Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 2, 2007

READY OR NOT, HERE ESCALATION COMES.... For about a month, Bush administration officials have maintained the fiction that the president had not come to any conclusions about whether to send thousands of additional troops to Iraq, and that while a change in policy was in the works, Bush hasn't decided what that change would be. The claims always seemed far-fetched -- every source and leak kept whispering that an escalation was on the way.

In case there was any lingering doubt, the whispers are getting louder.

White House officials say a troop "surge" almost certainly will be the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq to be unveiled mid-month. But while administration officials have gone to great lengths to emphasize that the extra troops will be in Iraq only temporarily, there is no clear definition of how long that might be.

Several Democratic and Republican lawmakers who endorsed the increase say they want the extra troops in Iraq for just three to six months. Senior military commanders believe the extra forces can be sustained in Iraq for only six to 12 months before logistical and manpower strains become untenable. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, has told associates that 12 months is needed to ensure a substantive effect.

Echoing Gen. Schoomaker's concerns that Iraq's militias would simply wait out a three- or six-month surge and then resume their violence, a report by military historian Frederick Kagan argues that the troops should be in Iraq for at least 18 months. The U.S. has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, and the additional forces could total as many as 20,000.

Similarly, the BBC reports today that, in a speech to be delivered in the middle of next week, Bush will "reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces."

The next question, of course, is whether anyone in the U.S. will approve of such a move.

The troops don't seem to care for the idea. Neither does the public. The Joint Chiefs aren't enthralled with the proposal, and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates apparently has some concerns of his own.

On the Hill, while congressional Democrats are nearly universal in their opposition to escalation, the list of high-profile Republican opponents, or at least skeptics, has grown considerably in just the last three days. Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Chuck Lugar (R-Ind.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) are all expressing doubts, if not outright opposition.

It's hard to characterize this has a partisan, ideological fight when so many Republicans are joining the vast majority of Democrats in criticizing the president's approach.

For what it's worth, AEI resident scholar Frederick Kagan, a leading proponent of escalation, told the WSJ, "If we surge and it doesn't work, it's hard to imagine what we do after that. But we're already in a very bad spot, and if we don't do anything defeat is imminent."

Does this mean he'll support withdrawal if this new escalation does as poorly as the last one?

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Surely you LIEberals will give us 6 More Months (TM) to see if it will work. Then: Ponies for All (TM)!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on January 2, 2007 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Any minor 'surge' is sure to produce poor results. The only way that I would even contemplate a 'surge' would be to put a minimum 50,000 more on the ground, take the side of the Sunnis, and invite Saudi Arabia to come in to play (since they apparently have threatened to come in on the side of the Sunnis if we leave, why not invite them in, and let them take over 'the Sunni Triangle'?).

Posted by: Castor Troy on January 2, 2007 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

We've been at 160,000 troops before, and sectarian violence grew during those periods as well. I'm not sure what anyone expects this "surge" to do other than kick the withdrawal can down the road.

Posted by: Chuck on January 2, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Glad to see Saxby having second thoughts - Must have come from his "vast" military experience in Nam - Wasn't he the one who twisted his knee on a beer can in his bunker?

Whatever - He looks so much the Solon - No baggy pants, he.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 2, 2007 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

call for surge was inevitable after Bush rejected - dismissed ISG call for diplomacy with Iran and Syria. What is not clear is whether or not they actually want the surge to happen - calling for it and then being forced to go in another direction by backlash from war opponents could play out politically for them if spun right way. Bush et al talk of victory but that doesn't mean they actually believe it can happen - it's hard to know how delusional they are - but one thing for sure the politics of the war have always been of primary concern for this administration.

Posted by: saintsimon on January 2, 2007 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Steve,

You might want to add that General Casey's opposition to any "surge" is costing him his job and any possibility of career advancement, simply because he is seen by the administration as the originator of the only credible alternative strategy, namely, withdrawing US troops and accelerating the turnover of Iraq's security to the the Iraqis.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 2, 2007 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

A surge is what you get right before you vomit.

Posted by: Peter on January 2, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

The 2 elephants in the room in all of this surge nonsense (since everyone already knows it won't work)are the impeachment and 2008 election issues. If President Bush pulls a Capt Ahab and sends the troops in anyway the Dem Congress has a fateful decision on its hands:

1. Threaten the Pres with impeachment if he doesn't come to his senses;

2. Make the cynical decision that since they probably can't stop him anyway, let the surge happen to increase the chances of a Dem taking the presidency in 2008. Of course, that same Dem pres. will be saddled with the burden of pulling the troops out...

James M.

Posted by: James M on January 2, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

The "surge" has a better chance of working than the absurd Iraq Study Group recommendations.

And a much better chance of working than the moronic Murtha Plan (move the troops to Okinawa).

Or the Pelosi/Reid Plan. Oh. Wait. That's right, there IS no Pelosi/Reid Plan. My bad, never mind.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on January 2, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

where are the troops coming from for this surge?

Near as I can tell the US Army is under enormous manpower pressure. Lots of soldiers have spend several tours in Iraq. There is a rumour that we are 11,000 or so junior officers short. Young officers, non-coms and soldiers are leaving the service in big numbers after they complete their third or fourth tour. They want to get on with their lives and raise their families. I can't blame them. Enlistment standards are down.

Don't we have other commitments around the world? What happens if the guy in North Korea decides to move south? What if something breaks out in anyone of a dozen lesser hot spots?

Just where do we find the spare troops for the "surge?"

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 2, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Incontinent Kenneth is spot on - Only his surging, throbbing plan will work.


However, off thread - but catching some of the Farewell to President Ford on MSNBC - Motormouth Matthews is completely out of his league when he tries to work with Keith Olbermann. It is like watching a Little Leaguer trying to play with a Pro Bowler.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 2, 2007 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

"If we surge and it doesn't work, it's hard to imagine what we do after that. But we're already in a very bad spot, and if we don't do anything defeat is imminent."

So sayeth every bad gambler when he is down big time and wants to borrow more to gamble and "get back to even."

Shorter Kagan - "Let's throw good money after bad!"

Posted by: Tripp on January 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

So we can't manage the higher number of troops (a less than 14% increase) for more than 12 months. Bush is willing to gamble that the militias can't wait out a 12 month escalation, based on what data no one knows. He sees no need to talk to Iran and Syria about exerting more control over their borders with Iraq to prevent foreign fighters from entering.

Does anyone believe that Bush and the few sycophants that agree with him will put together a thorough and informed risk assessment that includes plans to be followed if he loses his bet? So far I've seen no evidence that Bush has any plan if something he gambles on doesn't pay off except to walk away from the table with his personal health and money. Because all the time he was gambling with other people's lives and money (or credit cards).

Posted by: cowalker on January 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Tripp,

"But, I'm not trying to get a Royal Flush, I'm just looking for three of a kind."

So said a dealer in Vegas to me while telling me that she was getting kicked out of her apartment, as she was trying to borrow money to play video poker.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 2, 2007 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

What? And this is surprising? of curse Bush has known all along what to do. The Baker Commission appears to have been a stalling tactic. What is surprising is the lack of news coverage regarding the details of the Baker Commission, the money spent on it, and the details of any new plans Bush may have. That is truly surprising. So who ordered the Baker Commission Report? And at what cost will we not follow it?

Posted by: chris on January 2, 2007 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Kenny-boy, your apparent 'support' for the Bush plan is due to your dismal opinion of any other plan, correct?

The 3,000 death milestone isn't the real shocker, it's how those deaths occured. Random firefights during random patrols. Nothing gained strategically, nothing gained politically, nothing gained... period.

How can anyone support an escalation of the Bush plan?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on January 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Just where do we find the spare troops for the "surge?"

I figure they'll get there by more efficiently utilizing the National Guard and restricting call-back exemptions for post traumatic stress.

I know a lot of national guard members who have only done one tour in Iraq. The same goes for folks who get hospitalized for PTSD. In fact, within some branches, being hospitalized for PTSD is a recipe for a less than honorable discharge.

Posted by: toast on January 2, 2007 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

So far I've seen no evidence that Bush has any plan if something he gambles on doesn't pay off...

Um - like the last 3 years?

In the military and in life, the great leaders have plans for every contingency. When the German counteroffensive started in the Battle of the Bulge, Patton had a plan ready just in case that happened.

Bush got a blank look on his face on November 8th when he was told that America no longer will support this adventure. And troops have been dying for the last two months as he casts about for a way to save face - never mind having a way to win.

Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by: Wapiti on January 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

"Iran and Syria about exerting more control over their borders with Iraq to prevent foreign fighters from entering"

Almost all the foreign fighters in Iraq are being airlifted into the country on US military transports.

How are Iran and Syria supposed to stop that?

Posted by: Buford on January 2, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Please. Bush is not going to escalate the war. So stop saying that. He is simply engaging in sustained surge-like massive troop deployment-related program activities.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on January 2, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Correct - Shrub is engaged in Surge-like and Massive movement, while also engaged in Building and Deployment. Must find an acronym for that.

Posted by: stupid git on January 2, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

If Bush proposes a "surge", "escalation", "expansion", or any other variation on "more of the same", there's only one correct congressional response, and it starts like this:

"Dear Mr. President, Your war is a disaster that has already gone on too long. I cannot support it further, and your latest proposal clinches it for me: You are clearly unfit to lead this nation, and Congress must reclaim its role in government to save the nation. ..."

Each elected representative can take it from there to provide his or her own unique, historically defensible position and justification.

Support our troops. Save them and bring them home.

Posted by: gubbagubba on January 2, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

The overriding reason why escalation isn't going to accomplish anything, much less turn Iraq around, is because it's too late. Bush has done this war bass-ackwards from the very beginning, and he can't start over now.

He should have done all his listening to diverse viewpoints and his hard thinking before we went into Iraq. If he had, we would have figured out that the slimeball Chalabi was playing the U.S. like a piano. We would have waited for the completion of inspections for WMDs and scrubbed plans to invade based on the mushroom cloud scenario. If we decided that sanctions were too onerous to continue imposing, we would have built a real coalition and put together plans for rebuilding Iraq that were based on knowledge and experience rather than wishful thinking. Bush would then have rallied the U.S. to back him by calling for sacrifice, repealing the tax cuts and encouraging cut backs in petroleum usage by adding a war tax to gasoline. "Buy smaller cars, join a car pool, use public transportation, vacation close to home--It's the patriotic thing to do."

Bush chose to tell lies to get troops into Iraq, gambling that success would be quick and easy. He probably would have been forgiven, because Americans love a winner. But he lied (or at best he was horribly wrong)and he failed. When he lost the gamble, he also lost the nation's trust. He can't get that back by taking the steps now that he should have taken four years ago. His words will forever ring hollow in the ears of 70 percent of Americans. I expect him to present his "new plan" with no more transparency and honesty than before. But even if he tried the entirely new approach of transparency and honesty, how would we know the substance was true and well-informed this time? It's the problem faced by the boy who cried "Wolf!" for fun, and wasn't believed when he cried in fear.

He might be able to force more soldiers to stay in Iraq longer. Without the backing of the American people, how do you think this strategy will work? Soldiers will focus on keeping their heads down, playing for time, reducing their risks. From what I've read, that was what happened with troops in Vietnam while the administration mindlessly increased their numbers with no real reason to believe that more numbers would win.

Posted by: cowalker on January 2, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Good one Buford!

Buford:
"'Iran and Syria about exerting more control over their borders with Iraq to prevent foreign fighters from entering'

"Almost all the foreign fighters in Iraq are being airlifted into the country on US military transports.

"How are Iran and Syria supposed to stop that?"

Posted by: cowalker on January 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

QUOTE FROM THE WSJ: "Echoing Gen. Schoomaker's concerns that Iraq's militias would simply wait out a three- or six-month surge and then resume their violence, a report by military historian Frederick Kagan argues that the troops should be in Iraq for at least 18 months."

So if the militias would wait out a three- to six-month troop surge, why wouldn't they wait out an 18-month troop surge? Why put any time limit on the escalation? Why not just say the troops will be there indefinitely?

Or, looking at it another way: If we are to believe that the militias will wait out a three- to six-month troop surge, what that means is that for three to six months there will be no violence in Iraq. Doesn't that mean if Kagan gets his way and we say the troops are there for 18 months, then peace will reign for 18 months?

Sounds like a peace plan to me.

Posted by: Kathy on January 2, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

The WSJ article says: "Several Democratic and Republican lawmakers who endorsed the increase..."

Who are these Democratic lawmakers that endorsed the increase?

The BBC says Bush will "send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces", which suggests that we are reversing the emphasis from the "as they stand up, we'll stand down" approach to an further Americanization of the war, giving the conflict, from the perspective of Iraqis, more of a character of Americans vs. Iraqis and less of local, internal character. This can only, IMO, make the problems that already exist worse.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

"The WSJ article says: "Several Democratic and Republican lawmakers who endorsed the increase..."

Who are these Democratic lawmakers that endorsed the increase?"

"These Democratic lawmakers" are one Senator Joseph Lieberman, once again serving as the administration's fig leaf to claim bipartisan support.

Posted by: brewmn on January 2, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a parent. My son is working on a doctorate. He's my only child. Everything I've done for 23 years has been geared to getting him to this point in his life. He's not fighting in Iraq. If he was in Iraq and killed in that war I'm not sure what I'd do while suffering what I'm sure what would be grief and depression beyond description. If he was killed fighting what we all know now is an unwinnable, worthless exercise in idiocy my anger would know no bounds. Despite many parents being supportive of the military and their children's choice to serve there must be many more angry beyond words at what Bush has done to their families, their lives. The Secret Service must be especially jumpy when Bush travels. Were it my son that died over there their nervousness would be for very good reason.

Posted by: steve duncan on January 2, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Since Atrios isn't around:

Does this mean [Kagan]'ll support withdrawal if this new escalation does as poorly as the last one?

No.

Another in a series of simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by: RT on January 2, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

frequency kenneth is right. what do a bunch of uniformed idiots like us know?

Posted by: joint chiefs of staff on January 2, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Who are these Democratic lawmakers that endorsed the increase?
Posted by: cmdicely on January 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Besides Lieberman, Sen. Bill Nelson of Fla. told Blitzer/CNN (Dec. 22) that he would support a surge in Anbar province but not in Baghdad.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 2, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

A letter to the troops, who will be returning to Iraq for their second, third or fourth tour, needs to be sent detailing who the makers of the new escalation 'strategy' are. That way when they return, they will know who to exact responsibility from, rather than just lashing out and blowing up a federal building with a day care center in it.

Posted by: Brojo on January 2, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Duncan

Good to hear that your son was lucky enough to have rich parents who chose to have one child. Lots of kids in the military are there because they don't have a parents with the financial resources to pay their way to a PhD. Those kids are doing their best. They want to leave the military honorably, go to college with the money Uncle Sam is payting them and build a future. Their parents are just as worried as you would be. They want their kids to come home in one piece.

Unlike you many working and middle class parents might be willing to suffer the loss of a child if there was a vital national interest at stake. They wouldn't like it, but they could hold their heads high.

I have a lot of question. How do any of us look any of the parents of our lost childen in the eye? What do we say? I want to know how do any of the members of the Administration who have sent the children of strangers to die in a strange land for no damn good reason sleep at night? What about the mainstream media enabler pundits like Tim Russert or Barbara Starr? How do they look at themselves in the mirror? Do they say "telling the truth to power is not my job?" Do they say "if I tell the truth, GE will pull me off the air?" Do they simply say that "its all show biz?" All the while 3002 Americans have died and god knows how many have been wounded. Not to mention all the Iraqis who have died. Are their lives any less worthy?

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 2, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Echoing Gen. Schoomaker's concerns that Iraq's militias would simply wait out a three- or six-month surge and then resume their violence, a report by military historian Frederick Kagan argues that the troops should be in Iraq for at least 18 months.

What a boneheaded statement. Whose to say that the insurgents wont wait 18 months? Or 5 years? If they're going to wait, they'll wait. They can train and arm. Ask the IRA about that. Insurgency is fundamentally a waiting game in the short term. Because it's similar to a medieval castle siege. How long can one hold out in a castle on stored supplies? How long can the invading army hold out on the supplies they brought with them? How long are their supply lines? How healthy is the invader's budget? The Arab world actually has a good shot at cutting the US off - all they have to do is play the opec card, and our economy goes immediately into the shitter, and we can't fund this war effort any longer.

The only alternative to playing the waiting game with an insurgency that LIVES THERE, is to just fucking kill them all. And it's clear that Bush doesn't have the cujones to do that.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 2, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Unlike you many working and middle class parents might be willing to suffer the loss of a child if there was a vital national interest at stake.

I think you jumped to conclusions about whether Steve Duncan might be willing to suffer the loss of a child if there was a vital national interest at stake.

Sorry - strengthening the power of the Presidency - which appears to be the sole justification for the Iraq war - never qualified as a vital national interest.

And now as troops die every day that Bush stalls, scrambling to come up with a plan to help him make it through the next two years so he can have someone else clean up his mess... His saving face is also not a vital national interest.

How do any of us look any of the parents of our lost childen in the eye? What do we say?

"Fuck Bush. Worst. President. Ever. We need to impeach the son-of-a-bitch, then audit Cheney and Bush I to find out how much those bastards made off of this war."

Posted by: Wapiti on January 2, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers, you don't have to be rich to choose to have one child. Nor do you have to be rich to have a child achieving a doctorate. As for sending a child off to war I suppose were the nation demonstrably imperiled and our national security in dire risk a helluva a lot of us would be grabbing rifles right along with our kids. Unloading our inventories of depleted uranium munitions on Iraqi wedding parties (and poisoning the American soldiers we dispatch to report back 50 insurgents were killed) is not something any U.S. son or daughter need be part of. Bush needs to hang. Many years ago a great number of people donning swastikas swung from a rope for crimes not unlike those Bush has committed. Those people lied about Germany's national interest and security risks, just as Bush has lied about ours.

Posted by: steve duncan on January 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen, as usual, had her own take on this. Her choice was to post names, ages and ranks of the local military deceased on her blog. If the local newspapers around the nation emulated that example it might be an interesting exercise in informed democracy.

Posted by: opit on January 2, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Fuck Bush. Worst. President. Ever. We need to impeach the son-of-a-bitch, then audit Cheney and Bush I to find out how much those bastards made off of this war."

heh indeedy

Posted by: craigie on January 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Fuck Bush. Worst. President. Ever. We need to impeach the son-of-a-bitch, then audit Cheney and Bush I to find out how much those bastards made off of this war."

This is exactly what needs to be done. Get to the point of this war and find "the solution". Why has bush not sided with and taken action to elimiate the milita insurgents? The worst president ever? Does not say enough to discribe his non-leadership qualities. Impeachment isn't enough.

Posted by: aRT on January 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush Doctrine, quite simply, is being replaced by the McCain Doctrine.

Posted by: Robert Dare on January 2, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK
So if the militias would wait out a three- to six-month troop surge, why wouldn't they wait out an 18-month troop surge? Why put any time limit on the escalation? Why not just say the troops will be there indefinitely?

Because, from the same article, they can't: “Senior military commanders believe the extra forces can be sustained in Iraq for only six to 12 months before logistical and manpower strains become untenable.”

Posted by: cmdicely on January 2, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

------Anyone have a photo of the enemy in their dress
and combat uniform ? Do they resemble the american , british or some other nation that can send troops into battle ? Do they just wear their street clothing ? If so we are up that creek , without even a small paddle. Have a nice day .

Posted by: YE OLE TAILOR SHOP on January 2, 2007 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Duncan,

Sorry to offend.

There is a saying on military bases right now. The American military went to war. The rest of America went to the mall.

Your post struck me as one written by somebody who just got home from the mall. People have been dying for no damn good reason in Iraq for years now. Our press has only recently caught on.

Again I am sorry if I offended.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 2, 2007 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Duncan wrote: "Ron Byers, you don't have to be rich to choose to have one child."

I can vouch for that! I have one child (a daughter, senior in high school) and I'm barely middle class. In fact, right now I'm unemployed!

Steve, your original comment about your son brought back a strong memeory from when my brother was draft age. That was during the Vietnam war, at the time of the lottery. My brother drew a high number and was never called, but I remember vividly how my father would express his feelings about the thought of Dave (my brother) going to Vietnam in almost identical language to what you said. It was amazing. I could hear my father's voice saying those words.

Posted by: Kathy on January 2, 2007 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Life Magazine 1969, One Week’s Dead in Vietnam

I found an old copy of ‘Life’ magazine at a church sale. It had an article about one week’s dead in the Vietnam war, with twelve pages of photos of the 242 soldiers who died that week.
A link to a copy of the text of the article is here. We need to look at where we were and where we are going

http://kmareka.com/index.php/?p=757

'I've Seen This Film Before'

Posted by: spectral_ev on January 3, 2007 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

I am so sick of people spinning the casualties as not so bad because other conflicts have been worse. The nature of warfare has changed and this conflict has very little in common with conflicts of the past. For starters, this conflict is staged from bases and the troops are not sleeping in foxholes. This is a largely urban guerrilla war and the comparisons they offer have not been. The troops have body armor that saves a lot of lives that would have been lost otherwise - just like antibiotics did in World War II. The number of troops engaged in theater are a lot less than they were in those other conflicts too, by the way - Vietnam had over a half million American troops in-country at the height of hostilities.

In other words, when someone plays down the numbers, they are actually engaging in a little bit of intellectual dishonesty by setting up what is known as a false equivalency.

It's like when they say that more military personnel died on Clinton's watch - they take all numbers of troop demise under the Clinton administration - natural causes, accidents, off-base bar-fights, and they make a bar-graph. Then they do the same with the Iraq war and say "See? That awful Clinton killed more troops than Bush!" It is, of course, bullshit. If you put those same numbers with the war casualties, the Bush graph would tower over the Clinton graph, but that wouldn't serve their purposes.

If anyone thinks the Republicans have been chastened i have a bridge to sell you. They will keep engaging in the soft duplicity of false equivalencies, and it is up to us to expose them for what they are.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 3, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

spec: twelve pages of photos of the 242 soldiers who died that week.

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." - Dick Cheney 3/16/2003

Posted by: mr. irony on January 4, 2007 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly