WTF is THIS about?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Some_Democrats_could_support_Bush_troop_0103.html

Some Democrats could support Bush troop increase, NYT to report

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday January 3, 2007



Some key Senate Democrats say they could support a short-term increase in American troop levels in Iraq, a stance that reflects division with the party and could provide an opening for President Bush as he prepares to announce his plan for Iraq as early as next week, the NEW YORK TIMES will report in Thursday's papers, RAW STORY has learned.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), incoming Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) have all expressed varying degrees of support for increased troops, which they believe will help to stabilize the country and bring the overall contingent of US troops home faster.
<snip>

It was either that, or he doesn't understand the difference between Shiite and Sunni vis-a-vis the Middle East. I would take any opinion he has with a very large grain of salt.

Reid, I think, is barely lukewarm in support. He has contingencies as far as escalation, and I don't think those contingencies will be met. He's not being very helpful, though, is he?

Lieberman, well, DINO is as DINO does.

:sarcasm:

They are prepared to fight. I check with my senators sites and my one senator, Obama, has a scathing letter to Bush about the fact that the troops are not just numbers. He urges all people to get in touch with thier senators and representatives and let them know and fight this.
I've heard others say they will not allow this including the guy with the purse strings: Rangle.
See how this plays and write your senators and representatives and don't panic. So far, this is just rumor.

Keep the faith.

let me make it clear

only to stabilize the region as part of a plan to redeploy our troops.

Thanks for the heads-up. I feel better. Much better.

. . . and it blows me away that he could even consider escalation.

He's showed a lot of spine in the last year . . . this is sure as hell not the time to lose it, is it?

Just say it aint so.


:hi:

Happy New Year!

:hi:

One boils down to the conventional military usage of a counter-attack to cover an up-coming retreat. This often makes sense on a battlefield, and though it is questionable whether it actually applies here, it is understandable some people might see it as worth a shot. A great increase in patrols in Baghdad might give a temporary appearance of stability in the capital that could make withdrawl politically less dangerous, as the ensuing chaos could be presented as something that happened after we left, when it was wholly the responsibility of the Iraqi government to maintain order.

The other is a variant of giving a man all the rope he needs to hang himself. The chance that the increase in troops will bring any great benefit is really very small, but if it is not done, those pushing for the policy on the right will maintain down the coming years that it would certainly have worked, and thus that all ensuing chaos in the region stems from its not having been done. Allowing it to be done, and to display its failure, will foreclose this "you Democrats lost Iraq" line in the future, and cement even more solidly in the public's view the understanding that the present Republican adminstration committed in Iraq the worst and most miserable of failures in the military and diplomatic history of the United States. Having got their way in everything, the Republicans and the right will have no one to blame, at least with any shred of credibility, but themselves.

from blaming the "Democrat party" for their own screw-ups? :shrug:

I understand your reasoning but am unsure that giving them any more rope will accomplish anything except to hang innocent people; that is, to assure more American deaths and more Iraqi deaths caused by Americans.

I'm not sure Congress can do much at this point to prevent the escalation the administration is salivating for. But I pray they can find a way to end the madness, especially as I fear the madness will be expanded into Iran if someone doesn't rein in this crew.

Let's not give them any more.

But it will ensure that the line gains no wide purchase among the people.

As you say, there really is not much chance the Congress can prevent this foolish exercise, and in light of this, it seems to me there is little point in savaging our own over it. We need to work on concentrating the blame on the real authors of the policy, those who conceive, press for, and execute it, rather than wasting fire on people who simply are not able to prevent it, owing to whatever lack or failing, even. That will be much better in the long run. There looms here the possibilty of a real sea-change in some elements of our political life: one of the great advantages the Republicans have enjoyed for several decades is a popular perception they are better at military affairs than the Democrats, and over the last several years the present administration has done all in its power to ruin that perception. Even if the people come away with the view that neither party is any good at military endeavors it will be a substantial gain for us.

They already are, by saying that the left(and the media) is aiding and abetting the enemy or some such nonsense. I think the few dems that are saying they'll accept a short-term escalation are doing so for political reasons and nothing more. We have to remember that some of these representatives were elected by very narrow margins- and some even in red districts. Your explanation probably comes into play particularly in those cases.

I'm not trying to excuse their behavior, BTW, as I feel any escalation will only result in more deaths. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Particularly if this foolishness is actually attempted. Sometimes a fever must be left to run its course before health can be restored.

I think we agree that short of cutting off funding, there is little Congress can actually do to stop Bush's escalation. Since I seriously doubt Congress would vote in such a matter at this point, what we're talking about is largely academic.

With that said, I still disagree that having it get even worse before we get out gives us the upper hand, either as democrats or as Americans. Then again, I'm also looking beyond the rethug spin and looking at how the Iraq debacle is fueling Western hatred as a whole. It will probably take a decade or two to fully realize the true ramifications of our nation's actions with regard to Iraq. The longer it continues, the higher the price we'll pay in the long run.

Politically speaking, I think rethugs will try to screw dems either way. You might have a point about which of the attacks is most likely to stick, but I don't think the difference will be enough to actually justify a continuation of the mess. Again, though, this is all academic, as "The Decider" will get more of his "sacrifice", whether we like it or not.

BTW, what's with the "Ma'am" thing? I'm sure this isn't your intent, but your use of it comes across as somewhat condescending- especially since my gender is undeclared in my profile. Not that it's top secret or anything, but it strikes me as odd that you would make it a point to address me with a gender reference. No big deal, really, just somewhat perplexing. :shrug:

It seems clear that Bush's Iraq Adventure will end in defeat, maybe ignominious defeat. We can't give him a foothold for calling it OUR defeat. It MUST remain his war.

Nobody can prove a negative, so there would be no way we could defend against accusations that "If the Democrats had just let us do our 'surge'...." So we should voice our doubts about this "escalation" (that's how we oughta frame it), then hold our noses, sympathize with the families who will lose loved ones, and let the goddam warmongering bastards try their belated troop-increase.

What a dreadful choice for compassionate, peace-loving Liberals to face! Let more of our soldiers die or become politically vulnerable in '08! The only way I can quiet my own conscience is to remember that these soldiers weren't drafted--they volunteered--and that the death-rate has been lower in this war than in any previous war (thanks largely to better medical care for the wounded).

On the other side of the ledger is the fact that potential presidential candidate John McCain has been a leading proponent of this "escalation." If it fails, it will become HIS failure as much as Bush's, and there seems little chance it could succeed (by any rational definition).

Still, this is one of those times when political expediencies make me sick to my stomach. We damn well better make exemplary use of any power we achieve by this strategy, folks, cuz we'll have the blood of American soldiers on our hands.

they will say that irregardless. That is what they *do*. Perception Management - say it again and again from a bunch of different mouthpieces until public perception accepts the meme as reality.

Personally, I think that the ISG report was meant to give 'the way out' to W - and I think that if in the month before its presentation - such a big deal of "Poppy's men saving jr" hadn't been made - that W might have been inclined to follow it. It really appears that a smarting jr started a last ditch effort to find *anything* or *anyone* that would offer an alternative to the ISG recs - and a couple of AER's happily complied. Nothing to base this on - except a very, very cynical view as to how policy gets "created" in the perverse Bush admin.

Back to your first point I do think that a sliver of the fear of voter retribution that we saw after 911 (esp when the Chambliss campaign brutally went after Vietnam vet Max Clelland as "soft on terror" because of his vote on the creation of a Dept of HLS) still exists - whether rational or not - and probably is motivating some fence sitters.

Can we cut the internal placation propaganda?

No one who is paying attention is buying these internal "not so fast on REALLY fighting Bush" talking points anymore.

The fact is that there is really not much the Congress can do to affect this. The military appropriations bill has already been passed for the coming year, and so there are funds in place that will be dedicated to it. For better or worse it is going to occur. The resultant failure will work to our benefit.

Going along for a couple of years, and letting the Republicans *THINK* they support a buildup... :silly:

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who will lead the Armed Services Committee, said he would not "prejudge" the president's proposal. While he would oppose an open-ended commitment, Levin said, he would not rule out supporting a plan to dispatch more troops if the proposal was tied to a broader strategy to begin reducing U.S. involvement and sending troops home.

"The American people are skeptical about getting in deeper," he said in an interview. "But if it's truly conditional upon the Iraqis' actually meeting milestones and if it's part of an overall program of troop reduction that would begin in the next four to six months, it's something that would be worth considering."

But Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is opposed to increasing troop strength regardless of the plan, calling the idea the "absolute wrong strategy."

In interviews on Wednesday, several Democratic senators echoed Biden's view, saying they believed that sending more troops would not resolve the predicament in Iraq.
#

DEVELOPING HARD....

Will be right there holding Liebermoron's hand.

I really don't know how it is productive to mislead people on what the Democrats actually said.

these assholes are screwing us with both fists

This place is about as far from a revoluitionary pitch as can be gotten.

Needs to be branded (metaphorically) as "one of the few" who voted to increase the insane BuchCo war machine - he/she needs to hear from the blogosphere that YOU WILL NEVER, EVER be elected again and that we will remember who you are and what you did.

I'd like to hold rethugs accountable in the same way, though I can speculate a few ass kissers will continue to vote more $$$ into the criminal war of aggression. They are rethugs after all.

To have even one DEM vote to increase troop level is inexcusable and totally disregards the overwhelming will of the people - see last November - (particularly DEMS).