NYT: Key Dems Say they Could SUPPORT Short Term Troop Increase" WTF?

[mod mom]

Thursday, January 4, 2007
WASHINGTON NEWS

Not A Surge, But A "Bump"

McClatchy is reporting today President Bush "plans to order extra US troops to Iraq as part of a new push to secure Baghdad, but in smaller numbers than previously reported, US officials said Wednesday." Bush, according to these officials, "is considering dispatching three to four U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, or no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, the officials said. Bush is expected to announce his decision next week." A State Department official said, "Instead of a surge, it is a bump." That some kind of troop level increase will take place appears to be beyond doubt at this point. In case any doubt remained, UPI reports that White House spokesman Tony Snow said during his regular briefing Wednesday that "it is clear there needs to be a greater military presence in Baghdad."

Some good news for the White House as Bush prepares to announce this plans: The New York Times reports "key Senate Democrats say they could consider supporting a short-term increase in American troop levels in Iraq, a stance that reflects division within the party and could provide an opening for President Bush as he prepares to announce his revised plan for Iraq as early as next week." Also in the New York Times, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft comes out against "an American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, 'govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself,'" calling such a move "a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond." Scowcroft, a highly respected top aide to the first President Bush, may help sway some Republicans not to call for leaving Iraq now.

-snip

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070104.htm

Stephanie Miller and Cindy Sheehan were just talking about this, and I found this reference. UFB!

[hobbit709]

1. You notice it doesn't name names

Wanta bet that "key democrat" means Lieberman?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. He is not a Democrat

I think it is vitally important that we correct the media each and every time they call him a Democrat.

[DeeDeeNY]

4. That cannot be

He's a member of the "Lieberman Party"!!
:sarcasm:

[mod mom]

5. The article says PLURAL Dems. Haven't found names yet.

[solara]

6. Lieberman and who else?

DemocratS....we need names. Shame shame shame on whoever it was.

Are we ever going to be able to trust our elected representatives again?

:banghead:

[mod mom]

15. Harry Reid

Reported a couple of weeks ago (go to link his picture is there from a yahoo story):

Brief troop increase OK in Iraq
Found 17 days ago on news.yahoo.com

The Senate's top Democrat offered qualified support Sunday for a plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq, saying it would be acceptable as part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by 2008.

-snip
http://tailrank.com/975534/Brief-troop-increase-OK-in-Iraq

[Poiuyt]

22. Reid, Lieberman, Reyes, Levin

See this thread from last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3035881&mesg_id=3035881

[salin]

2. sounds like wiggly words "could support"

but without the oft given caveats (time contingent - and other highbars the admin is NOT likely to include). Press complicitness in trying to make it look like there is more support than there really is? I don't trust the way this is worded and what is left out.

[Jacobin]

7. We all know they're gonna do it

The spine transplant is only partially successful. They are still afraid of 'being weak on terra', or 'not supporting the troops', or the other balderdash that they allow the republics to hang around their necks without coming out and getting in their faces and saying what's really going on which is that the republics have destroyed our military and iraq and its time to stop.

I wish I were wrong.

Eventually, it will end, but only when bush is out of office and can blame the failure of iraq on someone else

[Cass]

8. Hmmm. This is disturbing. Wonder if they are referring to Lieberman?

Do they still call him a democrat? The article is referencing "key Senate democratS" - plural democrats. Wonder what's going on?

[Why Syzygy]

12. He ran as an Indpendent. n/t

[Cass]

17. I know, but I'm wondering if the media still refers to him a dem? nt

[Spazito]

21. Yep, they are, they refer to him as Independent/Democrat but

often just leave off the Independent part when it suits him so I would bet Lieberman is one of those key "Dems".

[Why Syzygy]

9. Short term increase to GET THEM ALL OUT!

That's the mission. Restoring a nation destroyed by greed and mismanagement is not the role of our troops. Get them OUT.

[Why Syzygy]

10. Sorry dupe. n/t

[salin]

11. how does escalation get them out? how does "short time" get measured?

[mod mom]

13. Bush says 6 months, then in 6 months he says 6 MORE months. Haven't we

heard his lies before?

OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

[Why Syzygy]

14. Short term is as long as it takes

to get them Out. My un-professional opinion is that we don't even have enough resources there at this time to evacuate. There won't be any candy and roses on that day either. I didn't mention escalate. Evacuate. Out.

[salin]

19. wordplay - "surge" = "escalate"

even the msm is beginning to call bushco on the term "surge" and replace it with escalation.

[npincus]

16. Traitors -- if they exist.

[BayCityProgressive]

18. If this happens

I am done with the Dems forever. Their domestic program is pathetic and they have already enabled so many wars in the past. If this is allowed to continue I'm done with them and I don't care if I am calle da 3rd party spoiler or whatever. I will wait to see what happens but I am pretty cynical at this point.

[spanone]

20. Considering Bushs* previous cocaine use, 'bump' probably appeals to him more.

Stop the fucking madness NOW!