How many Democrats do you think will go along with Bush's war escalation?

There's a developing headline at Rawstory.com:

NYT THURSDAY: KEY SENATE DEMOCRATS WARMING TO BUSH'S PLAN TO INCREASE TROOPS

This makes my blood boil. We finally get control of Congress, but the Democrats are still rolling over and giving El Diablo whatever he wants. The military generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the American people say to get out of Iraq. I expect Bush to ignore sane advice because of his hubris, but why aren't the Democrats in Congress listening??

Just who are these "key democrats" you mention?

Wasn't it reported the other day that no dems and only 12 reps support the escalation?

Lieberman

He's a general fuckhead.

He represents our majority for at least two more years.

I think he sucks, too. But we need him as number 51.

I'll just whisper fuckhead............. :P

Shhhhh...I agree with you, NOD. Shhh...

milk got spilled when they voted for IWR

all they can do is cut off funding

and Pelosi has already nixed cutting off funding.

Besides, Iraq is ostensibly funded until the summer so BFEE doesn't need Congress for any of it's mal-adventures until well after the escalation is full throttle and the horrific state of our military is on full display. Can you imagine Dems de-funding soldiers without functional body armor? Or working Humvees? Or bullets?

oppose the Accelaration and Surge. After the people voted them
in to make change--they have to let it at least be known and
show in reality they tried to stop the acceleration. Otherwise
they put themselves in peril right off the bat. They will look
exactly as impotent as when they stood up there voted for the
war in the first place.

Even polls taken of soldiers reflect they support stopping the
surge.

The Media will be watching to see how they handle this.

I supported the action in Afganistan. I am not a straight
Anti War person. The Dems must now remember the recent election
and the message from the people.

That's why it will be even more outrageous if there are actually Dems who stand up and support BFEE on this. There is absolutely ZERO gain....

The NYT is just catapulting the propaganda

The Draft Dodger himself

I would cite Joe Lieberman, but he's not a Democrat in an official sense.

The more we fight that ass the more he digs in his heels. What if we tell George to take all the money and young lives he wants. Hey, it always worked on Elmer Fudd.

To stop the war in Iraq, but you are irresponsible in doing so and letting Bushler gets watn he wants!

If you don't grow a spine and do something, SHAME ON YOU!

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.

"Bush is expected to outline a strategy that would include an increase in troops but would link that escalation to a plan for economic development in Iraq.

DEVELOPING HARD....

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

The question I have is how many Republicans will stand up and take credit for blocking it?

That would be the smart move= and would help them co-opt the issue.

Pardon me for not having much faith in a significant minority of Dems. After these past 7 years, I expect very little out of the "leadership."

It sure would be nice if I were proven wrong.....

Nelson/Nelson/Landrieu, et. al, ad nauseum

and the usual cast of round robin
"your turn to walk the plank for
the corp(s)" bought and paid for
members.

Just as many as is needed.

As usual.

Thanks.

That's what I had been quoting. Story in tomorrow's NYT.

It might be not much of a story. Reid has backed off some from his early quote. I don't know about Reyes. Lieberman, that was to be expected.

Interesting that they never quote Reid?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100931.html

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge of 30,000 troops. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

I don't believe ANYONE has sat down and defined what 'victory' or 'defeat' means strategically for America or Iraq.

Eventually one side will have to give up and since NEVER in recorded history has an occupied country assimilated with the occupiers, I will have to guess we will leave. One day. I hope all Dems understand that we cannot stay in Iraq if we don't even know what a victory or defeat would look like. That is like trying to play baseball with a tennis racket.

If they don't stop it, they went along with it.

the gutless traitors who voted for IWR

the leading 2008 presidential candidates

That ANY DEM that votes for adding more $$$ to BushCo's insane war machine will NEVER be elected again to public office.

He/she will carry that vote around as a badge of dishonor and we will NOT let anyone forget!!! EVER! :grr:

Frankly, the same rule should apply for repukes, though most are already kissing Bushies ass, so I won't be surprised if they continue to support his lies.

But Biden says no:

snip-

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.

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

corpus, etc,etc, so who knows??