Thursday, January 04, 2007

Sending 20,000 more is a "Political Decision"

The president would like to us to “sacrifice” 20,000 more Americans to Iraq, because well gee, it might make him look much better in the history books. Remember? We guessed that it was all about his legacy. Heck, they admit it now.

“The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq.”

NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski

So we were right. This is more about bush’s legacy than anything else. Okay Democrats in DC. Let’s start with that. Throw this in his face and tell him no deal. Our military men and women are worth a hell of a lot more to us than how history will remember him. We would rather have live soldiers, than trumped up history books. He made his bed and now let him lay in it. No sacrifice to save his sorry reputation. It’s way too late for that anyway.

31 Comments:

Blogger Mimus Pauly said...

I don't care how much lipstick they slap on this porker -- they are not going to convince anyone who isn't already a hopeless true believer in Bush that the lives of three thousand American soldiers equal the life of Saddam Hussein. Even Jesus will be hard pressed to save Bush's sorry ass now...

January 04, 2007 2:34 AM  
Blogger spadoman said...

PoP I e-mailed and called on the telephone my 7th District Congressman, Dave Obey Democrat, Wisconsin. I told him I wanted the war to end and NO MORE Troops sent to war.

After taking my information to verify I was indeed a constituent from Mr. Obey's District, the aide asked if there was anything else I wanted to say to Congressman Obey.

I told him there were a million issues I am having with this administration, but as a combat Veteran that has seen the horror of war, my main focus is to have it end now, and that I didn't want another memorial wall with 58,195 names on it.

New Years resolution? NO, just doing more. I'll be calling today as well.

Peace to you and all.

January 04, 2007 2:38 AM  
Blogger Anon-Paranoid said...

I told everyone that he would send more troops. The evil that is interred in is bones will remain even after he is dead.

If his war is so vital to our National Security than let him send Jenna and not Jenna over there.

God Bless

January 04, 2007 2:40 AM  
Blogger Undeniable Liberal said...

Our soldiers aren't dying to protect our freedoms nor to spread democracy, they are dying to protect Dubya's ego.
The new buzzword suddenly is bipartisanship. Bastards had no problem shitting all over the bed while they had the majority. Nuclear Option, anyone?They pulled every dirty, rotten trick they could think of. Now, before the Dems are even sworn in, they are screeching. Eat shit boys and lawyer up.

January 04, 2007 2:53 AM  
Blogger Yoga Korunta said...

History will not be kind to the Decider.

January 04, 2007 3:19 AM  
Blogger Lew Scannon said...

This is his great plan? Throwing more troops at the problem? What's that they say about doing the same thing over and over then expecting a different result?

January 04, 2007 3:21 AM  
Blogger BBC said...

And I'm sure he would support bringing back the draft. And that is wrong on many levels.

January 04, 2007 4:11 AM  
Blogger Blueberry said...

If they can put religion and myths in the science books, then they can make Dubya look good in the history books. That's what it will take, an omission here, a lie there, couple of myths thrown in.

January 04, 2007 4:16 AM  
Blogger Peacechick Mary said...

Legacy? I think he has created one hell of a legacy - like an anchor on a drowning drunken sod who swaggered and bullied his way into the swamp. congress knows we are watching and listening intently.

January 04, 2007 5:43 AM  
Blogger The Future Was Yesterday said...

I haven't been able to verify this yet, but I've heard from several news outlets that some of the "surge" will be involuntary extensions. In other words, he forces 4K to stay....the "surge" gains 4K.

Where the hell are all our good assassins when we need them?...(:

January 04, 2007 6:04 AM  
Blogger Steve Bates said...

This will cost Bush an armory and a legacy.

Seriously, this must end. In theory at least, one madman should not be able to wrest control from America's people and use their armed forces to pursue his personal political agenda at the expense of thousands of lives. Bush seems determined to disprove that theory. If Congress does not stop him, we will have a draft and very possibly a nuclear war on our hands within a year.

Is anyone feeling safer? I didn't think so.

January 04, 2007 6:06 AM  
Blogger SB Gypsy said...

Unfortunately, the 109th congress just gave him $100billion in December to use for his war. Even if Congress cuts off the money TODAY he will still have enough to send the 20,000. He's demanding the states hand over all the rest of the National Guard too.

January 04, 2007 7:50 AM  
Blogger Pogo said...

You have all said it so well, I have nothing to add - and that's high praise from a lawyer!

January 04, 2007 8:02 AM  
Blogger Donnie McDaniel said...

Still trying to cross the ocean on a sinking ship. One good thing that I found this morn after getting off work is that Holy Joe had his party highjacked. That is just too funny! His single man indie party just got a new chairman! HAHAHA!! And get this, only critics, bloggers and people named Lieberman can join the party now! This might turn out to be quite entertaining!

January 04, 2007 8:12 AM  
Blogger Comandante Agí said...

They're no longer calling it a "surge". Now it's being referred to as a "bump". Whatever you call it it's an increase - get ready for permanent bases.

January 04, 2007 8:29 AM  
Blogger Tom Bailey said...

It would be interesting to get the facts straight of not what politicians want but what the military suggests.
I have read this headline:

"NYTimes headline :“Gen. John Abizaid said more U.S. troops may be needed to help Iraq’s forces and prevent the turbulent nation from tearing itself apart.”

And then I hear that none of the military supports more troops in another? Which is it?

January 04, 2007 8:44 AM  
Blogger robin andrea said...

I saw the president on tv yesterday, and when he opened his stupid lying mouth I started screaming. I don't know what he said. I can't listen anymore. I think he was calling for a balance budget. The rage I feel knows no bounds.

January 04, 2007 8:53 AM  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

bush lies so much he has to hire people to call his dog.

January 04, 2007 9:25 AM  
Blogger Time said...

If he's so concerned about his spot in history, let him lead troops into combat. He would be killed, and become a hero for eternity.

That won't happen, he hasn't got the guts to fight. He does have the ego, to send others to die for his mistakes.

January 04, 2007 9:28 AM  
Blogger Coffee Messiah said...

Pitiful, but what more can we expect from him? ; (

Come by and take a listen to a couple of tracks from Ken Nordine that may "splain it"
with a little levity of course, as 6 yrs of this keeps getting even more depressing! ; (

January 04, 2007 12:04 PM  
Blogger PoliShifter said...

Here's the deal. Once again Bush is out in front. Everyone is so busy trying to fight Bush and keep him from sending more troops that the focus is lost.

We're no longer focused on getting our troops out of Iraq.

We'll all be happy if Bush just doesn't send more troops to Iraq.

It's win-win for Bush. He wants troops in Iraq for long as possible. Based on the permament military installations and Vatican Sized Embassy, as long as possible is like 40+ years.

In the end if Bush is forced to back off from sending more troops, publically he may look pissed off, but privately he will celebrate a victory because the troops will be staying in Iraq.

There will be no more talk of withdrawl for at least a year.

January 04, 2007 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Everyone is so busy trying to fight Bush and keep him from sending more troops that the focus is lost.

We're no longer focused on getting our troops out of Iraq.

We'll all be happy if Bush just doesn't send more troops to Iraq.

It's win-win for Bush. He wants troops in Iraq for long as possible. Based on the permament military installations and Vatican Sized Embassy, as long as possible is like 40+ years.

In the end if Bush is forced to back off from sending more troops, publically he may look pissed off, but privately he will celebrate a victory because the troops will be staying in Iraq.

There will be no more talk of withdrawl for at least a year."


I dont quite believe this scenario because he has to have a way to buy the time til he can effectively *hand-off* his war to whomever his successor will be...and blame the loss elsewhere. The status-quo of troop levels and the current levels of violence will not cut it for that to burn up 18-20 months he needs for this "strategy" to become some elses' fait-accompli.

It's the McCain Surge as his last double-down (and my crystal ball nevar lies! *wink*)

But - this is precisely that which will have the most ardent GOPhuckers screaming for his blood and guts...when he refuses to accept that outcome (failure?!?) and bring our troops out there...because NO ONE (GOP or DEM) wants to be holding Dubya's Dirty Diaper in 2008 and beyond.

January 04, 2007 1:47 PM  
Anonymous karenmcl said...

Oops...somehow that comment above ended up as anon. instead of me!

;-)

January 04, 2007 2:45 PM  
Blogger Human said...

We need a purge not a surge.

Peace.

January 04, 2007 4:00 PM  
Blogger Pam said...

I agree with Human.

Purge him. Today.

January 04, 2007 5:11 PM  
Anonymous happy and blue 2 said...

Apparently the Iraq President wants to quit. Perhaps Bush could take over for a while..

January 04, 2007 8:12 PM  
Anonymous pekka said...

What I hear is, that Laura is already having some doubts about the big W but the dog is still convinced. So, I guess you'll go with the more troops option. RUFF, RUFF!

January 04, 2007 9:02 PM  
Blogger windspike said...

With the number of faithful dwindling, the W, Rove and Co are out to prove the axiom that 'it's lonely at the top." To bad the pile their standing on is comprised of lies and deciet and extends straight to hell.

January 04, 2007 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Betty Cracker said...

Got links, Mr. Bailey? Here's one to a 12/21 Washington Post article that outlines the skepticism of the generals, including General John Abizaid, about the "surge."

January 05, 2007 12:33 AM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

The Chimpletons are going to try to claim that the military supports whatever El Shrubbo does.

And yet, in Reconstitution, in here, in almost all purveyors of the truth, we see that the military is saying that they do NOT, in fact, support any escalation (and the word IS escalation, not the Chimpromised MSM's "surge) of the Iraqi cluster.

January 05, 2007 8:49 AM  
Blogger MichaelBains said...

...“The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program."

And the best part is, that money would actually be going to an Ameican Company - Haliburton!!!

{shakin'head}

January 06, 2007 3:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home