but it's going to take something drastic by the Iraqi's to stop this.

Something on the par of what happened to berut in the 80's that forced the US to leave. Something so shocking that it will force the repugs to ditch this guy. Either way the longer this goes on the more damage he's doing to the republican party.

(This is the only reason why I sorta hopes bush nukes Iran. The backlash will force the US to do just that-if we can survive it first)

[humbled_opinion]

12. I disagree...

Politically the Democrats need to do something more then Symbolic gesture. Frame the Debate that we want the Troops brought home now. No escalation the result of bringing 30,000 troops home tomorrow will and should be the kick in the pants that the Iraqis need to hit the start button. If they don't stand up and take charge of their own destiny all is then lost. Dennis Kucinich has a real plan of action. http://kucinich.house.gov/

[Nihil]

16. Drastic?

More drastic than just turning uniforms into bodybags?
More drastic than surviving air assault attacks in civilian areas and still sniping ground troops?
More drastic than mortaring the only area in Iraq that the US can possibly call "under control"?

No, the Iraqis don't need to do anything more drastic than what they're doing already.
All they need to do is take advantage of the additional targets being sent to them
by Mr. AWOL Wannabe-President.

[PFunk]

22. Yes. Drastic (as if what you mention doesn't fit the bill already).

No I'm talking something that will kill alot of US troopers at once. Something so drastic that there is NO way that Karl,and/or the corporate media can spin it otherwise (like they are doing now). Something that will shock americans off their asses (more than the last election did) and start going into the streets demanding change. Until that happenens nothing will change I fear. Because the longer this mess goes on. The more american will face a major payback for it later.

[BadgerKid]

15. This little ploy calls for censure. n/t

[uppityperson]

19. escalation. I know it was the headlines, but let's otherwise call it what it is please

thanks.

[bananas]

20. See post #18, thanks! nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. Troop Surge Already Underway

Can you imagine what else Dubya has in store for us?
He has already set his sites on Iran next.

Troop Surge Already Underway
By JONATHAN KARL

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007 — President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.

ABC News has learned that the "surge" Bush is expected to announce in a prime time speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad Wednesday.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2785532

[tabatha]

26. I guess that is why

Bush took his time to announce his plan - so he could get it underway before he could be stopped.

[2Design]

27. he was moving them before christmas - our congress citters need to start reading blogs n/t

[lapfog_1]

29. Yup, that was my immediate thought.

That's why this "announcement" took so long, it takes weeks to stage thousands of troops to their jump off places, plus he needed to replace his generals with ones that support this insanity.

[BanzaiBonnie]

28. He's not going to let ANYONE stand in his way

He believes what he believes. He believes in his own omnipotence.

He is a lunatic and we'd better turn this ship around. I hope the Dems get it now. They'd best understand that Bush has declared himself supreme ruler of this country.