Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 79

Here is something that just came to my attention, posted very recently on ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..-decision/

Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’

CNN reports “President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week.” According to the BBC, “The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq.”

Last night on NBC News, Jim Miklaszewski reported that the new strategy will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.”

(snip)

Keith Olbermann included Miklaszewski’s comment last evening… I hope Mik develops it into a report rather than just that quick (but believable) aside.
Hope he starts with which “administration official” made the observation/statement.

This is exactly what I see! It seems that Bush is in full offensive mode (no pun intended.) I think this is wholly calculated to coincide with Congress’ return. The best defense is a good offense, and all of that. This is Chimpy’s way of daring Congress to oppose him, and when they do, it will be all of the “Democrat Congress” fault. We need to be smarter, better at this particular game of chess. I think we need a real strategy on this. It would be nice if Dems could learn to speak with one voice, but with Steny Hoyer as second in command, I’m worried that it will be a matter of speaking out of both sides of our collective mouths.

As to the Leahy thing, John Dean’s article makes sense here. We have enough of Abu Gonzales’ crap to last a lifetime. Impeachment proceedings should start on him very soon. We need to start picking off the President’s lieutenants and all his other officers, so that Bush will know that we’re serious. Gonzales seems as good a place as any to start. We need to drain his administration of their most noxious talent. Anybody know of anything that Rove has done that could pass as a high crime or misdemeanor, like maybe in his affiliation with Abramoff? Cut him off at the knees and you might as well have cut of the President’s head.

As for the guy that saved the other guy from the train, I love it, but I’m waiting for the axe to fall. As we know, no good deed goes unpunished, so I’m just hoping that he isn’t arrested for some petty crime or for being an illegal immigrant or something for his trouble. Seems to be what usually happens.

Peterr @ 91
Sadly, we’ve got George LXIII as our benchmark

Um, surely you mean George XLIII? Because LXIII is 63…. (I don’t believe the Romans did it that way, they would have simply written it XXXXIII and left it clear.)

Um, surely you are right.

Perhaps it’s an aversion to typing XL after so many holiday feasts and treats over the last two weeks . . .

Well I was goina say before hitting the comment button first :-( – —that I agree with the above. But also I see a problem, seems as if one of the plans afoot is to have Israel bomb Iran first, then we would have to go in to help out our ally. So, that scenario wouldn’t change the situation in any way because we will need to hold to current treaties.

By the way, at some point I could use a tutorial on getting the “edit this comment” button to work for me!

Hold to treaties? What about Geneva? Seems to me that “holding to treaties” is optional.

Um, surely you mean George XLIII? Because LXIII is 63…. (I don’t believe the Romans did it that way, they would have simply written it XXXXIII and left it clear.)

Here’s Walter Shapiro in today’s Salon calling for a debate about Iraq and the future to start now:

(snip)

After six years of static cling, the 2006 elections created an opportunity for serious rethinking that has yet to be exploited. With the Democratic takeover of Congress, suddenly national issues are no longer defined by a yes-no George W. Bush loyalty test.

(snip)

But though the man hunkered down in the Oval Office remains armed with a veto pen and the mantle of commander in chief, the voters have left the Bush presidency twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.

Iraq poses the first challenge of the post-Bush world. Even though the Democratic Congress is not responsible politically or constitutionally for running foreign policy, it is in a position to spark a fresh debate over what should be done in Iraq now. The key word is “now.” Most of what has been written and said about Iraq in recent months has been backward looking — to the dubious premises behind the invasion and the incompetence of the American occupation.

With Bush reportedly poised to unveil his new military strategy next week, it is time to pose fresh, future-oriented questions about Iraq. If a “surge” in troop levels had a 20 percent chance of reducing the lethal nature of the civil war, would it be a risk worth taking? If America began a major troop withdrawal tomorrow, would more Iraqi civilians be alive in 2008? What should be the guiding philosophy that determines America’s next step in Iraq? Reducing U.S. military casualties? Saving Iraqi lives? Preventing further chaos in the region?

(snip)

twolf1, you are a treat!!