You forgot that "Bush" is an acronym for Bu _ _ SH _ _ !  That is what his speech is.  But, also remember (or be aware of) the fact that every years we have had additional troops sent for the "Spring Offensive".  This happens mostly in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) and somewhat in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedumb).

Interesting that we went to Iraq due to WMD.  (Operation Desert _ _ _ _ )  Then, after extensive searching it was changed to Operation Iraq Freedom).  Now it is getting another new name. Still the same incompetent "Commander-In-Chief".

Hello everybody.  It seems like conservatives are too afraid and intimidated to make comments under this blog, so, I'll stick my neck out, in the interest of preventing any movement in the direction of liberal groupthink.  That being said, I'm not really feeling very assertive, and must acknowledge that the situation in Iraq is a collosal mess. 

I've been listening to the talking heads at Fox news and CNN reporting that  Reid, Pelosi and other key democrats who now stand in fierce opposition to the surge proposed by the President, have all been on record supporting such a surge at one point in the not-to-distant past.  Have any of you done a fact-check on this proclamation?   Is this a bold-faced lie, or did these key democrats flip flop on the issue, as it is being repeatedly asserted by folks on the right?

Doc, I don't think conservatives are afraid to post here.  I just think there's not a lot to say.  Is there anyone out there who thinks 40,000 more boots on the ground is going to do the trick?  Bush finally seems to have gotten to the point where liberals were two or three years ago.  He's now lost his the rabid part of his base with his speech tonight and acknowledged that more soldiers are going to die and that at this point, there is never going to be a parade, no battleship ceremony, no moment at the end of the game where the big boss is killed, we get the girl and the credits roll.

This is all bad from here on out, as his speech acknowledged.  Now the question is: can we put things together for enough time to get out?

BLT, those who assert have the burden of proof.  That said, I think you can "cherry-pick" statements from each politician that there weren't enough troops sent in the first place, or even that more *SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT*,  but that's not the same as supporting a temporary escalation like this one.  Because it *MUST* be temporary, we can't sustain it. 

.

Saying more should have been sent, in this context, is something like saying "well, if you *WANT* to burn your house down, I don't think you've splashed enough gasoline around yet..."

.

This is a delaying tactic.  Two or three more Friedman Units from now, this all becomes someone else's problem.  That's all Bush is after now.

Repeating oneself is probably not much different than doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, but I believe I've already said similar words below another post here:  A radically new strategy, especially in a time in which there doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel, may seem "sexy," but most of the time, simply slightly tweaking an existing plan, to make it more likely to succeed, is the best option we are left with. 

As I also mentioned before, though it's tempting, abruptly pulling out of a war we probably shouldn't have gotten into in the first place, will only leave the Iraqis in a dangerously vulnerable state.  It's not an option, just a convenient piece of territory upon which politicians are engaging in political posturing. 

What is the alternative but to trust the president's plan?  Like I just said under another blog post, the United States was the mid-wife that helped deliver the fragile democracy in Iraq.  We can't just abandon that weak, sickly "child," now, can we?   And it's far too late to "abort" that "child."  It would bring a whole new meaning to term, "late-term abortion."  The votes are not there, and the public support for a draft is not there.  Try to convince the American people and the government that a draft is a good idea.  If you can do it, more power to you.

You seem to be suggesting that a perpetual war is a neocon's dream.  But how is it in the best interest of the present administration to sit in sinking sand?  Do you think that not winning will win them votes?  What do they possibly have to gain by never making any progress in this war? 

The alternative:  Get him the hell out of the loop!  Bush *IS* the problem at this point.  I fear he *IS* planning to make the situation so much worse in the near future (attacking Iran) that a draft will be inevitable. 

.

It's *NOT* too late to get out.  There are valid reasons for performing "late-term abortions," and those reasons all boil down to one:  the alternative is worse.

.

I've got a ten-step-or-so program for Iraq, with the first four steps up to the Shrub.  Step #4 is Bush's resignation.  (He's already accomplished Step #1.)

By the way, special comment tonight on Keith Olbermann's show...

I respectfully disagree.  The midwife of civil war is hatred between rivaling factions in the region, Tom.  I'm not on board with the "Blame America First," policy. Furthermore, the seeds of civil war in the region were actually planted hundreds, no, actually thousands of years ago.  We did not plant the seeds, and we did not nurture the seeds.   We tried, so far, without much success, to crush the seeds that grew the virulent weeds, and to plant a garden of beautiful flowers.  Random, when Bush is gone, and it won't be too long, you are in for a big surprise.  You'll find that the world will continue to have more than its share of problems, and eventually you will find another conservative to blame. 

Mattloch, for your plan to work, it has to have support.  Without support, no plan will work.  Furthermore, conventional military wisdom suggests that one soldier is all that is needed for 50 foes.  With the additional forces, that ratio will be met.  If the soldiers are used wisely, and if those variables that may not be within our direct control work in our favor, we may succeed this time around. 

BLT, what kept civil war from popping up about five years ago in Iraq?  Surely something changed between then and now.    What was it?

.

When Bush is gone, it won't be too soon.