Bush is an absolute moron. He's sending more young men and women to die for his lies, arrogance and hubris.
How can we have a President who's so against the American people and the world?
There is no reason to trust him or Congress at all.
Kennedy's move is well intended, but it doesn't tell Bush NO. It tells him that he has to ask for it first. If he asks for $$$ Congress will give it. They haven't said anything otherwise.
It takes more than an election and some blogging to apply pressure and make these f*ckers stop this ridiculous occupation.
America Says NO more troops!
Thursday, Jan. 11th
A Nationwide Surge of Protest of The US Military Occupation of Iraq
Let's deliver an immediate and direct response to the president's call for escalation: NO!
Volunteers will host actions in cities and towns across the country within 24 hours of the president's speech with a simple message: "America says NO more troops in Iraq!"
That's been the problem from day 1 -- having the politicians decide military strategy instead of the generals. From Rumsfields "light" invasion force (to assauge fears of a big, expensive war but leaving insufficient troops to guard weapons depots) to Paul Bremer's disbanding of the military (to make people think old Saddam Iraq was now officially gone but instantly creating an armed and organized resistance movement) to this Bush's new, directionless "surge" (to make people think he's taking new steps but really just sending more troops with no recognizable, achievable goal).
I wish Bush was just a comma in the history books! Instead, he'll be a colon, dash, and left-parenthetical. :-(
He's an asshat. I weap for our country.
To answer your (presumably rhetorical) question: none whatsoever.
This so-called "strategy" is nothing more than a holding action on the part of the Bush Administration, intended to give the appearance they're doing something positive about the completely FUBAR situation they've created, in the hopes it will buy them enough time to get through the '08 elections when they can hand the whole mess over to a Democratic president, who will then presumably become the focus of GOP ire and blame roughly five minutes after taking the oath of office for not extricating our suddenly mis-lead troops out of a quagmire.
Even if you thought the war was a good idea at first (which I don't), Bush and his advisers (or handlers, whatever) have completely fucked up every aspect of prosecuting the war from the the minute after the troops walked into Baghdad. Sure, he directed the mighty US military to march into Baghdad and topple Saddam's government. Which they did with relative speed and efficiency. But after that... nadda. Exit strategy? What's that? He obviously never had the slightest idea of what to do after he toppled Saddam, nor any clue how the Iraqi people would react to our invasion. He still doesn't.
And where is he going to come up with 20,000 more troops? He's already sending some reserve and/or guard units over there for the third time.
It is a complete clusterfuck over there. Iraq is now involved in a civil war, whether we want to admit it or not. I can't see how increasing our troop level by roughly 10% is going to magically solve a civil war. I can't see how it will be of any use whatsoever. Doubling our troop strength might have some effect, but there is clearly no stomach for it, and we couldn't come up with that many more troops if we had to.
Bush is in a no-win situation now, and is floundering for any semblance of a solution. He's hoping that sending more troops will make him look muscular, but it would solve nothing.
I T M F A !!
is fnarf sick today? where's his post supporting bush's plan?
You come up with 20,000 more troops by extending tours and rotations; keep some of them that are there now there longer, and send over those scheduled to relieve them sooner, viola! 20,000 more troops in the theatre.
And you're right; nobody but shrub himself, a couple of particularly syncophantic advisors, and a bare handful of generals think this is A.) a Good Strategy; B.) will actually have any positive effect on the current situation; and C.) has a snowball's chance of suppressing the violence in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country.
But, hey, so long as the oil keeps flowing, and so long as Exxon, Gulf, Shell & BP can get their hands on it before the lil' muff leaves office, then that's all that really matters, right? After that, it's somebody else's problem.
Why doesn't any of the media talk or research the REAL reasons we're in this quagmire? The closest I've seen it Greg Palast's new book, Armed Madhouse.
We all know it wasn't WMDs, nor Iraq's "threat" to the US, nor any fanciful "connection" to either Al-Qaeda or 9/11.
I have some speculation as to why we are there, but I'd love some news-worthy research on this item.
A gov't isn't going to commit huge numbers of troops, inflame the inflammable, and risk World War V for no reason at all. And clearly they'd rather lie to us than tell us, so it has to be something The People wouldn't ever support. What are the REAL reasons?
Urg. fecked up the URL:
Greg Palast. His book is worth the read, very enlightening. Particularly about Saudi Arabia, our dictatorial, but rather "silent" partner in all this mess.
Apparently html has changed as my urls aren't working. Just go to http://gregpalast.com/
So, are we surging in deaths and deficits, then? How's about not sending more cash to help train Iranian-backed Iraqis?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).