[edcoil]

I saw North interviewed after the speech last night on Fox and he was supporting the move.

[dforest]

I heard North this morning. He has kind of backed off this after the Presidents speech last night.

[SerpentDove]

We live in interesting times.

[From One - Many]

Without a defined mission there is no reason to give the enemy more targets on the ground. Perhaps people are beginning to wake up?

[Brad from Tennessee]

What the U.S. needs in Iraq is an indefinite timetable to continue doing what it has been doing. If you look at the Iraqi and military blogs there is slow but sure progress--admittedly two steps back, one step forward in some months. The news media has created an alternative reality. But people in Iraq say we are slowly winning.

I think the 20,000-plus new troops, staged in Kuwait, should be shifted between Iraq and Afghanistan as opportunities present themselves.

[oneamericanvoice]

This piece smells, no stinks to high Heaven, because Col. North was on Hannity and @#$#$ last night and expressed just the opposite.

The surge only makes sense. With more troops we can train more Iraqis faster, and clean out the bad guys better. You have to explain it in terms that people will understand. If there is a gang infested neighborhood in their city (DC for instance) then you send in more police and the gang activity goes down. But the Dems aren't about winning, nor looking out for the Iraqis.

[Yo-Yo]

Here is video of Ollie North on The O'Reilley Factor prior to the President's speech, totally against any surge in troop strength.

[Dilbert56]

'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,'

True, but unless someone opens an "Iraqi Troops 'R Us" nearby, the only way to stop the killing is with more American troops. If we don't stop the killing nothing else good can happen.

[BallyBill]

I thought there was a FR Headline last week attributed to a North column that said: More Troops = More Targets and he was against it.

[Gritty]

[what's up]

sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s

Nothing eerie about it. More troops = overwhelming strength which is needed at times.

George Bush is nothing like Lyndon. Lyndon was sidetracked by his "War on Poverty" which was more important to him and he micro-managed from the Oval. Bush is as far from Lyndon as you can get.

[cgk]

Ollie Ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Oliver North ping list...