LAT: Bush aides describe his thinking on the "surge," and try out talking points

Bush aides lay groundwork for Iraq surge
By Doyle McManus and Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writers
January 7, 2007

....even before the plan's announcement, Bush aides — speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid stepping on his lines — have been describing his thinking and trying out talking points.

Their summary: Bush believes that the United States still has a chance to stop Iraq from descending into civil war — and, on the other side of the equation, that the consequences of withdrawal would be disastrous. He thinks it's too early to turn primary responsibility for security in Baghdad over to Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been disappointing.

That leaves Bush with no easy options. But one choice that would keep the hope of victory alive — a choice that has growing support in the White House — is a surge aimed at stopping sectarian violence in Baghdad, coupled with rapid political reforms and a U.S.-funded job program to halt the growth of sectarian militias.

Officials said the job program, intended to employ young men who otherwise might join the militias, could cost as much as $1 billion if Congress approves it. The administration's plan will also include proposals for increased economic aid that would further increase the total bill, they said.

White House officials acknowledge that any surge proposal would meet opposition from critics who say the prospect of success is too low to risk more troops' lives. But the officials say they believe that most members of the public are still willing to hear Bush out and give him another chance to succeed.

"If you look at the polls, immediately leaving Iraq is not actually a popular option," one White House aide said. "Everybody figures that anxiety about the war … means 'get out.' But public opinion is more complex than that."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bushiraq7jan07,0,6334357.story?coll=la-home-nation

well, isn't he generous? puke. crap. give me a break.

why not put it to good use?

:puke:

doesn't CONGRESS oversee spending now?

Failing that, why don't they try and locate the $8 billion that Halliburton et al have, shall we say, lost track of?

Failing that, why not pay for it by imposing a windfall profit tax on Hallburton?

Why does Bush always try and milk the taxpayer for his fiascos?

A report last week put the total cost of Bush**'s Iraq "New Deal" package at $10 Billion. This appears to be a case of the liberal media conveniently under-reporting figures.

"THE White House is expected to announce a reconstruction package for Iraq as part of a plan for a “surge” of up to 30,000 troops into Baghdad when President George W Bush unveils America’s new strategy next month.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2663955

Can't wait to see how they work the want ads so that the militias don't blow up all the jobseekers every damn time.

What fascinates me is that they keep devising plans for Iraq that are suitable for New Orleans or any place that's been hit by a natural disaster...but they won't do the same for New Orleans or any of us here.

One thing George W. Bush has NEVER offered Americans is a job program.

If the House gives him this money I just do not know what I will do. Can these people in the House be this stupid? I can see Joe and McCain voting for it but first it has to come from the House.

That's the ONLY reason people aren't demanding OUT NOW.

I, however, am. OUT NOW.

do you honestly think for one fine minute that if we do pull our troops out our money won't remain? THINK, for god's sake, we are INVESTED. period.

MKJ

how so? we are THERE, whether our soldiers are or not. do you not see that?

If the troops leave the Iraqis might come up with their own ideas - such as re-nationalising the oil industry.

The question is - is it worth the cost in blood and treasure to keep Bushco's Big Oil buddies happy?
(Plus of course Cheney's Hallliburton buddies are making a killing).

...further? The Iraq war is a total quagmire which like Vietnam will drain away American lives, treasure and moral values. Enough with the bullshit talking points. Impeach Bush/Cheney now

he should find the missing billions and scrape it up out of that.

Hell, they should have passed out 5 billion, maybe even 10. Just buy the whole lot of them off. That's what the CIA did initially in Afghanistan with a bunch of the warlords, and one of the major reasons it seemed to be so much of a 'success' for the first two or three years. Compared with the hundreds of billions and tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi and American lives lost, it would have been a huge bargain.

"he thinks it's too early to turn primary responsibility for security in Baghdad over to Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been disappointing". :banghead:

Can't these "brilliant" strategists figure out that it is our mere presence in Iraq that is responsible for the Iraqis' "disappointing performance" in taking responsibility for their own security? Everyone else in the world has made the connection but the very ones responsible for forming American policy. Hell, even the Iraqis themselves have told "the decider" this but he refuses to listen. He still insists it's possible for some sort of American "victory" there. Victory over what? :banghead:

The stubbornness and ignorance in the White House is beyond the pale of reason.

are in a mood to give Bush another chance on Iraq.

and that they stand up to bush and to his sorry excuses, lies, manipulations and cortotions for keeping his occupation of iraq going.

....such a bang-up job with "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "Mission Accomplished" and "Stay the Course" (which was later disavowed by Tony Snow), I'm sure "Operation Iraqi Surge" will live up to to the same level of accomplishment as its predecessor. If they had had any accomplishments, that is.

What's further, given the fact that there are so few resources are available to even translate for the troops, I fail to see how US Forces will even be able to know who is who (or is it whom?). Not to mention that it seems most of the death squad members are on the government payroll. They already have jobs. Maybe they can buy all the Iraqis computers and they can work from home. They'll stay alive a lot longer that way.

But the two Iraqi brigades now being considered for deployment are Kurdish. That's a big problem. The Kurds aren't too keen on either the Sunni or Sh-ia. So they have every reason to just let them kill each other off -- so long as they're not killing Kurds like Saddam did.

And I'm bothered that Dumbo thinks "it's too early to turn primary responsibility for security in Baghdad over to Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been disappointing." So after almost three years of spot-on American training, they still can't defend themselves? Isn't that about as long as the normal hitch in the Army for an American? Haven't we sent them a lot of guns? Can't these guys shoot? So how long should it take Dumbo? How long?

Yeah George, this ought to work just fine.... :sarcasm:

supposed to do exactly what they are proposing now...reconstruction, jobs, etc.? And didn't they totally screw that up, lose the money, drop the programs, etc.?

So why the hell would anyone expect that they could or would do it right this time? These people can't be trusted to make this work and no one should believe anything they have to say. Those that do are nutz!