bush's troop surge...

[bishop]

according to CNN, bush definitely intends on sending at least 20,000 more troops to iraq, as well as borrowing billions more from foreign lenders to pay for the iraq debacle.

Sources: Iraq plan calls for more troops, more spending - CNN.com

will this surge focus on fighting the primary source of instability in iraq - the mahdi army? (keep in mind that iraq's pm is in bed with al-sadr.)

plus, according to the article, bush plans on starting up a $1 billion public works program (likened to the new deal) where iraqis will be put to work.. why in the hell did it take the administration so long to realize that employing iraqis to rebuild the country, rather than halliburton via noncompeting contracts, is actually a good idea?

this article cites some of the democrat's limp wristed objections to bush's proposal..

Pelosi: No blank check for troop surge - CNN.com

the "big bad" democrats are saying that they will not be used like a blank check out of one side of their mouth - and at the other, they speak about "not abandoning the troop" which means that they will support additional spending for additional cannon fodder.

i was hoping that they'd grow a pair and dry up funding for the war, to force bush to change policy towards withdrawal - rather than escalation...

[pubmanager]

I was reading a piece in the Guardian today and I gathered that the Dems are slightly stuck.

The only way for them to protest at this troop increase is to not endorse the budget. They have made representations to the white house to separate the expenditure into money for more troops and money for existing troops.

If this happens they will be able to vote against funding more troops but if not they will stand to be accused of not supporting the troops which will then be used as ammunition by the Reps.

I don't see how they can win if the expenditure for the military is all bundled together.

This is my understanding of the situation, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I think it is worth noting the language being used, the word "surge" implies a short term increase however the facts do not support this interpretation as the timetable requires this increased presence to be maintained for at least 18 months, Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno is reported as saying that the new military operation could see Iraqi gov. forces in control of Bagdad within a year and the whole mission accomplished within 2-3 years. (excuse me for remembering that Bush declared "mission accomplished" quite some time ago)

I believe the use of language is intentionally misleading to the public and is typically underhanded and typical of the current administration.

Notwithstanding the fact that any increase in the numbers of troops wilfully ignores the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton review is this not simply throwing good money after bad?

[Jack]

I noticed that a couple of years ago Bush was declaring time and again that he'd "listen to the commanders in the field". Then, when those commanders recommended no more troops be sent over, he decides to replace those commanders with some who endorse his desire to send more troops.

His dishonesty is so glaringly obvious.

[Nathan Struth]

That sucks I'm 16 years olod now. I don't want to fight in a bs war.

[Praxius]

Geez, with Bush losing control over congress and all kinds of protests abound by pretty much everything he's done so far, you'd think the tool would get the hint that nobody likes his plans.

So instead of him acting like a democratic president and listening to those with more voice over his, and eventually replacing him completely, he insists on doing things his way and blocking any attempt of the Democrats trying to change things with all the loopholes he can find.....

He's gotten all kinds of flack, advice, criticism, and recommendations as to what he should do, but of course if it looks weak in his eyes, or it makes him look like he was wrong, he's gonna stick with his way of things no matter what the cost, it would seem.....

Frigging stop wasting the US's time by hoping he'll do the best thing, and impeach that bastard now and replace him.

I agree.... the Democrats will have to shave their pubes to make their johnson look bigger then it currently does.

[RickSp]

Bush is acting as if the November election never happened, the Baker Hamilton Report was never written, and that all his senior generals never told him that a surge was a bad idea. He is acting as if the plan to “clear, hold, and build” in Baghdad was something new and different and not just a rehash of Operation Together Forward from last February that was such dismal failure.

I just hope the Dems show some courage, backbone and integrity in opposing our mad king. Unfortunately those are not adjectives that I would associate with politicians on either side of the aisle.

[pikatore]

A complete nutjob in the most powerful position in the world.

The irony.

[RickSp]

War Could Last Years, Commander Says

The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush’s new war strategy it might take another “two or three years” for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.

So we are back to"Stay the Course" in a war that we are losing. How many more will die for the gory glory of King George?

[Praxius]

Quote by: RickSp War Could Last Years, Commander Says So we are back to"Stay the Course" in a war that we are losing. How many more will die for the gory glory of King George?

Don't you love that? Claims of changing for the better, when it's the same dam thing worded differently to come about the same outcome as the original plan.

You'd think he'd start to realize the responsibility he has to control and why he is there in the position he is. It's as if he's still stuck in his "Oil is everything" mentality from his family run business, and has yet to clue in that there's more to a country then just money and oil for power....

"The American Dream" has changed from general human prosperity, to just accumulating the most wealth over thy neighbor without regard..... which Bush seems to be holding deer to, by trying to keep his own control over his own prosperity, without regard to the US citizen and their needs.

[bishop]

agreed praxius, i think it's necessary that the dems move forward with impeachment hearings - solely to save the nation from further disasters from our mindless "leader".

that said, refusing to fund his troop surge mindfart is a more immediate concern to me, rather than holding impeachment hearings.

it's all in the dems' hands right now - and how they decide to structure these war spending bills. what they should do is separate the existing mission from bush's "troop surge" fantasy which virtually nobody seems to support. they could appropriate for the existing mission, and attach things like timelines, etc... as for the surge, they could summarily vote it down and deny any funding for it.

if this were to happen, and bush decide to send the troops in regardless, he'll be taking a huge gamble - hoping that the dems will be politically forced to fund the surge after the fact. it'll be a true test of backbone for the dems.

[bishop]

for all the bad that the brits feel tony blair has done, at least he shows a semblance of having common sense - unlike our retard in chief.

You are visiting a site outside of ThisisLondon.co.uk

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers. The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.