Richard WarnickA Last Big Push in Iraq?
According to a report in The Guardian, President Bush intends to respond to calls for an end to the war in Iraq by announcing “a last big push.” Bush will put pressure on Democrats with a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. He is expected to hijack the Baker Commission’s supposedly bipartisan report to bolster a plan that could be called “stay the course” version 4.0. A blogger on DailyKos today summarized it as “grab more shovels and dig faster.”
Four-point “victory strategyâ€
· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq
· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others
· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces
“You’ve got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it’s Bush still calling the shots. He believes it’s a matter of political will. That’s what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he’s going to stick with it,” a former senior administration official said. “He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he’s got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall.”
The “last push” strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans “political time and space” to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. “The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they’ll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It’s all about who’s going to be in best shape to win the White House.
The official added: “Bush has said ‘no’ to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they’re going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it.”
Bush’s so-called “victory strategy” is just a plan to sacrifice American, British and Iraqi lives to stave off inevitable defeat until after he leaves the White House. Will the Democrats play along or call his bluff?
UPDATE: CNN says the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit already has orders to deploy to Anbar Province.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Just think if they impeached bush now, and did their duty, they could remove bush and save everyone that is to die in iraq before the next election. At least they could claim the moral high ground by trying. Instead they twiddle politics.
So, if bush is responsible for all these deaths, and dems won’t stop him, then ALL the dead in the next 2 years goes on the dems complicit conscience. What do they gain in return? Apparently political leverage.
So there you have it people, a group of leaders, bi-partisan willing to see people DEAD, rather than do their duty and possibly lose power.
This is an ABOMINATION,
NOT FIT TO RULE!
Question is, will you personally support it?
November 16th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“If the Democrats were smart, They’d play along”. NOT. NOT. The presumptiion that the Democrats would be smart to play along with Dummy, Scummy and still Rummy is almost what I’d expect from them. More lunacy.
Since the Republicans still have the majority of everything, let them steer this fiery wreck as they will. What have the Dems got to do with it? Whatever they (the ‘pub majority, and responsible party) want to do, they should pursue, it’s their baby and, it’ll only show up what treacherous policy they support.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Today’s major defeat by Nancy Pelosi to install the unindicted co-conspirator of Abscam John Murtha to the majority leadership shows that the anti-war forces in the Democrat party lack the votes to force the Presidents hand. Remember many of the newly elected Democrats are pro-military and conservative. Democrats may have won a majority but the far left is still a small minority that just happen to be in leadership positions. Just because the Democtrats won does not mean they are a united party. On the contrary there are major differences and will cause Pelosi some major headaches. She struck out on her first time at bat and the jury is still out whether she has what it takes to lead such a fractured party. This is going to be fun to watch.
November 16th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Ken, you have a valid point. However being pro-military and conservative doesn’t have to mean pro-Bush, as Rep. Murtha proved a year ago. Conversely, being against this war doesn’t always translate to “far left” either.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell is saying that the Baker Commission will recommend phased withdrawal, basically Jack Murtha’s idea. Bush is truly in a state of denial.
November 16th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Ken,
I don’t know as “major defeat” really sums up the situation. Furthermore, why would you term the future of the (ours, yours) government “fun to watch”? For all the Bush bashing I have done, and I have done a lot, I don’t recall ever characterizing the turmoil of the Repug-led government “fun to watch.” Indeed, I found the whole mess rather frightful to watch (excepting the elections, of course). But maybe you find killing innocents and soldiers, wrecking the environment, and ruining our position in the world, among many other shortcomings of the Bush-era fun to watch. I don’t!
Prediction: Pelosi will do just fine!
November 16th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
One Nephi
When I said it is going to be fun to watch what I meant is it will be fun to watch the interparty squabbles and battles that will erupt in such a divided party. What will not be fun to watch is to see the havoc that Democrats will reek when they accually agree on something. Whenever Democrats are in power gridlock is by far the best condition since it keeps us safe and secure of our posessions.
November 16th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
At least there will be squabbles…on issues…rather than allegiance the the Reich wing.
November 16th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
C’mon Neph, I have witnessesedyou personally laughing at the then improbability, of the American people, to believe bush and republicans on political issues during some of their outrageous twisted moments. Sadly everyone apparently bought in.
Nobody has the high ground in this battle of moles.
Remember that dems have been carrying the Kings trolley as well, in every vote, house and senate, as the noose tightened around the American(and Iraqi)peoples neck.
Isn’t it, or hasn’t it been, some damn fun watching the Daily Show?
November 16th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
reek is stink, wreak as in havoc. Fell free to correct my grammer at will.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Bush - Nixon Comparison Ad - ACLU
For Wide distribution
See:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/bushnixonwiretappingadvertisementinnyt.pdf
November 16th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I really like Nancy Pelosi. She’s very clean and she has lots of children that seem to love her. I think that should be a measure of a politician.
If your kids hate you, you need to go.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Cassandra
I think reek is pretty fitting.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
[...] It has been clear for the last five or six weeks that Bush wants to “surge,” or make a last-gasp effort to secure Baghdad using an additional 20,000 combat troops (not enough, but it’s probably the maximum available). No one in the White House seems to understand that such a move would be counterproductive. Opinion polls show that Iraqis want us out. Increasing our troop presence would only add to the impression that U.S. forces intend to remain as permanent occupiers. [...]