NEWS: Bush To Lay Out Latest Plan For Failure

It's time for a phased withdrawl, not an escalation. I hope congress is able to cut further funding for deployment of American soldiers because this is a war that should never have started. If he thinks this spitting contest is going to change his already low approval rating, he's "probably" wrong. Also, the execution of Saddam Hussein is not going to change my mind that this is a bad idea; we have made no progress and never will. The only thing is, there aren't enough intelligent Americans with the power to stop this because the war cogs are rolling in full-fury speed. We are there on borrowed time, stolen money, and very expensive death tolls. Period.

So, is Bush expecting the Joint Chiefs to just bend over and magically pull 20,000 more troops out of their asses? Or will it be a case of just sending troops that've already been there back sooner than promised, and keeping them there longer this time?

Either way, I want to know what drugs the Dubya's on. Because, damn, I gotta get me some of them.

I forget the snappy catchphrase for it (they have one, as they always do), but the plan is to keep the troops there longer and send (untrained) troops there sooner.

I don't know what difference he could possibly expect twenty-fucking-thousand to make, though. The way I heard it, the commanders were saying it would thirty thousand just to secure Baghdad, and more to hold Anbar, and (obviously) more for the rest of the country. This is obviously just a domestic political maneuver - but then again, so was the whole fucking war.

You sure about that? Cause they ain't doing him so much good, really.

It's not so much a surge as in sending more troops, but rather keeping those there scheduled for re-deployment back to the States hostage there for longer tours.

I think this surge is necessary, though. Because 3 months of the same or worse after a 'surge', Bush will lose much of the little support he still has left. Republicans will thehn have the cover they need to vote to bring troops back. Right now they will be labeled 'surrender monkeys' if they don't support Bush one more time. When this plan fails, Bush will be done for good.

You know, people have been saying one disastrous plan or policy or another would finish Bush off for a long time now. He's good at wiggling free of the consequences. Usually by fucking something else up/

Mm. Somalia is looking like the current scapegoat, but I think that's probably a little short-sighted. Personally, I'm holding out for Cuba. Anyone like to offer odds that Fidel's going to die at exactly the moment W needs him to, in order to overcommit American forces way beyond hope of recovery?

wow. well that article was objective.

It's 9:08 and I am watching a psychotic man elaborate his delusions.

Sadly, his delusions translate into funerals for American families.

He should have apologized for the mistake of sending more troops...then he could have at least gotten that out of the way now instead of telling us his mistakes in a later speech.

I do remember Nixon. He didn't begin our involvement in Viet Nam. And at least there, there was already a war going when we went it.

If you're talking about his Watergate stuff, it wasn't that different from what other politicians have done - except he got caught. Yeah, Nixon was bad. But W is worse.

Um... secret bombing of Cambodia? Secret invasion of Laos? Nixon did plenty of bad shit in the Vietnam war.

Asking which is worse - Bush or Nixon - is like asking if you want lung cancer or prostate cancer. They both suck.

Good point.