This was written last week. He sounds like it's a done deal, pretty much. I don't know who to believe anymore. I don't know who to trust.
Why Dems Won't Stop Bush's "Surge" in IraqBush will announce next week he wants 20,000 additional troops in Iraq. Most congressional Dems say they’re opposed, and they’ll use the upcoming confirmation hearings for Bush’s nominees to the United Nations and for Deputy Secretary of State to make their case. But Dems will still appropriate the extra money the "surge" requires. This is politically wise, although dreadfully cynical.
Let’s be clear: Twenty thousand additional troops won’t quell the violence in Iraq. It will only lead to more American deaths. The civil-war bloodbath there is escalating and it’s out of our hands. The only practical issue here in the U.S., over and above the additional losses of life, is who will be blamed for this slaughter – and its repercussions throughout the region – especially during the runup to the 2008 election.
As long as Dems remain opposed to Bush’s policies and the Democratic leadership offers some semblance of unity in opposition – while at the same time giving Bush the money he wants to carry out his policies – the Dem candidate in 2008 can blame Bush and the Republicans, and no Republican candidate who supports Bush will have a comeback. McCain’s strategy of distancing himself from Bush by arguing for more troops is about to backfire on him, because he’s going to get what he wants – and America will see just how tragically wrong he is (Edwards has already, adeptly, labeled it the "McCain doctrine.")
Yet wouldn’t it be extraordinary if the Dems didn’t play this political game, and refused to fund Bush’s "surge"?
I hope he is wrong. I know one thing, though. I watched Howard Dean on CNN this afternoon, and I suspect he has been told to not speak out on issues before congress. We thought this might happen. Just one sentence made it clear.
DEAN: I think that, you know, first of all, I don't have a vote here, so I think -- I think I'd like to make it as easy as possible on the leadership.
I don't think his offering his opinions should hamper our Democratic congressal leaders at all. If this is how it is going to be until 08 then the air will be very thick with a bunch of BS. He is part of leadership in the party. He has a right to speak freely.
He did say a little before he decided he'd better hush up.
When asked about John McCain:
BLITZER: All right, what do you say to Senator McCain?
DEAN: He sounds very much like Richard Nixon, you know, just stay a little longer, stay a little longer. We'll stay long enough to lose another 5,000 or 10,000 people. It still won't change anything. We never should have gone there in the first place. Senator McCain bears some responsibility for supporting the president when we went. His prescription for getting out is no prescription for getting out.
The American people have already rejected the stay the course position of Senator McCain and of President Bush. We need new leadership in this country and that's what the presidential election is going to be about in 2008.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/12/sitroom.02.html