. . . at 9 p.m. EST on national TV.
-
Any chance of a surprise? Some idea other than “the surge”? (Which the same old guard of neocons are supporting, BTW.)
-
Whatever he decides, will Congress try to stop it? If so, which branch will prevail?
Everything I’ve heard suggests his heart is set on the surge idea. Call it Operation Enduring Denial. My first question would be “does he need Congressional approval of any kind?” If so, the Democrats have an obvious play to block it - if not I guess they could pass a resolution with no practical effects.
A) Not holding my breath for any big surprises here…I think its basically going to be his ‘surge’ plan, though perhaps with some small refinements.
B) Depends on what he ends up proposing. I would assume the Dem’s in Congress will oppose the ‘surge’ plan unless he can give some kind of plausable reason it would work ( :dubious: ).
-XT
Great name!
My responses to BG’s questions are pretty much the same as xtisme’s. I’m not exactly on the edge of my seat, wondering what Bush will Decide.
The one thing that might be a bit of a surprise is that I think he’s going to saying (not asking) that the “surge” will be for 12 -18 months. He’s essentially going to dare the Democrats (and maybe some Republicans) to try and shut down the war on a different timetable than he has.
I think those who believe Bush is looking for some easy way to declare victory and then run (eg, the 80% solution) are sorely mistaken. He sees himself as a visionary, stratgetic thinker and is frimly convinced that he’s right about Iraq.
I think he’s also going to ask for more economic aid for Iraq, and this is where the Dems might have some leverage. Maybe they agree to the economic aid on the condition that there is no surge. Or, better yet, on the condidtion that Bush set a timetable for withdrawl of our troops. This could get nasty.
If so, it’s about damn time.
1- No chance for a surprise. This has been decided for some time and Bush had to take his time to fire all the advisors that disagreed with the plan.
2- Congress will not try to stop it. To do so would still be seen in some circles as “soft on terror” or “unpatriotic” or “anti-military”. Getting control of the situation is not in the Democrats’ best interests- best policy when the opposition insists on hanging themselves is to helpfully supply all the rope they want.
Yeah, I was being most facetious, too. Nasty politics? Who would’ve thunk it!
So shall we also call it E.D.?
Don’t they advertise drugs for that?
Tho I’m kinda getting interested in seeing how this plays out, I’m not at all sure I can force myself to watch him give a speech.
There has been discussion of “the surge” for some time now. I have seen nothing to explain exactly what it is supposed to accomplish. I doubt a presidential speech will provide any meaningful clarification.
Don’t underestimate the allure of that “80% solution”, John. Its got lots of crunchy goodness for the Bushiviks.
It will result in stability. An ugly sort of stabilitity, to be sure, the kind you find in graveyards. But with the Shia firmly in charge (as they pretty much are now, anyway), and a Shia dominated army trained and equipped by us, and the Sunni insurgency reduced to a marginal irritant…
Well, then, you have the democraticly elected government (check), stability (check), able to defend itself (check) and the light sweet crude flowing down the pipelines to responsible, mature entities (not really “check” - more like multiple orgasm). (Expecting al Maliki to turn aggressively against his radical Shia supporters and to pursue them with the same vigor as the Sunni insurgency is purest Bushwah.)
Put it all together and it spells “Victory!” A nasty, false-front sort of victory, but the prospects otherwise are slim and none. Recent events, most specificly the blatantly insulting execution of Saddam, lead me to believe that provoking Sunni insurgency is al Maliki’s plan, flush them out into open combat while he still has American troops to sacrifice. Stamp them flat and then invite the Americans to bugger off, jobs done, thanks much, don’t let the screen door… With, of course, the required photo ops congratulating Bush on the wonderful, wonderful jobs he’s done.
That’s what you said Bush was going to do after the first Iraqi elections-- declare victory and leave. You can’t underestimate Bush’s firm belief that Iraq can be made into a model democratic state in the M.E.
That should be “don’t underestimate” or “you can’t overestimate”…
You mean you misunderestimated?
But aren’t they hoping the next POTUS will be a Dem? The less of a mess he/she has to clean up, the better.
Good Lord, no. That doesn’t make any sense at all. If things get better before November 2008, that means:
-
That a Democratic victory is LESS likely. The worse it is, the better their chances. If things are much better, the Dems may not do very well at all.
-
If they still manage to win, there’s less to take credit for.
Why on Earth would a politician want things to go well in her/his opponent’s term? You want everything to go WRONG.
I did? Don’t recall, however surprised and flattered I am to hear that your memory of my positional history is so acute and precise.
Which is to say, you can, of course, prove this, right? I can’t prove otherwise, as my search function shuts down at a year, and the elections were about two years ago. You must have the new! improved! SDMB.