Almost to the letter, it's the same stuff we've been trying for the past three years, except with about 10% more troops than before. Does he really think the American public is going to find any of this very convincing?

More to the point, isn't a popular definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

I don't think he believes he's convincing anyone. Unfortunately, I think he's stubborn to a point where he no longer cares.

Does he even care?
I surmise that the main audience this speech was aimed at was the self-proclaimed DC punditocracy. They're willing to give Bush one more chance, infinitely many times. Tomorrow many of them will laud his bold new move. That's the best Bush can get, and he'll take it.

Twelfth verse, same as the first!

Why do you defeatocrats want us to lose?

I am truly sorry to say: this has to be stopped -- by whatever means necessary.

Thanks Kevin. I came to your site first, because I thought you would provide some relatively clear-headed feedback, and save me the aggravation of having to watch His Majesty myself...

Let's have another verse that's worse than the other verse, and waltz me around again Willy.

Was I listening too hard, or did Bush hint that we we're about to double-cross the Kurds again?

The man just wants all this complicated stuff to go away. If sending 20,000 more troops helps make it go away for awhile, let's do it.

C'mon folks, NFL playoffs are just kicking off and Bush wants no distractions leading up to the Super Bowl.

Ah, Kevin.

I learned several new things, but that's because I listened with an open mind:

- Al Qada is headquartered in Anbar, the Generals think we can finish them off there.

- Clear and hold will be our new mantra. More to the good.

- Iran and Syria are supplying the insurgency, using them as a proxy force against us. I suspected this before, tonight the President confirmed it. I'm seething, to say the least.

Iraq is crucial to the course of the rest of this century. THe steaks are too high to fail.

Listening to the Escalator's speech tonight, I'm reminded of a comment by the comedian David Cross: "I was against the war in Iraq when it started, I'm against the war now, and I'll be against it for the next, oh ... ten to twelve years?"

Poorly read.... if he had been Reagan this speech might have had some chance. It came across like he never even saw the text before late this afternoon.

His presentation was so flat it was painful. This is DOA... possibly his worst prime time speech ever.

Make the steaks higher!

Mistakes were made. Responsibility rests with me.

Damn liberal mistakes and Responsibility.

This man cannot accept any mistakes directly.

Let's vote for a real man next time.

Clear and hold will be our new mantra.

Awesome. This will be like when we switched from "search and destroy" to "sweep and clean" back in Vietnam. That sure made everything alright.

Iran. Iran was new. He said we're definitely bombing them soon.

gregor:

it wasn't even "Mistakes were made."

it was "Whatever mistakes were made, the responsibility falls on me."

(neither asserting nor denying whether mistakes were made....)

THe steaks are too high to fail.

Damn... The cows got into the pot patch again.

THe steaks are too high to fail.

This could be a real problem for us. We all like steak. How did the steaks get so high? I don't think we can reach them from here.

I'm hungry!

I thought the speech was poorly written and poorly delivered. Nevertheless, it worked. The American people don't want to lose in Iraq. They will support an allegedly new approach for a period of time.

The Dems will throw a bone to the anti-war faction with some symbolic vote, but most of the Dems also don't want to prevent the "new" strategy from being attempted.

I'm not optimistic that the "new" strategy will be successful, but I agree that it's worth a try, since the stakes are so high.

I almost decided to watch the speech but I had to go out in the backyard and spend an hour watching really old pile of dogshit.

Did anyone else notice his use of the phrase "mistakes were made."?

A phrase first coined more than 30 years ago by ...

Wait for it ...

Robert McNamara.

That speech was written by someone who either is trying to undermine shrub or has no sense of irony or history whatsoever.

And eternal shame on Bob Schieffer for forgetting everything he learned covering Viet Nam.

Just finished reading All Governments Lie!, Myra McPherson's incredible biography of I.F. Stone.

Imagining what Izzy would make of this idiot (shub or Schieffer - take your pick) is enough to send even the most apathetic into the streets.

It's another decade of cannon fodder for the troops, nuclear destruction for Iran, and martial law for the fallen empire formerly known as America.

Not nearly as simple or sure as the Democratic approach--unconditional surrender--but then else what would be?

We are so screwed.

honestly, does anyone think that 20K more troops will really make a difference? By Petreaus's own doctrine, we need like a 100K more just to secure Baghdad.

of course, all the pro-bush people are right, though for the wrong reasons. pulling out now would be a disaster and likely lead to a larger clusterf#$& than we have now. But the irony is that we made the mess, we screwed it up royally, and now we've entangled ourselves so much that staying is a mess, leaving is a disaster.

ergo, we're screwed, and if we were going to have fixed it the time to have "surged" was back in 2003 or 2004.

Now, its too little, too late, and no good end can come of this.

In the pre-speech leaks that were emanating from the White House, there was a lot of chatter about a "political component" to this surge. Did I miss something? I didn't hear a damn thing that even resembled a political component.

If Bush wants to be a "war president" and call this illegal occupation of a sovereign nation a "war", let him follow the Constitution and ask Congress for a formal declaration of war!

Otherwise, our troops should pack their duffel bags and be out tomorrow.

I really don't think he could mean to attack Sadr City, I think he means they'll be helping clear the Sunnis out of Baghdad altogether, which is why he emphasized that everyone would be getting their fair share of oil revenue --once they stop shooting.

Opening 100 new Labor Ready offices in Baghdad is not news?

If they make it back at the end of the day without being blown up, they can cash out, with small take out fees, at Payday Loans.

Is Captitalism not truly great?

Of course with thousands of lives and the very survival and viability of the U.S. military at stake extrajudicial measures could be morally and ethically justified in stopping Bush. Just saying.........

ex-liberal: . . . since the stakes are so high.

No, they are not. That is your delusion as well as Bush's. It is the same delusion that drove the country to go to and remain in Vietnam.

Not nearly as simple or sure as the Democratic approach--unconditional surrender--but then else what would be?

Yes, that's the Democratic position precisely. I think I hear your Mom calling, kid.

When it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush the MBA President is managing the war like a failed business. For the analysis, see:
"Iraq and the 7 Habits of Highly Defective Presidents."

steve duncan,

That's completely in error. Such action will never be warranted in any case where there is electoral recourse.

strategy shift
from stay the course to
more of the same

...I'm not optimistic that the "new" strategy will be successful, but I agree that it's worth a try... x-liberal at 10:33 PM

...He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad....
As Adam Clayton Powell was famous for saying, Keep the faith, baby.

Of course cld, how forgetful of me. So, just how is it we go about scheduling that election between now and '08 to remove Bush? And please, don't tag impeachment as an electoral option. Getting sufficient numbers of Republicans to support such a move would require Bush drooling, barking and firing a pistol on the White House lawn. Even then they'd balk at filing articles.

If I were religious I would say let us pray for our troops...really going into harms way now

Google_This:

Don't you remember the Domino Theory! That's! how big the stakes in Vietnam were. Domino-sized!

seriously though.. I believe America is robust, and can weather another terror attack, if that's what we're afraid of. So, I'm trying to do the calculus of what withdrawing will cost us.

What exactly would happen if we left? (and do bloggers have to do the work that govt/press/think tanks are paid to do.)

steve duncan,

That's just something you've got to put up with. It's why we're not Republicans.

I heard two old points given a sharper emphasis. The first is that Iraq can never be allowed to become a "safe haven" for terrorists at some point after we skeedaddle. Under the Pelosi Plan, that would surely happen: indeed, happen quickly enough that Republicans can make a major talking point about it in 2008.

Second, I heard Bush hint that he might take military action against Iran or Syria this summer. I was surprised to hear that Iran's Shia puppets have attacked U.S. forces and been caught at it.

Now Bush didn't say this, but last week the quotas on accepting refugees from Iraq were changed. If Congress pushed the skeedaddle option so hard that the administration has to cave in, one of the consequences that will happen before even the "safe haven for terrorists" thing becomes evident is that all Iraqis who have sincerely signed on to the democracy program will be at risk of being slaughtered.

Only one nation is going to take these panicked refugees in when they start to move, and that is us. If I am a Republican strategist I paint every tragic video image that comes out of that process with the title "Pelosi Caused This." Plug in different Democrat names as needed regionally.

Worse yet, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis reach our shores, it will be a mixed blessing. Many will make fine Americans because they believe in democracy and crave our freedoms and our rule of law. But in the mix will inevitably be some of the fierce partisans. The ultimate result will likely most resemble the right wing Cuban influx to Florida after Castro seized power. Things like this have consequences for a long, long time.

The Democrats will try to deflect criticism from the consequences of the skeedaddle plan by simply blaming Bush over and over for "creating" the Iraq mess "unnecessarily." But Bush had considerable Democrat help in this at the outset and he will say that if the faint hearts hadn't quit, it all might have worked. Our new Iraqi fellow citizens who arrive by 2008 might well voice some very loud agreement with Bush on this.

Yes, that's the Democratic position precisely. I think I hear your Mom calling, kid.

I'm willing to hear a few more elaborate euphemisms for bailing out of the battlefield while the fighting is still going on, never to return. Other than "surrender." Got some?

Please describe what YOU think the Democratic recommendations for the war in Iraq are. I do know the word "victory" is nowhere in the building, and I doubt al Qaeda and the insurgents are going to call a full-scale "redeployment" a "tie game."

Bush's description of the war as the US and Iraqi armies against the insurgents continues to grossly underestimates the complexity of the social and military situation in Iraq. The President won't stumble on a solution if he doesn't understand the problem.

But perhaps this characterization is the only one that justifies our continued attempts at military solutions. When in doubt, shoot more bad guys. The utter lack of any competent diplomacy anywhere in the region is staggering -- we can watch Rice twist in the wind next week.

All I can do is repeat what everybody else has been saying around the blogosphere tonight: the man just doesn't care. He believes he's right, and he doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

He still believes that someday there will be a statue of himself in Baghdad where Saddam Hussein's likeness once stood.

I do know the word "victory" is nowhere in the building

Yes, because as Bush has made crystal clear, simply saying "success" and "mission accompished" and "victory" makes it so.

This isn't high school football, champ. These are our fellow Americans dying and getting maimed for nothing at all, nothing but empty rhetoric and moronic, mouthbreathing cheerleading. Leave the "tie game" nonsense at home.

Does anyone else remember when there were intelligent conservatives? Ones who made arguments with a sophistication higher than the third grade?

As usual, the defeatocrats have no plan.

The first is that Iraq can never be allowed to become a "safe haven" for terrorists at some point after we skeedaddle.

OK. Assume arguendo this is right.

How is this end actually accomplished? What means that does not cause the multiplication of the terrorists themselves do we use?

It's Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerer's Apprentice, but with lethal consequences.

Incompetent.

Mendacious.

Delusional.

Immoral.

mike cook:

think with your brain. Much worse thing will happen if we withdraw, but we gotta decide if they are something we can live with.

Bad attitudes from Iraqi refugees to US, and negative political spots -- these are trite.

And Al Queda isn't going to make gains in a Shia dominated region.

Al Qada is headquartered in Anbar, the Generals think we can finish them off there.

LOL, sorry just lost my beer all over the monitor. You are a parody right? This is exactly why this won't work. Neither you nor Little Ceasar understand "Al Qada"

THe steaks are too high to fail.

Sorry, it failed long, long, long ago. More steaks please!

Please describe what YOU think the Democratic recommendations for the war in Iraq are.

I love the common conservative complaint -- well, I haven't heard the Democratic plan, so it must not exist! Yeah, that's the evil liberal media for you.

The Democratic plan is spelled out in a 123-page report on Harry Reid's website, which took me all of three seconds to find on Google:

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/RealSecurity_web.pdf

Need someone to read it to you?

"Does anyone else remember when there were intelligent conservatives?"

No, but then I was not around when conservatives defended the divine right of kings.

Only one nation is going to take these panicked refugees in when they start to move, and that is us.

You should try reading the news once in a while, Mike. 60,000 - 90,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country every month. They're going to many different countries in the Middle East, primarily to Jordan and Syria. The one country that isn't taking them in is us.

If you had a shred of human decency in you that put human life over political ambitions you'd be disseminating videos of those tragic refugees right now with the title "Bush Caused This."

Because, in fact, he did.

I was surprised to hear that Iran's Shia puppets have attacked U.S. forces and been caught at it.

Uh, Shia Puppets = factions of the duly elected Iraqi government. They're "puppets" how?

Next hysterical fantasy.

But Bush had considerable Democrat help in this at the outset and

Not from Democrats he didn't. They were lied to and frozen out of the process. You're thinking of Republicans.

Worse yet, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis reach our shores,

The Bush administration will never allow hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to settle here, you're high as a kite. It may surprise you to know that tens of thousands have settled here over the years, though.

Better sleep with the nite light on.

Our new Iraqi fellow citizens who arrive by 2008 might well voice some very loud agreement with Bush on this.

Yep, you're high and you don't read the news. Iraqis have voiced their opinion in poll after poll by huge margins that they want us to cease occupying their country. Maliki is begging for us to give him control of his own security forces and has called for a withdrawal timetable himself.

Your entire "analysis" is divorced from reality. If I may borrow a phrase from the morons who trolls this site:

"No wonder you guys keep losing elections."

Iran and Syria are supplying the insurgency, using them as a proxy force against us.

Wow, a troll actually stated what I thought was one of Bush's major messages. Bush needs to prepare the propaganda ground for air strikes, and this is his first step.

I slept through it.

From what I hear, he still hasn't figured out how the world works.

I had a dog once that barked at the waves at the beach.

Probably could have distracted him with steaks if I held them high enough.

No, but then I was not around when conservatives defended the divine right of kings.

You must not read Powerline that often.

"Much worse thing will happen if we withdraw...." a common belief grounded in an unstated, and most likely false, assumption.

"You must not read Powerline that often."

Alas I do not (reading the Gonzales memos was enough).

It just goes to show that conservatives have not actually changed that much over the centuries. If they had any principles, then one could say they are at least consistent. But they have none.

bobbyp @ 11:28pm

"Much worse thing will happen if we withdraw...." a common belief grounded in an unstated, and most likely false, assumption.

That's exactly what I'm saying -- No one's willing to look at the probable costs of leaving Iraq. From what I already know, I would guess that most people would be willing to pay the price.

But bad attitudes from immigrants is not the worst thing that will likely happen to us.

What is the worst that will likely happen? I don't know. Don't you wonder what's behind curtain number three? Or are you going to pick it without any analysis of how it compares to curtain 1 or 2?

Only one nation is going to take these panicked refugees in when they start to move

What, exactly is the name of the drug you are on at this moment in time, because i want some!

Try reading a newspaper once in a while instead of scooping up nuggets of Rushism, why don't you? 1.85 million refugees and an equal number internally misplaced because the place has been ethnically cleansed to the point of unlivability.

What a fucking moron.

The overwhelming sense I had of the speech was more war for war's sake - to justify the sacrifices US troops have already made and to prevent a catastrophe that we already have proven unable to prevent. Honestly, what difference will an additional 20000 troops make in the final outcome of Iraq's civil war?

What are Bush's benchmarks of success for this initiative? Bush talked about America's limited patience but he offered no clear, concise measures of success for his plan. He would have been far more convincing if he had established milestones -- numbers of Iraqi cops on the street, trained Iraqi soldiers in uniform, no Mosby's Irregulars (ie Muktada al Sadr's army) operating uncontrolled.

Bush's speech simultaneouly raises our commitment in Iraq while lowering our expectations of successful outcomes -- he says adding 20K more troops is no guarantee of success. Almost as if to say "maybe I'll get lucky this time." Warnings of failure do not innoculate him from responsibility for the outcome, nor do they absolve him from the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt why putting 20K more Americans in harm's way will work this time when other similar strategies failed.

I thought Bush described the stakes well -- expanded involvement by Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia in a regional struggle if Iraq falls -- but that was the case even before we went to war, when Saddam was in power. War wasn't the only option then and it isn't the only option now.

Bush did everything to raise the fear of failure without ever mentioning possible economic and diplomatic solutions to the region's hostilities. UN? What's that?? And where are our allies? What happened to the Coalition of the Willing? What do the Brits and Aussies say about this plan??

Bush's only solution -- his entire mindset -- is is focused on the use of the military to solve the problems of world affairs. He's a one-note Johnny who has been wrong too many times already to deserve our trust. And yet he has the audacity to suggest that this puts Iran and Syria on notice -- what's that about? Invading Iran?

More mush from the Chimp.

There were NO FLAGS on the set. And evidently he was in a library. Has he ever done anything like that that before?

Also there was no "God Bless America" at the end of the speech. Hasn't that been de riguer since Reagan?

Granted these are superficial points but superficial has always been germain in Roveworld.

He mumbled something right at the end about 'the author of liberty' to whom we owe it all, which I took as a reference to god, though he may as well have meant his own munificence the thought of which humbles even him.

View Comet McNaught in the morning and in the evening.

Only one nation is going to take these panicked refugees in when they start to move

Sheesh, we've still got plenty of time before we worry about that. Probably won't happen until we take on Saddam. Maybe not even until after the '04 election.

What is the worst that will likely happen?

1. The shia slaughter the sunni. (Right now they have a licence to do so, with our assistance. We are providing them the arms and training to enable them to do so. If we leave, the incentives on both sides shift toward reaching an accommodation).
2. Terrorists will have a home in Iraq. (Terrorists already have a home in Saudi Arabia. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is where most of the 9\11 hijackers came from.)
3. The sunni will slaughter the shia. (not likely, but then whose side are we on?).
4. Extremism and instability will spread throughout the Middle East. (Oh, please, get a grip. When were things stable there? Under the Turks? Then I guess the answer is to bring back the Ottomans.)
5. Our oil supplies will be disrupted (So. You admit at last that it was really about oil all along? I guess this would give us a chance to show if we really could get along with using a lot less of the stuff).
6. Freedom, democracy. (Get serious. You want to really spread freedom? Let's raise taxes massively, cut consumption, and initiate an aggressive campaign to raise world living standards...anything less, you're just bloviating).
7. Israel will run amok. (They already do. We also have monsterous leverage over them, if ever we could find the courage to use it).

I'm sure there are more aspects to consider.

"Defeatocrats?" It's Bush's Republican administration that has led us down the path toward defeat in Iraq.

Summary of speech:

STAY THE COURSE !!! (+10%)

PS: FU. I'm the decider.
---

Impeach this clown. A disgrace and an embarrassment. Disgusting.

President Bush has adopted the McCain Doctrine as his own.

bobbyp: That got a nervous chuckle out of me. I think you're more right than wrong.

let me add: The Kurd's rest and digest until Turkey starts attacking them, at which point we arm the Kurds to attack a EU member state.

Mr Ahmadinejad tells the Iraqi Shias to join Iran -- at which point Mr Sadr & Mr Sistani say to him, "Go &#*% yourself. Shilom."

Bush is a washed up piece of fucking feces and he is determined to take us all down with him.

Oh, and the steaks? Ribeye? New York? Sirloin?

What exactly would happen if we left?
Posted by: absent observer on January
10, 2007 at 11:00 PM
--

Exactly. We are told repeatedly by the lazy press and the Republican sound machine about how "we can't just leave".

Why not?

Did Bush just give away our war plans to the "terrorists"?

If this was the NY Times some might call it treasonous.

The New York Times today has an unusually harsh editorial on the Bush strategy. Didn't think the Old Gray Lady could speak up so fiercely these days.

Bush's and other pro-surgers' hysteria that Iraq will fail catastrophically if we leave is striking. It betrays immense lack of confidence in the Iraqi people.

Marc:

I suggest you read Reid's document yourself. Aside from large sections on enthusiastic domestic spending ideas, and equipping a military the Democrats would never deploy, the actual War on Terror tactics consist of useful and detailed ideas like:

"Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban."

Well. That was easy. I'm surprised I didn't think of that myself.

Weren't we talking about solutions for Iraq other than surrender? Reid's paper has hundreds of references about why the war in Iraq sucks. The solutions?

To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, Democrats will:

• Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the
responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

• Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and
defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and
other nations to play a constructive role.

Again, why didn't anyone else think of that? Get Iraq secure using their own forces, quell the sectarian violence, and get our allies to help win the war. It's all so simple when you don't give a rat's arse about the details.

Hey, my health proposal for 2007: Cure cancer!

Bush seems to know he's had it . . . and he has.

The fact that the U.S. General Staff is going along with this is a shame.

Okay - you guys owe me one. I took a rabies shot and anti malarials and headed into the festering swamp at powerline. here is what they are saying in comments.

The peace-at-any-price crowd will of course be full of negatives. That’s what separates them from decent Americans.

I believe he has all the authority and justification he needs to take out those installations in Iran which are supplying training of insurgents and actual weapons like IEDs. The press would go nuts, of course. The Dems’ heads would explode. But some action like that could help destabilize the insurgency as well as cutting off materiel they need.

W has never been and never will be a great speaker, and he never has and probably never will present the war in terms the American people can understand, but the important thing is he’s resolute and now he damned well better kick some ass and make sure we straighten that damned Iraq out before we face a generation of warfare with Islamo-Arabo-Irano zombies.

What the heck are the democrats doing? But constantly talking defeat, and then trying to say they are for winning the war?

Who in heck is going to hold them accountable for their terrible performance? Why are we talking about President Bush’s performance? How about their performance? I think that it is the worst performance of an American party in our entire history!

They have never done anything of any value since 9-11 but be a stubborn obstacle to the war on terror. By them calling it Bush’s war and refusing to ackownledge the war that we are really in proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are nothing but a party of gutless, spineless, devil worshipping, pieces of excrement!

There is nobody in their party that is worth listening to, no not one! Find me one person, just one. Not ten, or a hundred, just find me one person.

But for comic relief, try this one...

Sorry Phil, but I do not agree. All kinds of guys can give inspirational speeches. When hollow, the speaker is known as a pedagogue.

Aside from large sections on enthusiastic domestic spending ideas, and equipping a military the Democrats would never deploy, the actual War on Terror tactics consist of useful and detailed ideas like:

Aside from large sections on enthusiastic reconstruction and equipping an Iraqi military that is composed largely of men loyal to their own militias, the actual War in Iraq tactics consist of useful and detailed ideas like:

"Achieve victory."

And here's another piece you missed, you idiot: most Americans know this is a war that never should have started and can no longer be won. Expecting a plan from Democrats to win an unwinnable war that Bush has fucked up beyond belief is a little crazy and a lot disingenous. There is no Demcratic plan to wipe out disease forever, either, just in case you were wondering.

And try picking just one handle to post under, sockpuppet.

Well, all I can say is I'm scared as hell. Our president, and apparently his advisors too, are delusional maniacs. I'm not an expert like Juan Cole on the various militia and insurgent groups in Iraq, but I think I can say with assurance that Iran is not supporting the Sunni 'insurgents,' who are the ones attacking our troops. Al Qaeda, also Sunni, would not be receiving aid from Iran. So what's he talking about?! Does he understand that Iraq was ANTI-al Qaeda before the US invasion? Does he understand that he personally has created whatever threat exists now? Has this all been worth the legislation now before the Iraqi parliament which would give foreign oil companies (read US/European) 75% profit on all oil produced in Iraq for the next thirty years, leaving only 25% for the Iraqis? Talk about rape and plunder.
This is all just insane.

Does Bush really think the American public is going to find any of this very convincing?

It doesn't matter if we do or don't. It's now just a waiting game. The surge has begun; new troops are already on their way to Iraq.

Bush isn't leaving Iraq. All he is doing is stalling for time, while paradoxically, rushing to complete as much of his agenda as he can before he leaves office, (miring the U.S. in Iraq and throughout the Middle East enough so that future Presidents will find it impossible to leave) while not angering (which would energize) Congress into action impeaching him.

Careful timing is what he's aiming for, to do as much as possible, until it's close enough to the end of his term so that Congress won't bother filing articles of impeachment. Classic Rove - *shock and awe* works on Congresscritters, too.

The Republican senators who released statements not supporting Bush's escalation (Luger, Collins, Smith, Brownback, Coleman, Voinovitch), I'm sure are still brow-beating themselves, second-guessing whether they did the right thing, worrying about blowback because they're not sure "Is he evil, stupid or just plain nuts?" The noise from Bush and the Republicans not signing on is going to suck the oxygen out of their brains for weeks.

Since Congress moves at a snail's pace anyway, particularly the long-winded aristocrats in the Senate, Congress would have had to have started right after the midterms if they had any hope of blocking Bush's plans to start the war in Iran.

The new Bush/McCain strategy will win immediate support from the Washington Times, Fox News and the 27 percent of the electorate who vote Republican no matter what.

Can we change his "nom de guerre" from AWOL to CLUSTERFUCK now ?
Global Citizen It was on one of your news links that I saw that Kurds had killed 600,000 Assyrians since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Good fun !

WHAT'S NEW?
See page 10 of the PowerPoint slideshow in the White House's iraq-strategy011007.pdf file:
Counter Iranian and Syrian action that threatens Coalition forces.

That's pretty darn close to MacArthur's decision that it was time to cross the Yalu River and go into China.

MacArther got fired for that. Time to fire Bush.

Maeven,

I agree with you on Iran. Bush is ready and tonight's speech was a signal. We can expect air attacks on nuclear sites in Iran before the end of his term.

GC- Glad you survived.

Richard Cohen had a good piece in today's (1/10) WaPo on Bush's thinking which is impervious to logic. The 30% that still believes in him are also impervious. Knowing they'll snipe forever at realists while remaining so unreachable is such a downer.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the masterminds behind the Bush/McCain escalation, said in an MSNBC interview Tuesday afternoon that American forces would concentrate on securing Baghdad during the rest of 2007 and then in 2008 would move on to Anbar.

Thus, it would seem, American troops will be fighting and dying in Iraq throughout 2007 and then throughout 2008 all during the political campaign leading up to the presidential vote.

This would seem to be a strategy, then, aimed not only at securing Iraq but also at insuring a Democratic landslide in 2008.

Maeven- I may be naive and optimistic, but I got the same feeling when I heard Ted Kennedy's speech yesterday as when I hear Murtha's speech in November of 2005. I sense it is a turning point, and I do believe Congress is ready to fight this WH. At some point this is no longer a partisan issue, but rather one about separation of powers and defense of our constitution.

I'm sorry. That MSNBC interview with Jack Keane was Wednesday afternoon, not Tuesday.

Thanks Opit. I love it when I direct someone to an Assyrian news source to be dismissed out of hand because the other person "knows better than to trust the Syrian media."

This is the article on the Assyrian genocide that is going on under cover of the Iraq civil war.

Sorry! That link in my previous post is to a .pdf file.

What must be refuted in Bush's speech, and the neo-con/conservative argument, is that a withdrawal or 'retreat' from Iraq will result in a victory for the 'Islamic' extremists. It is a lie, but still a widely accepted platitude allowed to be expressed without opposition. If the US leaves wholesale, the Iraqis will have a little civil war and either the Sunnis or the Shiites will assume hegemony over the territory we call Iraq. This national state will not be a nuclear bomb creating hot bed of immoral terrorists regardless of which faction wins.

The other lie Bush told, by ommision, was about who is materially supporting the insugency. The ommission is that Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni insurgency much more than the Iranians, yet he makes a case against Iran in a nationally televised speech.

Those were the two things that I remember thinking while watching the man my people elected to be national leader twice give a speech explaining why he is sending more of our children into war.

RS,
So the insurgency will just switch places with us, right? Hide out in Anbar in '07. Bush has to go!!

Brojo,
That suprises you? Has Smirk ever told the truth? Jenna and not-Jenna wouldn't be doing their Paris Hilton imitations if it weren't for the Saudis

on the "learned helplessness" of the Democrats:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48c1c7b6-a0ea-11db-acff-0000779e2340.html

I don't agree, but I think it's interesting. A more serious problem is that they don't agree amongst themselves on what to do instead.

The reason that there is not much new from the president is that the situation is pretty much a stalemate, but with 90% of the violence concentrated in a region in and around Baghdad.

However, we might be wrong about the "not much new": if it is true that Maliki is now committed to rooting out the Shi'ite militias, a position urged upon him weeks ago by the legislature, then that is new, even though it isn't a new American policy. That, along with enlarged rules of engagement, more U.S. troops, and more Iraqi troops, could make a difference.

Also of possibly greater importance is the clear threat to attack Syrian and Iranian forces in or near Iraq. A significant reduction of Syrian and Iranian influence within Iraq might have a large impact within Baghdad.

On their present language, the Democrats are unwilling to make a binding commitment that Bush is wrong -- i.e. unwilling to pass a law mandating something different. And some are backing the president. It was reported in WaPo that Bush has met personally with 148 Congressmen in the last few weeks, in addition to all the meetings of his staff. The pros and cons have been widely debated in all media.

If Bush's surge is not unambiguously an improvement by about mid-summer, then I expect that the Dems, and enough Reps, will coalesce around a plan of immediate withdrawal. I am thinking that they are more like vultures waiting for someone else to bring down the big prey, or for it to collapse, than like hyenas or lions in a coordinated attack.

Pelosi and Reid wrote a letter urging a policy for Pres. Bush. It was essentially a bluff because they can't get their own party to vote the policy into law. I am not joyful at their dilemma, it just is as it is.

Global Citizen: All kinds of guys can give inspirational speeches. When hollow, the speaker is known as a pedagogue.

That's a good one.

Only a PowerLine regular...or egbert...would write that.

Ghost --

General Keane talked about driving the insurgents from Baghdad and then Anbar.

Since the insurgency consists of both Sunni and Shia and since General Keane did not mention proceeding on to a Shia province after driving insurgents from Baghdad, perhaps he is revealing that the Bush/McCain Doctrine now embraces the 80 percent solution of Dick Cheney -- that is, side with the 80 percent Shias against the 20 percent Sunnis.

As usual, the defeatocrats have no plan.

There is no good solution to the current situation. If you pull out, Iraq will collapse into open civil war (not the poorly veiled one that exists today). If you stay, more american and iraqi lives will be lost. Either way both sides loose.

mike cook: Worse yet, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis reach our shores, it will be a mixed blessing. Many will make fine Americans because they believe in democracy and crave our freedoms and our rule of law

Nutso! trex already kicked your ass at 11:22 PM and then Globe did it again at 11:33 PM. But in case you stagger back in here, go read about the march of freedom under the Bushwacko preznitcy: Few Iraqis Are Gaining U.S. Sanctuary, Jan. 2, 2007... Or don't read it and remain a delusional ignoramus.

On a related note, I wonder if the FBI ever found the 3,000 missing illegal Iraqis here in America [BBCNews, Jan. 27, 2003]... 'cause Bush sure as shit gave up the mission to track down Osama, you know, the terrorist thug who masterminded "the day that changed everything" (9/11 for those who have forgotten). OBL hardly ever gets mentioned by Bush, Cheney, or any of the other members of the insane clown posse at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

What gives? Hmmmm... I smell something oily.

gregor: Mistakes were made. Responsibility rests with me.

gregor, you nailed it. I read through the speech (no way would I inflict the pain of hearing it on myself) and found this pathetic, weak acknowledgement of mistakes that erupted from the cosmos like the spontaneous combustion of human bodies. Yeah, we can attribute them to Bush, but he didn't really make the mistakes. The blame just came to roost with him through some kind of tricksiness of the universe where he is saddled with fault when it was really SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT but he's being the gentleman and taking the blame.

What a loser.

Well. That was easy. I'm surprised I didn't think of that myself.

Then why didn't Bush do it? Why didn't we send enough soldiers to corner bin Laden? Why did Bush take us through this insane adventure in Iraq? Yes, it's simple - simple as listening to generals who told you if you really insist on invading Iraq, do it with the correct number of troops. All these ideas were simple. But clearly, not simple enough for Bush.

We need to redeploy our soldiers. If you want to call it surrender, fine. Call it whatever you want, no one cares. I surrender to the idea that it's become impossible for our soldiers to defeat the insurgents. I surrender to the idea that we need to stand down so that the Iraqi soldiers can stand up. I surrender to the idea that it's the Iraqi government who is ultimately responsible for Iraq. It's their country - the Iraqi gov. needs to go after al-Sadr and take responsibility for wrangling in groups that are killing Americans. I surrender to the idea that Bush's adventure has been irresponsible and a collosal waste of taxpayer dollars.

Let's think about specifics -- if Bush goes after Iran and Syria...

I'm assuming that, first, there will be the obligatory trotting-out of evidence that Iran and Syria are involved in Iraq (I actually have no doubt they are).

Then it could unfold in two directions: (a) low-intensity, with special-ops teams taking out individuals and facilities known to be involved in supporting insurgents or death squads in Iraq (the "networks" Bush spoke of), or (b) high-intensity, with air strikes and cruise missile attacks on various targets, esp. nuclear processing facilities, air bases, anti-aircraft batteries, maybe some bridges.

Which way will Bush et al. go? And then what?

Needless to say, this would be catastrophic for regional stability and the price of oil, great news for Russia, Venezuela and other unsavory suppliers of oil, and the trigger for more Hamas and Hezbolla violence.

Can someone reach over and take the keys out the ignition, please? We need to get this driver home and into bed.

Worse yet, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis reach our shores, it will be a mixed blessing. Many will make fine Americans because they believe in democracy and crave our freedoms and our rule of law. But some will have treachery in mind, and become republicans.

These must be culled.

Ex-Liberal: I'm not optimistic that the "new" strategy will be successful, but I agree that it's worth a try, since the stakes are so high.

I can quite understand that you're not in danger and are so sociopathic that you have no empathy for the grunts your "WTF give it a go!" attitude will kill.

The thing that does make me wonder is this though. If Iran does get attacked, how big is their standing army? I mean I know standard wisdom says the US Armed forces can take anyone or anything, but we all know what happened when the Chinese didn't like how close the UN forces go to their border in Korea. I know there was an "honourable draw" but how many American troops had to die to secure it?

MacArthur and Bush, hubris aforethought?

I'm late to the discussion. Is it true that Bush said al-Qaeda is headquartered in Ann Arbor? Jesus, how can they defeat us if they can't even beat USC?

Almost to the letter, it's the same stuff we've been trying for the past three years, except with about 10% more troops than before.

Agree. Except for the additional troops, and the additional money--note there was no mention of that, or of any additional "sacrifice" in Bush's remarks--there is nothing new of substance.

UPDATE: There's a little more detail here, but frankly, there's still not much new.

The only things noteworth in the NSC document are: casting old problems as new problems; and increasing the the anti-Iran and -Syria drumbeat.

So how is this different from the usual ups and downs caused by troop rotations? IIRC troops levels have ranged from as 120-160,000 American soldiers. Is this just another case of Bushco marketing again?

At the start of the thread bb commented "I am truly sorry to say: this has to be stopped" and I think this sentiment is the most true. Bushco's war is a disaster, and Bush needs to be stopped before he does more harm to America.

But I had to laugh at mike cook upthread, the person who argued that we needed to continue to keep our troops in Iraq because otherwise we might be flooded with Iraqi refugees....
Let's assume that Bushco will reverse its policy on Iraqi refugees. Let's assume that Bushco makes arrangements for hundreds of thousands of displaced persons--some of whom will be eager for revenge--to resettle in the US. We can call this "Operation Trojan Horse".

Remember when the conservative line was "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here?" heh. So now, having successfully created MORE terrorists, Bushco can start importing them to the US.

There were a number of things worth commenting on in Bush's speech tonight

Not really. Bush is a terrible speaker and you can't believe a thing he says anyway. Our trojan horse is about to destroy everything the GOP has worked for the past few decades, and it's dark comedy that they won't realize it before it's long too late.

Albert's plan for Iraq
a) get the fuck out
b)with some of the billions saved hire Iraqi contractors to repairs basic infrastructure.
c)put duct tape over Bush's mouth
d)let him never control more than a hot dog stand again

If you want to get a feel of how precisely "more of the same" this was, go read BarbinMD's latest post at DKos where she does a point-by-point comparison between Bush's speech last night, and what he said in a press conference on October 25.

It's all but word-for-word.

Why Bush or any of these other delusional conservatives think that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, it will immediately belong to al-Qaeda, is beyond me. It is completely illogical. The number of true al-Qaeda loyalists in Iraq is tiny - probably less than 1,000. And they don't have the support of the other 26 million Iraqis now. How is that when we leave, that a group representing .003% of the population suddenly takes over? It ain't gonna happen, folks!

al-Qaeda is a convenient bogeyman for Bush to keep the ignorant living in fear, so they don't squeal too much as the U.S. Treasury gets looted and the Bill of Rights shredded.

From my extended thoughts on the speech:

Unfortunately, however, the plan is doomed to fail. It will not quell the violence in Iraq and more Americans and Iraqis will die as a result of this futile attempt.

Bush’s “New Strategy Forward� is way too little and nearly four bloody, painful years too late.

The plan, says Paul Reickhoff, a lieutenant in the Florida National Guard in 2003 and 2004, is not a “Hail Mary� pass, as many in the pundit class have referred to it. Instead, he argues that it is a “draw play on fourth down.� It is a decision with little chance of succeeding and will only result in punting the ball down the field to the next president in 2009.

Bush has given America no winnable options. We withdraw, Iraq falls apart. We surge, Iraq still falls apart even though Bush calls it the only chance for "victory," which he cannot define and. Who thinks Iraqi democracy will suddenly solidify in the next six months thanks to the presence of 20,000 more US troops? Or is it a year?? Two years??? Are we fighting a war or occupying the country?

Competent leaders don't deal their citizens losing hands, particularly when military intervention is involved.

"Iraq is crucial to the course of the rest of this century. THe steaks are too high to fail."

No, Egbert, you meant to say the steaks are too high to FALL. Just follow your fault-free president's advice and climb ever higher up the magical beef tree and reach right out there to the furthest branches.

Nothing can go wrong if HE tells you it's right. And, man, those steaks are supposed to be good eatin'!

Let's have another verse that's worse than the other verse, and waltz me around again Willy

I always thought it was "waltz me around by my willie". That's what it feels like now, anyway.

As usual, the defeatocrats have no plan.
Posted by: Al

That is the point. Nobody has a plan, because we are at a strategic and tactical dead end. What to do? Cut and run, and retain your forces intact.

At this point, cutting and running (which is a naval term that translates as 'save your ship and men for a fight you CAN win') is more honorable than Bush's strategy of 'dick around and hope things get better.'

There is no honor is getting good soldiers chewed up to save the CiC's ego.

Kevin said "nothing new" was being said.
That reminds me of this website; nothing new always the same negative loserman mentality.

And still no Democrat strategy for ending this war with a win - or even a way to preserve the dignity of the warrior.

I am sure no enemy takes comfort in the defeatism of Democrats and how the progressive undermines their own president. The President said, "the responsibility rests with me," kind of like "The buck stops here." Not good enough for all the Bush haters. Nothing will be because those progressives are close minded hate mongers.

Why don't we just get on representative from the Muslims and one from the Liberals and have them fight it out to see who will be in charge of how we all live.

I watched MSNBC's commentary after the speech and was particularly struck by what Barack Obama had to say. Instead of suggesting that the Democrats would fight Bush's efforts to escalate the war by sending more troops to Iraq while simultaneously taking on Iran and Syria, Obama talked about forcing the administration to establish specific penalties in the event that the Iraqi "government" failed to meet Bush's "benchmarks." Sounds to me like the Dems aren't yet feeling comfortable enough with their newly installed backbones to actually attempt to block Bush's plan. They won't impeach, they won't resist... As we used to say in Viet Name, "we won't fight, and you can't make us."
Jefferson weeps.

"ex-liberal" wrote: The American people don't want to lose in Iraq. They will support an allegedly new approach for a period of time.

Thanks for conceding that Bush's so-called "new way forward" is nothing of the kind, but merely a cynical ploy to punt the Iraqi mess into the lap of his successor. Shame on you for your support of Bush and his neocon cronies.

I am not joyful at their dilemma

That's probably the most overt lie Marler's posted here.

Iraq was better off before the invasion. The Middle East was better off before the invasion. The United States was better off before the invasion.

Sorry..."Viet Nam," not "Viet Name." Easy to forget the spelling when one's brain is fogged with memories of the lessons (apparently unlearned).
And Orwell:
A) Rather than "preserving the dignity of the warrior" how about concentrating on preserving the lives and limbs of the warriors?
B) Name a single progressive who actually considers Bush to be "their own president." You want him? He's yours.
C) The "responsibility" is most certainly his. The pain and suffering, the cost and the legacy will be ours.
D) By "Muslims" I'm sure you meant "insurgents/terrorists," right? Even a knuckle-dragging wingnut like you couldn't really think that the WAR ON TERROR!!! is a war against the entire Muslim religion. Or could you?

Off topic, but why do the President's big pronouncements about Iraq always seem to coincide with highly publicized military actions, this time a strike against al Qaeda in Somalia? It's as if Bush is using the DoD as his personal PR agency.

Big announcement that a leading al Qaeda figure in Somalia was killed proves to be false. No surprise there.

It's as if Bush is using the DoD as his personal PR agency.

Why not? He learned that trick from Reagan.

There was nothing about new military tactics, just an assertion that more troops would help us clear and hold neighborhoods.

No, we aren't sending "more troops." We are currently at 132,000. Adding 21,000 gives us 153,000. We were as high as 160,000 last year. This is just more "stay the course."

And still no Democrat strategy for ending this war with a win

Isn't that ANNOYING???

Our great president, completely ignorant of Iraqi culture & history, completely ignorant of the Sunni/Shiite rivalry, starts an unprovoked war against a bad man who had no part in attacking us on 9/11.

Our great president, coveting Iraq's petroleum, blindly attacks secular Iraq and unleashes religious zealots formerly held in check by Saddam.

Our great president, a weak-minded and insecure bully, ignores the international community and starts a conflagration in the heart of the middle-east.

And Democrats have no plan for victory. Why it just leaves me speechless.