Constructive gadfly
Published on January 11, 2007 By stevendedalus In Politics
Lacking spirit and loss of reason, tonight’s speech had echoes of Johnson’s announcement that he would not seek reelection. Bush showed no spirit because he has lost his “gotta believe” tact. In postulating an illogical premise that 21,000 troops will squash the resistance, even though he admitted in years to follow it would still be bloody, is simply a cry of desperation.

Strategically with so few troops there was no need for a speech or thinking of it as a “new strategy.” Actually it is but a minor decision that could have been made by the command in the Green Zone while on a coffee break. With the troops already in Iraq, a regimental attachment could easily be sent to Anbar to reinforce the marines. And if in fact, al Qaeda is there, then why not an air strike like the one going on in Somalia? With this apparently pressing terrorist zone held in check or demolished, the Iraqi and American teams could concentrate on less sweeping tactics in Baghdad until sensible troop withdrawal is put in place, or the 21,500 fresh troops to replace those on their second or third tour. Remember Clinton’s 100,000 cops on the beat? Double that is what it would take to end the " rioting" in Baghdad.


Comments
on Jan 11, 2007

Since Bush has already been elected twice, it is not likely he is going to run again, so it can hardly be a comparison to Johnson's resignation.

Will this work?  Time will tell. But again, anything he did would be trashed by the democrats.  I think that was the "resignation" you heard in his speech.  That the ravens would caw no matter what was said, so why bother trying to convince them.

on Jan 11, 2007
Would have been a damn fine speech... in 2005.
on Jan 11, 2007

Will this work?
You miss my point, I suppose, because there is no point to Bush. As I inferred any GI in a foxhole could come up with an assault on Anbar if in fact the point is to destroy al Qaeda base there--simple as ABC. As Baker offers if so damnably crucial why not last year?

Time will tell. But again, anything he did would be trashed by the democrats.
You just can't get beyond the partisan hang up. 

it can hardly be a comparison to Johnson's resignation
Granted, but the "resignation"[translated desperation] was in its tone.

a damn fine speech... in 2005
Or 2004.

on Jan 12, 2007
You just can't get beyond the partisan hang up.


I make observations. I am not the one doing the deeds. perhaps now that your party is in control, you might want to tell them that?

Hint: Boxer's latest stupidity.
on Jan 13, 2007
In "control" or not; miltary matters are still up to the executive branch. You would just love for congress to cut off military funds so you can yell betrayal of our devout troops.
on Jan 13, 2007

You would just love for congress to cut off military funds so you can yell betrayal of our devout troops.

No, unlike others, I do not want to spite the troops for partisan politics.