Who Supports Escalation?

The Troops? Nope. According to a Military Times Poll, a minority -- only 38% -- of American troops think there should be a greater number of troops than there are now.

The Commanders? Nope. General John Abizaid told Congress: "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff? Nope. According to the Washington Post, they are in unanimous disagreement with the White House when it comes to escalating the war, warning that it "could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq ... without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army."

The Iraq Study Group? Nope. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family adviser James Baker, recommended that we begin to withdraw combat troops -- "a central recommendation Bush apparently has chosen to ignore."

The American public? Nope. A recent Gallup Poll showed that only a miniscule 12-percent of Americans favor a "send more troops" alternative.

Republicans? Nope. Already the Associated Press reported that Senate Republicans Richard Lugar and Arlen Specter "bucked the White House" and "expressed skepticism" about adding more troops to Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel said he was "absolutely opposed," likening it to Alice in Wonderland. Even right-wing columnist Robert Novak called prominent Republicans "confused and disturbed" about the escalation policy. He also warned that senior Republican senators "are trying to get word to the president" that troop escalation "would be dead on arrival in Congress."

President Bush? Nope. A year and a half ago, President Bush warned that "sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging more Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever."

Comments (2) «

Apparently, Sen. McConnell thinks that victory in Iraq equates to establishing a "relatively" stable situation, as stable as far as Middle Eastern standards. (That’s his words.) He just got out of a meeting with Bush and isn't talking about total victory anymore.

So Bush is going to send in 20,000 more troops...in 2008...and that will take care of the safety issue "relatively" till 2008?

What about now? What happens while we wait to get these troops into rotation? Will we have to send in another 20,000 troops in 2009, if things get worse while we wait for these troops to get into place?

And what will those troops do that will be any different than what our troops are doing now? If the current "elected" Iraqi government doesn't deliver, will our troops enforce an order by the Decider-in-chief to topple the legally-elected democracy and install another that is more appealing to the Saudis and the multinational oil interests?

Are these new troops only going to be there to protect the Sunnis? "Relatively" forever?

McConnell should run for President in 2008. He exemplifies everything that the American public needs to know about the GOP. Let's give the voters a "clear" choice not a relatively confusing one in 2008.

1

SandyH on January 10, 2007 at 03:41 PM

ROFLMAO!

That's right. They can't hide from the facts. Excellent Post, Micheal. I love it!

:)

2

FreedomOfSpeechForBarackObama2008 on January 11, 2007 at 02:42 AM

« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.