The new McCain Plan ad blasts him. And it would be hilarious if it weren't tragic.

[Genx87]

Moveon.org? Didnt know anybody even listened to them anymore.

Lop them and Air America together and you may get a small crowd of listeners.

/shrug

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To DealMonkey--who wrote--From what I've seen thus far, it's the same old stuck-on-stupid, stay-the-course BS + 20K extra troops. So the F what?

Far be it from me to say that you are per say wrong---but at the 42'nd month of our occupation a rather strange and unpredented event occured---namely the Repubs lost control of both wings of congress. That very evening Rummy got fired---and GWB&co. was in the hot seat--now at month 44 the delayed reality of democratic control was realized----and GWB went to the American people and outlined the new game plan. Unless our commander and thief is totally lying, he fully intends to use these extra 20,000 or so addition troops--agumented by vatious Iraqi forces---to take the fight directly to the insurgents with Al Sadr being likely target number one.

So this maybe very different strategy from the Rummy minimize US casualties.

Well, if there is more to the strategery beyond adding 20K more troops, I'd like to hear it. I'm sure Congress would too.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To DealMonkey--who wrote--From what I've seen thus far, it's the same old stuck-on-stupid, stay-the-course BS + 20K extra troops. So the F what?

Far be it from me to say that you are per say wrong---but at the 42'nd month of our occupation a rather strange and unpredented event occured---namely the Repubs lost control of both wings of congress. That very evening Rummy got fired---and GWB&co. was in the hot seat--now at month 44 the delayed reality of democratic control was realized----and GWB went to the American people and outlined the new game plan. Unless our commander and thief is totally lying, he fully intends to use these extra 20,000 or so addition troops--agumented by vatious Iraqi forces---to take the fight directly to the insurgents with Al Sadr being likely target number one.

So this maybe very different strategy from the Rummy minimize US casualties.

Well, if there is more to the strategery beyond adding 20K more troops, I'd like to hear it. I'm sure Congress would too.

Well, for one, Maliki has agreed to going after Sadr and the Shi'ite militias that he previously exerted most of his energy protecting. That's a rather large step in resolving the entire conflict, so I seriously hope it happens!

/fingers crossed.

 

[Lemon law]

To DealMonkey---who wrote---Well, if there is more to the strategy beyond adding 20K more troops, I'd like to hear it. I'm sure Congress would too.

Maybe like 2/3 of the American people, you did not listen to GWB's address to the nation, but he laid out rather detailed plans to use Iraqi army troops plus Iraqi police along side with US troops on a precinct by police precinct level. I may not believe it will be an effective plan or that it will work, but at least I listened. But at the end of the day---you may be right---and its just another plan long on rhetoric and short on implementation.

And a PS to to palehorse74 who wrote---Well, for one, Maliki has agreed to going after Sadr and the Shi'ite militias that he previously exerted most of his energy protecting. That's a rather large step in resolving the entire conflict, so I seriously hope it happens!

/fingers crossed.
---------------------------------------------------------

palehorse74---be careful what you wish for because you may get it---once the gloves are off, even you may get so much death on both sides that it gags both you and maggots.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To DealMonkey--who wrote--From what I've seen thus far, it's the same old stuck-on-stupid, stay-the-course BS + 20K extra troops. So the F what?

Far be it from me to say that you are per say wrong---but at the 42'nd month of our occupation a rather strange and unpredented event occured---namely the Repubs lost control of both wings of congress. That very evening Rummy got fired---and GWB&co. was in the hot seat--now at month 44 the delayed reality of democratic control was realized----and GWB went to the American people and outlined the new game plan. Unless our commander and thief is totally lying, he fully intends to use these extra 20,000 or so addition troops--agumented by vatious Iraqi forces---to take the fight directly to the insurgents with Al Sadr being likely target number one.

So this maybe very different strategy from the Rummy minimize US casualties.

Well, if there is more to the strategery beyond adding 20K more troops, I'd like to hear it. I'm sure Congress would too.

Well, for one, Maliki has agreed to going after Sadr and the Shi'ite militias that he previously exerted most of his energy protecting. That's a rather large step in resolving the entire conflict, so I seriously hope it happens!

/fingers crossed.

You sure are being fairly optimistic.....Don't count on it.
Al Maliki can't bite the hand that feeds him.

 

[Thump553]

"Surge" is a great PR word-it onjures up visions of an overwhelming wave surging upon a beach, sweeping away all debris in it's path and leaving everything sparkling clean. It also strongly implies an increase that is transitory or temporary in nature-who has ever heard of a permanent burst of strength?

Unfortunately "surge" differs from what the Bush administration proposed-a relatively small but explicitly open-ended increase in troop levels in the combat zone. Bush never discusses the fact that after this "surge" the troop levels will be back to where they were in December 2005 (which has already proven inadequate) and expressly is silent on the fact of further troop "surges" when this failure becomes apparent.

The term "escalation" is more appropriate but for anyone over 40 is irreversibly tainted by it's use by LBJ during the Vietnam War. Escalation does not (and did not in the Vietnam era either) imply in increase in the physical territory of the war, it means that the US is (open-endly) increasing it's commitment of manpower to the active war. For PR reasons this more correct term is unacceptable to the White House.

"Augmentation" appears to be a great term-it's dry, nonthreatening and implies that we are only tweaking our war efforts to hasten a successful conclusion. It does smack of dry technocratic Washingtonian doublespeak, however. In the end, it was probably rejected by the Administration for fears that the late night comics would make a total joke out of it.

In the end, the use of surge, escalation or augmentation has nothing to do with whether someone's core beliefs are liberal or conservative and it would do best to avoid such strait-jacketed narrow minded thought processes. From a grammatical standpoint, surge is clearly inappropriate and the more appropriate term would be escalation or augmentation. Personally I believe in straight talk, calling a spade a spade, and find "escalation" the most appropriate term for the Administration's "new" (quotes intentional) policy.