home

Republicans To End The Debacle . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:45:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

or so say the usual suspects.

Atrios has been all over this and there is no need to rehash the obvious.

I mean how many times will the Beltway Gasbags trot this bromide out?

The question that remains for the autumn is what the Republicans will do. Their congressional members voted almost unanimously to give the president financing long enough to sustain the current offensive. . . . But just below the surface, the GOP ground is beginning to shift. . . . Mitch McConnell, the supremely realistic Senate Republican leader, told reporters that "the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it."

The problem is the President says he has changed course:

Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq . . . . I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course.

One more time Charlie Brown?

< Fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Somewhere An E-mail Will Lead to Rove | Scooter Libby Judge to Release Sentencing Letters to Media >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans To End The Debacle . . . | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is that bridge McConnell's selling (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    in iron or steel?

    Republicans (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    are falling all over themselves to flip and form a veto proof majority with the Democrats. Any day now there will be enough of them to veto any thoughts of forcing Bush to withdrawal.

    Parent
    Bush says he has (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    changed course:

    Bush Envisions US Presence in Iraq Like South Korea
    Reuters, Wednesday 30 May 2007

    Washington - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

    The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.
    ...
    Iraq's neighbors have raised concerns about the possibility of the United States maintaining permanent bases in Iraq, and some U.S. lawmakers have said they think the Iraqi insurgency may have been fueled by perceptions the United States wants a permanent presence in the country.

    Washington has consistently denied wanting permanent bases in Iraq.

    It's easy to tell how much the Iraqi people want a permanent presence of 'liberating' US troops in their country sent by Bush, by counting the number of attacks on them...

    From the AP article BTD linked to:

    Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said the president's new language exploits the fact that there is no one alternative strategy for the public to coalesce around, which clearly spells out how to bring troops home. Bush can argue that people agree with him because no one can define the alternative, Fields said.
    Say what? There is no one alternative strategy for the public to coalesce around, which clearly spells out how to bring troops home?

    There isn't? Stop funding it.

    Oh nooo... I'm too slow... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:08:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Publicans to end Debacle... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desertswine on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    Oh noooo....   and just when Bush finally sets a pullout date...   in fifty years.

    IMO The Republicans Will Produce The Illusion Of (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    a change in Iraq strategy before the 08 elections.

    Yesterday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that "by September, when General Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down."

    The total troop size in Iraq has increased as part of the surge strategy. This fall in order to escape political defeat, the Republicans will publicly negotiate with Bush to draw those surge numbers down. The Republicans will take political credit for reducing the number of troops in Iraq while pointing out that this was something that the Democrats couldn't accomplish.

    If you push up to 200,000 troops, and then cut 65-100,000, you can say you've cut a substantial number while actually leaving roughly the same (if 65 are pulled) as we had before the surge.  That way, you don't really change the overall number over time and get the bump of bringing some of the troops back.  Will american citizen buy it?  Will the Dems call W on this?  I don't know, but I suspect that it will give the MSM ammunition to hack at the Dems.
    [http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/5/31/93138/4587/7#c7]
    Is the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    monumental failure of the Democrats with their caving finally becoming clear?

    And what a great parallel it is. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    Just look at all those daily attacks on US troops trying to drive them out of their country.

    In South Korea....

    Change course? (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:19:10 PM EST
    I must have missed a memo...I thought we were "staying the course".

    It's so hard to keep up with the Orwellian language of our leaders.

    But, but, but, but... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    You mean you didn't know that that you didn't really want a withdrawal from Iraq?
    Bush says Democrats have it all wrong: the public does not want the troops pulled out - they want to give the military more support in its mission.
    Bush is only trying to give you what you want. How can he do that without changing course?

    Ahem...

    Parent

    It all hinges on (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    which side of the mirror you look at the situation from.
    "But I don't want to go among mad people" Alice remarked.

    "Oh, you can't help that" said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."

    "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.

    "You must be" said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."



    Parent
    It's so semantic (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donna Z on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:00:45 PM EST
    Bush did change the course when he made the decision to "stay the course more." Language is a virus.

    Parent
    Military fatalaties (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:52:41 AM EST
    Just to put some context on the "debacle", here are military fatalaties for the years since the last full year Jimmy Carter was in office.

    Year      Total   Hostile Action
    1980      2,392
    1981      2,380
    1982      2,319
    1983      2,465       18
    1984      1,999        1
    1985      2,252
    1986      1,984        2
    1987      1,983       37
    1988      1,819
    1989      1,636       23
    1990      1,507
    1991      1,787      147
    1992      1,293
    1993      1,213
    1994      1,075
    1995      1,040
    1996        974        1
    1997        817
    1998        827
    1999        796
    2000        758
    2001        891        3
    2002        999       18
    2003      1,228      334*
    2004      1,874      739*
    2005      1,924      739*
    2006      1,858      753*
    * Figures are hostile action during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

    Here is the DOD source

    Note that military fatalaties under Bush have never exceeded the last full year of Jimmy Carter's term in office.

    Just to put some context on (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle...

    Iraq: What Television Censors Won't Show You:

    After 4 years of illegal, violent Occupation the post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq total ONE MILLION (UN Population Division and medical literature data). Taken together with 1.7 million excess deaths in the 1990-2003 Sanctions War (UN Population Division) and 3.7 million Iraqi refugees (UNHCR), this constitutes an Iraqi Genocide (as defined by the UN Genocide Convention) and an Iraqi Holocaust in comparison with the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million victims). The Iraqi under-5 infant deaths (1990-2007) now total 1.8 million, 90% having been avoidable and due to Western war crimes. Total Iraqi excess deaths (1990-2007) total 2.7 million. The post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan now total 2.2 million
    ...
    Three quarters of the people of Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan are Women and Children.

    The Bush War on Terror is in horrible reality a cowardly War on Women and Children, a War on Asian Women and Children and a War on Muslim Women and Children.



    Parent
    Surely you can find bigger guestimates (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:34:34 PM EST
     
    ...medical literature data...

    Does that medical literature estimate include the study whose author was a congressional candidate running on an anti-war platform?  

    Parent

    It's quite obvious you didn't ::read:: the article (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:29:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Republicans To End The Debacle . . . | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment