Wednesday, January 10, 2007


Froomkin: As Washington journalists debate whether to call President Bush's plan to send 20,000 more American troops into Iraq a "surge" or an "escalation," they are letting the White House get away with a much more momentous semantic scam.

The White House would have you believe that Bush tonight will be announcing a new strategy. But from all indications, all Bush will be talking about -- yet again -- is changing tactics.

Atrios: Tell Me How This Ends? It won't until we have leaders who end it.

Atrios: I basically agree with what Marty Lederman is suggesting in the comments to this post. The Democrats should pass something limiting the number of troops in Iraq. Bush will veto it. Republicans will make sure there aren't enough votes to override the veto. Stopping CooCoo Bananas from sending more troops is likely, in practical terms, impossible in the short term at least. But they can make sure it's clear whose war this is, and whose plan it is.

Timmeh says Bush doesn't want to talk to "tyrants" without the leverage of a win in Iraq so he doesn't have to go hat in hand and ask for anything.

He'd better not go into Iran, then. Has Chimpy ever met a situation he can't fuck up? Well, I guess to be fair there were those Playskool Oil Kompanies the bin Ladens bought him. No, wait, he fucked those up, too. Then there, wait, never mind. Like I said, he'd better not go into Iran.

CNN's Dana Bash describes Montana as "a state where the president is still very, very popular". In fact, 45 percent of Montana respondents approved of "the job" Bush "is doing as president" and 51 percent disapproved. That's right... a 51% disapproval rate is "still very, very popular".


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home