Let's be clear: George W. Bush is letting soldiers die so he can run out the clock.

[originalpckelly]

He doesn't give a fuck about them, he never goes to funerals, he didn't happen to stroll over to building 18 when he just went to Walter Reed, his Admin let it happen in the first place.

He's sending real men and women to die so that he won't look bad in the history books, he wants to push this disaster off on Democrats or at least just the next President.

That's about the most awful, most disgusting, and really honestly evil thing I've ever heard of someone doing.

There is going to be a very contentious period ahead of us, I hope we keep that in mind.

Even if we have to lose everything to end Iraq, it's worth it to save the lives of soldiers.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. The ONLY reason for the 20K "surge" is that it is in the direction of MORE rather than less.

There does not appear to be any coherent strategy behind it.

It has symbolic importance in that it makes clear we are adding not withdrawing. It's just designed to buy a year to "evaluate its results" until elections are close enough that the war is guaranteed to still be going on when Bush leaves office. If they need to do something else a year from now to buy time until elections, they'll do that.

I think that Bush and his minders, Rove etc., feel that once any significant withdrawal occurs, since the country so overwhelmingly wants to be done with this, the political momentum to end the war during this administration will be overwhelming and soon become an irresistible political tsunami.

There is an enormous reservoir of pent up political energy for ending the Iraq occupation. Even though most Americans now feel the Iraq invasion was a mistake, not worth it, and want it to be over, there is no tangible hope yet for it ending in the near term because Bush has been so intransigent on this. Thus the conventional wisdom is still "we're going to be in Iraq for a long time" rather than "we need to be getting out as soon as possible/now".

But let's say you had a tangible event, like the troop level dropping below 100K. Assuming the Earth didn't spin off its axis, and the sun rose the next morning, the demand for an END to this would soon become an unstoppable force. This would also force any Republicans running for president or for congress/senate to come off the Bush reservation to save their own political skins.

Bush is selfish and knows that since this war is his one real "accomplishment", if its inglorious end happens during his term, his entire presidency will be unambiguously judged a miserable failure. While this will be the historical verdict in any case, if the end can be forced into the lap of another administration, the odds are a little better that Republican spinmeisters can weave a tale that Democrats (or an America that lacks courage) caused a venture that was destined for success, however ill defined, to result in defeat.

This is the most that he can hope for, and he's going for it. He couldn't care less if more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians must die in a vain effort to prop up his historical reputation. None of his friends or family are going to die or cough up one red cent in the effort in any case, so why should it trouble him?

[originalpckelly]

2. You do realize Iraq is going to fly apart at the seams when we leave...

and that's what he's trying to push off on another President, right?

This is what happens when you play Jenga with people and geopolitics in the most sensitive region of the world.

There may even be a larger ME war, and that would actually end up hurting us even more than Saddam was supposed to, because it will make it a very risky thing to do business in order to get the 40% of the world's oil that comes from that region. We may have another Great Depression.

The really sad part is that we can't change that. Unfortunately, these poor soldiers are succeeding in their missions individually, but as a whole it is near impossible to change the minds of such nutty religious radicals, or to kill enough of them.

The people of that region are Jerry Falwell on steroids.

Knowing that however, the truth is that soldiers should not have to die in order to protect our oil supply. No person should.

[gratefultobelib]

6. Whoa--you've given me an incredibly clear picture here. Powerful paragraph from your post:

"Bush is selfish and knows that since this war is his one real "accomplishment", if its inglorious end happens during his term, his entire presidency will be unambiguously judged a miserable failure. While this will be the historical verdict in any case, if the end can be forced into the lap of another administration, the odds are a little better that Republican spinmeisters can weave a tale that Democrats (or an America that lacks courage) caused a venture that was destined for success, however ill defined, to result in defeat."

Vile, evil, selfish, repulsive--not enough words to describe bushco.

[Olney Blue]

3. I agree with this. Nearly every reporter stationed in Iraq refutes the sunny

"things are improving" meme being touted by the liar-in-chief and his would-be successor McCain.

Case-in-point: CNN's Kyra Phillips in Baghdad just said that everyone is at risk- heavy security is needed to "stroll" the street with the general. I mean, what else do these reporters have to say to get the point across? IT IS NOT SAFER.

Eighteen names of dead soldiers released by the Pentagon this week. Every week it keep growing. How much longer is this insanity going to be allowed?

:grr:

[Arkansas Granny]

10. I saw Martha Raddatz on Washington Week on PBS say almost

the same thing Friday night as you quote Kyra Phillips reporting. She is just back from Iraq and says that what they don't tell you is about the massive security force that accompanies General Petraeus when he goes out on the streets without wearing a helmet. She also reminded us that even with the surge,the number of U.S. casualties is just as high month after month.

The transcript won't be available for Friday's program until Monday, but you can download the podcast here:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/transcripts/

[elocs]

4. It certainly is awful, disgusting, and really honestly evil,

but Bush is going to do it and it should be no surprise that he is going to do it because he has pretty much said all along that he would leave it for the next president. Escalating an unpopular war that is unpopular and going badly--now that does sound familiar. When it comes to who is going to blink first on ending the funding for the war I am pretty sure who is going to blink first and I am sure that everybody here will not be happy with it.

[liberal renegade]

5. Bastard!

:grr:

[genie_weenie]

7. "Even if we have to lose everything to end Iraq"

Sadly most in the Plutocratic Federal Government do not share your belief. Iraq is bad but being labeled as weak on foreign affairs is worse *because* it will ensure defeat and not holding office is "worse" in the long run.

Or so the logic goes...

Professor Zinn sums up the recent capitulation well.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

[bigtree]

18. losing = Bush

or the equivalent.

Who says losing would help?

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Yep

He already said he is going to let the next president solve the Iraq problem.

This man is so inherently evil. The only thing I wonder about anymore is how anyone can't see that.

[Dyanci]

9. Perhaps they can see it but they ignore it. * die-hards are ignorant, like him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ComerPerro]

12. he has even said that its up to the next president to bring them home

[meldroc]

13. Congress is complicit in continuing the war, including the Democrats.

Let me give you the strategy of our Congresscritters. They know that they don't have the votes or the consensus to form a unified voice and pull the plug on the war like they rightly should. So their strategy is to make this war Bush's war. When Bush asked for that extra $122 billion, the Democrats first made lots of noises about how the war is wrong, how we're fighting it wrong, etc. and even put in the timeline so Bush would veto it. The point behind this is to isolate Bush. He's the sole person blocking not the funding to this war, but the timeline.

Give Congress a few weeks, especially with the GOP howling about how they need to "support the troops" and another war spending bill will come out, with some transparently shallow "compromises" in it, maybe a non-binding resolution calling for a bipartisan committee to study the war and promise to come with with a timetable in the next 30 years, which Bush will sign.

But the Democrats will have succeeded with their goal, which isn't to end the war - they don't have the votes for that, but their goal is to make Bush own the war. They voiced their objections, they dragged out the process of funding the war to the point where they made it clear to the public that they "oppose" the war, and as a result, they force the White House to take ownership of the war. The Democrats now wash their hands of the mess and move on to other things. In 2008, you will hear the phrase "Bush's War."

Meanwhile, our troops and countless Iraqis continue to die. Conditions will continue to deteriorate, so maybe if we're lucky, what's left of support for the war will completely collapse in six months or so, and Congress will finally pull the plug.

[w4rma]

14. Bush says he's going to veto that funding bill. He says it doesn't give him enough *power*. (nt)

[meldroc]

17. I wasn't talking about the current funding bill, which Bush will veto.

After that veto, it appears that Congress will come up with another bill, which will become law.

[progressoid]

15. And he's said so publicly..."It's up to the next president."

[TwilightGardener]

16. Yep--the soldiers are there to die for his legacy.

[lpbk2713]

19. No doubt in my mind.

And he seems to think we can't see through his bullshit. The BushCo arrogance pisses me off no end.

[originalpckelly]

20. I know...

it just gets your blood boiling to think they are letting people die only for their political reputations.

[catmandu57]

21. * is a miserable failure, there isn't any changing that

1000 years from now, 500 years, 100 years, that the chimp was the absolute worst president that has ever held the office will be his. He owns this, it's his legacy, now and for all time, even with historical revision he will forever be tagged as miserable failure.

I don't think he's going to pass this on in January 2009, simply because he's not going to last until then, I give him until next spring at the latest, the very latest. The ugly old rust bucker the ss bush has sprung too many leaks, the pumps won't keep it afloat much longer.

The reptiles in congress are giving him until Labor day, there is not a damn thing that he, dead eye, kkkarl, gates, none of them are going to be able to stop the momentum to get rid of this blight.

The greedy oil companies are putting the squeeze on, by the end of this summer gas will be so expensive, only the haves and have mores will be unaffected. The scandals grow every day, they're going to start taking their toll, no, I don't see this cretin lasting.

The worst part of all of this, the Hornet's nest these assholes have stirred up will come home to us, and it's going to sting the wrong people, just as the bombs going off in Iraq today kill mostly innocents, it's going to be the same way here.

The only good thing I see in our future is an early exit, and hopefully a prison cell for * and everyone under him.

[mentalsolstice]

22. Former MLB owner, he knows when the relief pitcher is credited for loss eom