Comments on Voter Vault: All In.

Greg, I hope 1 doesn't happen. They need to fulfi...

2007-01-11T06:48:00.000-05:00

Greg,
I hope 1 doesn't happen. They need to fulfill their constitutional role, which is oversight. The should and will have tough hearings to hold people to account for mistakes that have been made and money that has been mismanaged. Everybody says that this is the last escalation and I suspect that they're right. But I think that with every escalation in Vietnam the country was told that it was the last one.

This is not the Democrats' mess. There's not a lot they can do about the direction of the war right now. They should focus on bringing to light the mistakes up to this point and trying to keep the Executive branch in check within their constitutional role. If this goes badly it will still be Bush's war and Bush's escalation.

After hearing the speech last night, it sounds like there's more of a plan than before. I sincerely hope it works and I'm proved wrong. A stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq would be great for the world. If it happens I'll be the first to congratulate Bush. I would be quite shocked, but still happy.

Normally, I don't like commenting on the Iraqi war...

2007-01-10T23:44:00.000-05:00

Normally, I don't like commenting on the Iraqi war, as I never seem to be familiar with all of the latest news.

However, it does seem to me that several things could happen.

1. Bush sends troops, Dems. deny funds.

2. Bush sends troops, Dems. give funds.

3. Bush doesn't send troops, part two is irrelevant.

Choice three will not happen. He's the C.I.C, and he can send who he wants and when he wants.

Bush sending troops will hurt him politically, period. It's not good for him, b/c most people don't want this troops surge.

So, what can the Dems do. They can stop funding. If they do, they probably look bad in the eyes of the public.

If they give funding, they probably look bad in the eyes of the public.

Either way, they're going to look bad. Either way, Bush looks bad.

This is a political dead end for Bush, and a political quagmire for the Dems.

The only way out for Bush is an improvement. The only way out for the Dems is approving the funding and hoping for improvement, denying the funding, and hoping for failure, or resigning to pursue other interests (quilting, Nancy?)

However, I think it is safe to say that this will not become another Vietnam with tens of thousands of US troops dead. Because, if this troop surge doesn't work (for funding or otherwise), if the violence isn't quelled, then that's it for American involvment here. Bush will be at the end of the rope...the absolute end of the rope.

If this troop surge does not work, public support for staying in the war will hover around 9%.

I'm not saying what anyone should do with Iraq...that is not for me, and I won't touch it, I just want to comment on the political situation.

I do believe that the Dems winning control of Congress in 2006 was the best thing for Republicans who want to take the White House in 2008.

If the GOP still controlled Congress, Bush and his congressional rubberstampers would be in the quicksand together. But now everyone can be there, having a summer quicksand party. They'll be no Marco Polo at this party, only the game of "Who is sinking faster"?

Right now, it's the President, and the troop surge will either be a liferope for him, or a heavy lourde attached to him.

Sidenote --> Has anyone noticed that over the past three years, the word "quelled" as been used more than ever?

We must get our news from different places, becaus...

2007-01-10T08:41:00.000-05:00

We must get our news from different places, because I haven't noticed a big appeal to emotion on the part of people opposing this escalation. Here are the reasons I've seen.

1. It was tried in August of this year and it didn't work. The neighborhoods taken by US troops were pacified for a time, but as soon as they left, the violence returned.

2. 20,000 is not enough. McCain says this and he also says that it should be for at least 18 months.

3. There aren't 20,000 more troops to send in. We're already stretched thin with multiple and extended tours.

4. My congressman, Ike Skelton, has been saying that it's way too late for this type of strategy.

5. Abizaid and Casey, the (former) generals on the ground, oppose this plan. Bush has said all along that he'll listen to his generals when it comes to troop levels. Then when they oppose his new plan he kicks them to the curb. He'll say that they've failed and need to be replaced, which may be true, but if you want an example of choosing politics over statesmanship, look no further. This was a brilliant political maneuver. He passed the buck for all those months and now he's using them as a scapegoat for his failed policy. He'll reshuffle the chairs and start the cycle over again.

So, there are five reasons that I think this is not a good move, and none of them are emotional. Do you have some examples of what you're talking about. I did read about Ted Kennedy comparing this to LBJ's escalation in Vietnam. I guess that does invoke the strong feelings related to that war, but I don't think it's far fetched comparison.

If more troops go in I hope it works and things in Iraq improve, but have a hard time believing that it will unfold that way. He's trying to draw to an inside straight and the chips he's pushing in are actual human people with real lives and families. The casino needs to stop serving him drinks and call 1-800-BETS-OFF for him.