OT: Bush screwing us on Iraq, trying to outflank Dems in Congress

[beachmom]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011590.php

Myth: Following the reevaluation of its Iraq policy, the White House will announce its proposed New Way Forward, whereupon there will be a vigorous national debate.

Reality: The White House is not going to wait for the Democratic Congress or for an extended national debate before it proceeds. There are some indications that the reason for delaying the President's announcement of "The New Way Forward" is so that he can announce a fait accompli. (Andy Card, who famously noted about the 2002 run-up to the Iraq invasion that you don't roll out a marketing campaign in August, might also say the same thing about launching one during the Christmas holidays.) I wouldn't be surprised to see new deployment orders already issued by the time Democrats officially take over Congress in the first week of January, the President's way of grabbing his crotch and saying, Debate this.

snip

Myth: The prospect of Democratic oversight will sober up the Administration and force it to rein itself in.

Reality: The White House is going to try to outflank Congress with speed and agility. Troop deployments are a perfect example. Deploy the troops, then ask Congress for the funding. Are Democrats going to support the troops already there, or pull the rug out from under them?


snip

So while quite a few Americans and an abundance of commentators heralded the midterm elections and the ISG report as the beginning of the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq, I am afraid Americans will shake off their New Year's hangovers and discover a new and deeper American commitment in Iraq, one which won't easily be reversed for the remainder of the Bush presidency.




Okay, maybe this is an unpopular position, but I'm with Cadmium. We need Sen. Kerry in the Senate focused on this, not running for prez yet. But I guess Kennedy is now saying he has to do it soon. Sigh. Iraq is more important.

[beachmom]

1. In a related matter, Andrew Sullivan has ended his detente with liberals

Never mind the Kerry/Romney post. This is far, far worse:

This proposal looks like it may emerge as the Bush-McCain strategy in Iraq: the double-down strategy aimed at restoring order, critically in Baghdad, before any political solution can be tried. It looks to me in the serious range - 50,000 more troops. If this is presented, and appears to be a real plan for one last attempt to salvage Iraq, I'd be inclined to support it, while remaining still doubtful of its chances for success. I wish it had been done two years ago. But the devil is in the details, and we probably won't see more of them till the New Year. But at least, this plan seems to take the reality of the situation seriously, unlike every other one presented by this president for the past three and a half years. My mind is open.

time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/the_fred_kagan_.html


Getting more of our troops killed for what would only be temporary security, IF they could get that, is "taking the reality of the situation seriously"? No, this is the ultimate practice in delusion. That more troops are going to solve deep seated sectarian hatred and essentially political, not military, problems. And he's doubtful that it will work, but is willing to sacrifice the lives of troops he doesn't know to give it a whirl. Immoral.

[beachmom]

2. He's on vacation now, but I sent an e-mail anyway:

This is immoral -- sending troops off to die for a lost cause. It is one thing for a man of little imagination like Bush going forward with such a plan. It is quite another thing for you to support it. It is not your decision to make, but as a pundit, you do have a responsibility to the public to tell the truth about the reality of Iraq as best as you can. You have been doing that. Endorsing "doubling down" amounts to turning away from the fact that we have failed in Iraq. It doesn't change the fact that we have failed one iota. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Be prepared to answer that question before you endorse more of them to die.






I don't want any pundits supporting this plan. We should hit any pundit (who isn't a blatant right wing hack) who endorses this plan with "immoral".

[sandnsea]

3. McCain doesn't get it

I never realized he was 70 years old. He's of the duty above all generation, I don't think they ever comprehended the idea of telling your country no. I think between that, and spending Vietnam in a POW camp instead of seeing it unravel first hand, he's been left with an incomplete view of what happened that he can only fill with what others tell him. I think he's chosen to believe the ones who say we lost because we weren't allowed to fight, which is ridiculous. So his view of Iraq is framed by what he believes to be true of Vietnam, which is that if we just fight the right way, we can 'win'. So here we are again, mostly because we just can't understand the real lesson of Vietnam, not everybody wants what we're selling and no amount of gunfire is going to make them want it.