Escalation Will Include 35,000-48,000 Troops, not 21,500

by Chris Bowers, Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:52:24 AM EST

From Defense Tech:
President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.

That's because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, "including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services," the CBO notes.
Directly from the CBO report (PDF):
To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops--a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel--about 3,000 per combat brigade--totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000.
It is time to quote Rep. Tim Ryan again:



Of course the Bush administration was lying about this. Of course 21,500 troops actually mean either 35,000 or 48,000. Every damn number this administration has ever used to describe the cost of its programs has always been an intentionally understated.

It is times like these we need to be more active than ever to stop the escalation. As I type this, MoveOn.org's virtual march on Washington to stop the escalation is taking place. You can still take part. Call your members of congress and tell them to stop the escalation. Follow the progress of the march here.
  • 7 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted Immediately

by Chris Bowers, Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:18:29 AM EDT

Let's see how many death threats from right-wing bloggers this ruling generates. From the AP:DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. This is the only appropriate ruling to an obviously illegal program. Censuring Bush would have been more than appropriate. From the order and injunction (PDF):IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (hereinafter “TSP”) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) and Title III;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III;

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ data-mining claim and is DENIED regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining claims;

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED. A great ruling for defenders of liberty and privacy.
  • 15 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------