AFAIC, Bush's "surge" plan is just a political ploy to shift the blame to Democrats

[mtnsnake]

for the war if we prevent the surge....OR...for buying enough time to get the war to last through 2008 and beyond if we allow the surge to happen.

Okay, let's say Bush gets his way and we send 20 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to "get the job done". Anyone with half a brain knows that any surge by us will result in a much larger surge of new insurgents to Iraq. A surge by Bush will be just another rallying cry for the other side to recruit 5 times as many insurgents as any new troops we send over. One side escalates which causes the other side to escalate even more. The war drags on and on with no victory in sight for anyone, just like Bush wants.

So, why is this surge idea just a political ploy? It's a ploy because it's aimed at shifting the blame from Bush to blaming the Democrats. The war cannot be won, so the next best thing is to blame the Democrats. That will become the name of the game. The "surge" idea is the perfect plan...perfect for getting Democrats blamed, one way or another.

Let's do two "what ifs".

What if the Democratic Congress doesn't support funding for the surge? If a Democratic Congress doesn't support the funding for this latest surge in troops and kills the plan, the Democrats will be blamed for "capping" the war and ruining Bush's mighty plan (rolling eyes) to win the war on terror. Cut and Run will once again be the battle cry in 2008. The mighty USA will be said to have lost another war and it'll be spun as being all the fault of Democrats because Democrats didn't let Bush have the necessary number of troops to get the job done. That's the way Republicans will spin it.

What if the Democratic Congress DOES give Bush one last chance to get the job done with his surge idea? If a Democratic Congress DOES give Bush his way with the surge, Democrats all over will be wondering WTF happened to their Party, not that many aren't already wondering that now. We don't need anymore of that. Also, if funding is allowed by Democrats for this surge, then the surge in troops means a new plan in Baghdad is suddenly in effect, which in turn means IT WILL TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THIS NEW PLAN, which in turn means it gives Bush the perfect opportunity to BUY JUST ENOUGH TIME TO GET HIM THROUGH 2008 and for Republicans to walk into another election with a war theme intact, something that benefits them and only them.

This surge idea is nothing but a cheap "Rovian" political trick, which will come at the expense of even more of our troops' lives and the lives of countless more Iraqis. It's all about BUYING TIME, and it's about SHIFTING THE BLAME from the real culprits, the Republicans, to the Democrats. How our Party handles this is going to be very interesting. It won't be easy.

We need to stop the madness and get our troops home. So....any ideas on how our Dems can thwart this plan and NOT have the blame shifted from Bush to us?

[wtmusic]

1. "The surge" will reduce violence in the short term

and make W look like a hero.

The goal is to forestall the ultimate debacle, and let the real caca hit the fan when a Dem administration takes office in 2009.

Which is why it should be fought tooth and nail.

[Dhalgren]

12. Every increase in troops levels in Baghdad over the past two years

have resulted in an increase in the violence and bloodshed. So that point won't wash. I think that the OP has hit the nail on the head. This is a purely political move that has no military value at all, except a negative value: it will worsen the conflict and increase the number of US casualties. This is Bush's 'get out of jail' card and he is buying it with the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians - and the receipt will be handed to the Democrats...

[wtmusic]

15. The volume is significant

if it's only 10,000-15,000 troops I would agree with you.

Putting 30,000 more troops into Baghdad, all at once, will send insurgents temporarily into hiding, just as it did in our initial invasion. For that reason, I don't think they'll do it if they can't come up with at least 30,000 more troops.

[ClassWarrior]

2. I pick what-if number one and say the people have spoken.

The criminals are going to whine no matter what we do, so let 'em whine about us doing THE RIGHT THING.

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

3. One has to wonder if this is what Bush is secretly hoping for, too

I wouldn't be surprised if he's throwing this plan out there with the hopes it gets rejected because of a Democratic majority. In turn, it will give him the excuse to finally to pack it in because he can use this to blame Democrats for causing us to "Cut and Run" by blocking his surge. Blaming Democrats gives him a way out.

[ClassWarrior]

5. But "blaming Democrats" is nothing we should fear.

It'll only make him look petty and vindictive to the vast majority of the American people anymore. That's what happens when the Rape-Publicans overplay their hands and "blame Dems" for every damn thing, including their own crimes and failures.

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

9. I agree, but you've gotta admit that this "surge" plan is a sneaky move

and a pretty clever one, as it gives Bush a way out (if it's defeated) and at the same time a means of blaming Democrats. Let's just hope that Democrats do the right thing....refuse to fund the surge, but at the same time have a plan to keep the blame for "losing" the war right where it belongs, square on Bush.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Yeah, it is sneaky. I expect nothing less from these freaks.

But indications seem to be that the Dems are starting to play smart. Look at Kennedy's email today. He repeats the word "escalation" about 50 times in the first paragraph! Okay, I'm exaggerating, but it sure looks like Ted took his Lakoff pills. And Nancy and Harry too.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

14. More proof of Lakoffian influence...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=12076&mesg_id=12076

NGU.

[bpeale]

7. oh hell yeah! right on!

[whistle]

4. To stop the war and bring our troops home we must IMPEACH NOW!

...Impeach Bush/Cheney now

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. It absolutely is! Even called that by WH officials

Everything that Bush does is put through the Rove filter for PR (Political Relations) strategy. Unless and until the Democrats learn to stop being defense and go aggressively on the OFFENSE, it's always going to be the same story.

The letter from Reid/Pelosi was a good 'offense' to start with, but it remains to be seen whether they have a Option A, Option B, Option C for the second down. That's where the Democrats so often fail but why Karl Rove succeeds. Democrats get the ball, fire a pass and they either cheer because they didn't fumble or it gets intercepted. They don't seem to have plans for possible outcomes to keep moving forward and then they're playing defense all over again. :banghead:

Here's hoping Rahm Immanuel gets the job done with backup plans, and that Harry gets the Senate's war room back on track.

[mtnsnake]

8. Exactly. In past times we've been pretty poor at thinking ahead

and having plans to counter any Republican nonsense. Hopefully, like you say, we've got Plans B, C, and D up our sleeves if needed.

[meti57b]

10. We're sending 20,000 surgents to fight the insurgents.

[mzmolly]

13. True, however

democrats will not support a surge and neither does the public whom they represent. We have nothing to lose in opposing a last minute Hail Mary pass by this administration. America knows that this war is futile and we want our kids home.

Peace.

[Catchawave]

16. Blame Democrats or The Generals ?

Make up your mind Boosh :banghead:

Sidebar: He isn't listening to any of them :cry: