Defeating the surge benefits Bush and the GOP. Nice work, Karl!

[gulliver]

If the Dems defeat the surge, then they become arguably responsible for the course of the war. Indeed, since Bush and the GOP have tied the Iraq War to terrorism, a defeat of the surge could place Dems in jeopardy of being blamed for both a lost war and the next terrorist attack. The country can't afford that. If the Dems end up (unethically and illogically, but convincingly) blamed for a terrorist attack or a defeat in the "War on Terror," the result could be many more war- and terror-filled, deeply divided years like the last six the country has just gone through. Or even a lot worse.

The surge idea is optimally beneficial to Bush and the GOP, regardless of what the Dems do. If the Dems allow the surge, many Dems will reflexively revolt. If the surge is allowed by the Dems and fails, the revolt will be far worse for Dem unity in 2008. Bush, Rove, and Cheney on the other hand have nothing to lose. If the surge fails, then Bush is a catastrophic failure -- right where he was headed with or without the surge. If the surge succeeds, or if something even slightly good happens during the surge or shortly after, then Bush, Rove, Cheney, and the rest of the GOP benefit.

20,000 troops going to Iraq may be the price America has to pay for electing Bush Commander in Chief. The Dems may not be able to save America from itself on this issue. We have a bunch in the White House who are unethical, self-centered, and partisan to an insane degree. Witness Bush making divisive, fallacious arguments to a confused and wounded America in its time of need last night. He thinks he hasn't hurt the country enough yet. He may be right.

[annabanana]

1. The Dems can no more make the surge "fail" than the

repigs can make the surge "succeed".

oh, and it's not a surge.

[gulliver]

3. I know. It's an escalation.

[MichiganVote]

2. Bullshit

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I agree.

Classic example of Democratic disease symptom #37: thinking yourself into paralysis.

[MichiganVote]

5. :) Sometimes there is just no better word...or words

[gulliver]

8. Didn't write it because I thought it would be popular.

I wrote it because it seems to be an obvious risk. Not liking something and not thinking about it should be two different things.

Listening to Rachel Maddow today, I got the idea that many of the Republicans are going to back Bush. A lot of the American voters do.

I'm hoping the Senate hearings eviscerate this planned "surge." If it can be shown to be a focus-grouped, half-baked, Hail Mary pass to near Congressional unanimity, then we're fine, IMO. Otherwise, the troops may or may not go, but we will not be out of the woods.

[gulliver]

6. Agreed. But Bullshit works. The war itself is an example.

I'm not saying the idea will work for the Bushies. Only that it is optimal for them. We'll see if the Dems can get enough decent people on the Republican side to help defeat the gambit.

Pelosi left open the possibility of supporting the escalation if Bush "explains" it.

[MichiganVote]

7. Pelosi was merely offering a soundbite. There is no up side for * in this whole thing

[gulliver]

9. When you're Bush, it is all upside.

He is looking at the greatest political bankruptcy in history. It's Chernobyl for him. If he manages to escape his presidency without being impeached and without being recorded as the biggest presidential disgrace of all time, he will be lucky. I think my argument above holds, given my last few years of experience with the way politics works now. A significant portion of people think the "surge" is worth a try. If we don't manage to talk sense into a lot of people (near Congressional unanimity against the surge, for example), Bush will have gained some and we will have lost some.

But if you disagree, fine. I respect that. Maybe I am over-analyzing or being a worry wart.

[MichiganVote]

10. We'll practice patience and wait and see together

[sendero]

11. I completely agree..

... that the "surge" is a political ploy, since it will have negligible affect on the outcome/progress of the "war".

What that means in terms of what we (Dems) should do is much less clear.

[crispini]

12. Did you see those Republican Senators rip Condi a new one today?

By some counts at least 10 R Senators have broken rank with Shrub on this one. No, the wheels are coming off. NOBODY wants this anymore, nobody believes him anymore. The emperor truly has no clothes.

[MasterDarkNinja]

13. I mostly agree with you, but a failed surge is bad for the GOP to

If the GOP continues to support the war in Iraq and the surge fails, or the GOP keeps saying "we can't leave yet until we get victory" then it'll really kill them in the 08 elections when even fewer support the Iraq war at that time then now. If they continue to propose new unpopular solutions to the Iraq war that continue to fail then they'll start to make the Whitehouse unwinnable, or much more difficult to win, in 08.

[flaminbats]

14. Rove knows Democrats will except his blame..

:grr: but if Democrats force this animal to pay for his actions, this wouldn't even be an issue! Let Bush summit his plan for a surge in deployment, then let this rat and his fellow Republicans pay for it with the complete repeal of his tax cuts. Bind this into a single piece of legislation and bring it to the floor, how many Republicans will vote in favor of it? Will it pass? If it does...will Bush sacrifice his delusions of an easy and taxfree victory?