Let the bastard have his "surge"...

[CoffeeCat]

I'm completely insulted that Junior is suggesting such an obvious recipe for failure--"a surge".
Even little old me--a stay-at-home, suburbanite mom from the sticks--sees the absurdity.

I say, that we give Junior just enough rope--with which to hang himself. If we
block "the surge"--Junior, the neocons and the rest of the warmongering Republicans
will forever blame the Democrats for Iraq's failure. Iraq is going to come apart
at the seams, and the rest of the Middle East will follow. Do WE want to be
blamed for that?

Give Junior his "surge". After it fails, he'll have NO OPTIONS and the perversity
of the neocon agenda will be dead for at least 100 years. If we block the surge,
we will be stepping into a trap. We'll be the scapegoats. We'll leave the door
open for the neocon agenda. I don't think America can survive another neocon
chapter.

Furthermore, there WILL be another terrorist attack in the next several years. When
that happens, the PNACers will point toward a blazing Iraq and a messed up Middle
East and they'll exclaim, "If only the Dems had given us adequate troops to fix
Iraq...this would have never happened. You can't trust the Dems with the military
or national security". The Dems will be bastardized for decades.

Let Junior have his surge. The little bastard needs to take responsibility for his
failures and live with the consequences. If we block him this time, we allow Junior
and the rest of the sick neocons to continue destroying this country. In effect,
we will be mopping up Junior's mess for him.

[Philosoraptor]

1. Some suggest that the Democrats let him have all the rope he wants.

I've heard some suggest this very strategy, to let them do as they please till folks have had enough, and let's face it, it may take just that.

[Kagemusha]

4. Well it's not like there's anything politically viable to stop him.

As I saw one writer say today, funding of troops in the field is where the Constitutional rubber hits the road. Short of that (which Biden has claimed is off the table) there isn't a whole lot that can be done to stop Bush from seizing all the rope he desires. The system's set up so that Presidents don't completely buck the will of Congress by encouraging compromise but, should a President foolishly seek to break this system, there are two outcomes, one of which is off the table. The other outcome is that he shall bear the full blame for failure that shall come, should there be the failure that one would expect from overreach beyond the political backing of the federal body nearest to the people, Congress.

[Philosoraptor]

12. "It's not like I can walk up to him & say, 'stop the surge'...

I heard some jerk quoted as saying this, and this is exactly what needs to be done, by the congress, every damned one of them, in his face, stop it you maniac, just stop it.

[Kagemusha]

17. No need to literally walk up to him.

The Secret Service doesn't like that sort of thing uninvited. Of course, the Secret Service operates with Congress' blessing in this matter.

No need for the jerk quoted to literally walk up to him. Some moral and political courage will do just fine. But, of course, doing that means Joe Klein won't call you a Serious Person anymore.

[ProgressiveFool]

8. How much more

Rope could he possibly be given? I think the American people are long past woken up, and the Democrats will pay a heavy price if they don't fight the escalation.

Plus, for me, political expediency has to be put aside entirely, when I think that the "surge" means more of our soldiers will be killed more quickly. Opposing the "surge" is the only right thing to do.

[JuniperLea]

2. No way! Mom to Mom...

He is killing our kids. His little political game is killing our kids! Surge=Targets... our kids... targets.

[CoffeeCat]

6. I understand that...but---

if the neocon agenda is allowed to continue---our kids will be dying in droves
and our nation will evolve into an imperialistic dictatorship fueled by military
might.

We're only in Iraq now. If these bastards have their way--we dominate
the entire globe with our military might. Check out the PNAC Web site.
Iraq is them getting their foot in the door. When the door is completely
open, and they're running through it--dominating dozens of countries militarily
(which is their ultimate wish) it will make Iraq seem like a friendly game
of Parcheesi.

Let them have a few inches, in the short run--so we can extinguish this evil
once and for all!

[Clevenger]

10. The US can't militarily dominate dozens of countries...

We don't have the money, the manpower, the equipment, or the public will to do so. The problem is that the insane Bush doesn't care about such inconvenient facts.

[CoffeeCat]

24. He'll use nukes and dirty tricks...

That's right. We don't have the soldiers--and that should scare everyone even more--because the
bastard will use nukes. He and Condi are all ready orchestrating Iran's demise. They'll nuke Iran.
Then, probably Syria.

We're in the run-up to Iran---right now. These bastards are not above a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and
I'm sure one is coming down the pike in the very-near future.

What we're seeing right now---is the mileage these clowns got from 9/11.

What happens after the next terrorist attack? What will they do? I'll
tell you what...anything they damn well please...because there is a certain
percentage of this population who will go for this sick stuff.

We have to allow Junior his surge--so America can be soured on it for decades.

Otherwise, we're looking at disastrous consequences for the entire globe on
a scale that will make the Iraq war look like small potatoes.

[Clevenger]

30. Nuking Iran's nuclear facilities accomplishes nothing militarily...

If Bush hopes to dominate Iran, Syria, etc., he'd have to put a million troops on the ground, which is impossible.

[bdamomma]

15. Iraq, how about Afghanistan, and the Taliban is in full force

and the NATO commanders are asking for more troops, and one more thing I hate Bush and what he has done to all of Us.

[npincus]

3. let him surge Jenna and Barbara

if he wants more blood on his hands.

I say fight the 'surge" and to hell with the political consequences.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. Yeah! He can have his surge if it's his blood that flows in the streets!

Because we CANNOT support more of our friends, neighbors, relatives dying for him.

[liberal N proud]

5. Surge = more death

More mothers, widows, orphans grieving at grave sites.

It is time to stop the mad man and stop the killing.

[bdamomma]

16. I wonder if the citizens of Germany said the same thing about

Hitler, Bush is no better.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. But, one surge, calls for another, and another. That's how we got ourselves buried in Nam.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807C.shtml


In early 1964, the US had 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam who were advisers to the South Vietnamese military. On July 27, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson ordered 5,000 additional military advisers to South Vietnam, bringing the total US troop level to 21,000.

As a result of the Honolulu conference, President Johnson authorized a "surge" in troop strength to 429,000 by August 1966. So, in less than two years, the presidential "surge" in Vietnam had reached over 400,000 troops - from 21,000 in July 1964 to 429,000 in August 1966.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Agreed. But please don't call it a "surge," unless...

...you put it in quotes. Better yet, please call it what it is: an ESCALATION. Otherwise, you are helping the Rape-Publicans to frame the debate.

:rant:

NGU.

[bdamomma]

18. but bush wamts to ESCALATE everywhere, with the blessings of

PNAC criminals this has got to STOP.

[ClassWarrior]

9. You're afraid enough of being "blamed" to sacrifice LIVES??!

"Junior, the neocons and the rest of the warmongering Republicans will forever blame the Democrats for Iraq's failure."

So WHAT?? Then we explain why they're WRONG. They're going to blame us for everything from the black plague to the common cold, so we might as well let 'em blame us for protecting the sanctity of life.

NGU.

[CoffeeCat]

20. I don't care about being blamed....

...I care that their blaming will be believed by a certain percentage of the US population. I don't
care that we'll take the heat. I'm concerned that the blaming will be fuel for propaganda that will
enable more and more war--that has absolutely no end.

If enough people believe that the Dems screwed up the Iraq war--those same people will vote in
neocons. They'll support their agenda. After they're stricken--when the next "9/11" hits--they'll
believe that the Dems wrecked Iraq and can't be trusted with their security.

We either allow Junior this short-term surge---and experience some death now---OR we will end
up enabling the neocon agenda--which will bring untold death and destruction to the entire globe.

If the neocon agenda is allowed to be viable---they will take Iran and Syria next. They will use
nuclear weapons. Because, as a previous poster said--they don't have the soldiers to fight the
wars they want. They will nuke Iran or Syria or both. ...and that's just for starters.

Yes, it's sick and sad that more soldiers will have to die. However, the neocon agenda
must be extinguished once and for all.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Sorry, that's pink tutu thinking.

At the end of the day, we have to do what's right and we have to defend it. And that's the best we can do.

NGU.

[lazyriver]

11. The downside to letting him take this direction is

that he is not playing with chess pieces here. He's playing with and wasting people's lives. Escalating the troop levels will certainly mean more death in the short term and probably will mean more death over a longer period of time as well. That said, I agree with Philosoraptor that there might be no other way to end this madness than to let the bungling fool put his name and reputation all over this new 'plan' and watch it fail miserably. Maybe at that point the sleeping masses in America will take to the streets by the millions demanding an end to the war and his pResidency.

[Debau2005]

14. NO!

And who do want to be part of this surge? My man that just got back? My wonderful man, that saw two of his fellow soldiers killed? My man that drove convey protection for Halliburton? My man that had to wonder if the debris in the road was a bomb?

NO! Send your's if you want, but me and mine have had enough. :mad:

[burf]

19. * wants a surge?

Then ask him how he's gonna pay for it. The supporters of this cluster fuck need to come up with the cash to fund it. No more off budget "special appropriations".

The Dems answer to "little lord pissy pants" it simple. Introduce a tax increase on those who got the big tax cut. Call it a "sacrifice for the war effort" that these people love so much. All the big buck war hawks such as Bill Kristol and his friends at PNAC and the AEI ought to step right up in support. If they don't then the question is "why don't you support the troops?".

Raise marginal tax rates through the roof. Those making over 100K pay a 65% marginal tax rate. Those over 200K, 85%. You want this war, then pay for it.

I figure we would be out of Iraq in a month.

[Beelzebud]

21. The Bastard will have his surge weather we like it or not.

The question is, will the adults (Democrats) take away his allowance, or will they allow him to continue?

[Marr]

22. It's about moving the line of debate. I don't think the Bush Administration actually cares

if they get their "surge" or not. Not really.

By demanding more troops, they're trying to put the new Congress on the defensive. The question has changed from "should we be in Iraq?" to "should we send more troops to Iraq?". I expect they only want to maintain the status quo at this point.

This is what they always do- they go on the offensive. It's their *only* trick. I've been surprised to see no commentary on that point. Everyone seems to assume that Bush's push for a "surge" is being done out of some sincere exectation that it'll help.

[European Socialist]

23. Don't agree. But a "surge" would elect a lot of Dems in 2008.

[bluewave]

25. The amusing part: It will be Republicans that kill the surge.

We won't need to lift a finger, imo. There will be enough Republican defectors it won't get ugly. Call me naive, but I'd bet they care more about their jobs than about Bushlegacy.

[bbgrunt]

26. as long as we keep our powder dry, we are complicit.

period.

[On the Road]

27. I Am Inclined to Agree, BUT....

it has to be done carefully so as not become another Iraq War Resolution. This might involve:

1) Denying the troop surge in a standalone bill which Bush will be sure to either ignore or veto.

2) Giving Bush what we asked for and no more -- that is, a defined number of troops for a defined period of time and no more.

I don't think a surge is going to make a noticeable difference one way or another. But either obstruction and accommodation can become political weapons and must be avoided.

[jmowreader]

31. The "rope" you speak of is 20,000 flag-draped boxes

If this "surge" was one of his tax cuts or one of his attempts to destroy the public sector...fine. Let him surge.

We are not talking about a tax cut. We are talking about sending twenty thousand human beings, twenty thousand highly trained individuals with wives, children and cats on their laps, to a war we shouldn't even be in, and we expect the death rate to increase after we do it.

I got a better idea. Let's surge Shrub's scrawny ass into a witness box, surge his right hand into the air, surge his left hand onto a Bible, and find out whether he was born a stupid, lazy, murdering puke piece of shit or if he had to work on it.