Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 2 of 5   <       >

Where's the Outrage Over Escalation?

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Michael Hastings, Michael Hirsh and Richard Wolffe write in Newsweek: "The White House insists it knows that simply adding more troops isn't the answer. The plan being considered is far more nuanced than what has been reported in the media, a senior aide to Bush, who would only discuss the talks in Crawford anonymously, told Newsweek. He said it includes money for new jobs programs and reconstruction aid for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, as well as efforts to further shore up his political base. . . .

"[T]he senior White House aide denies that the Pentagon is resisting any surge plan. 'The military leadership is committed to doing what is required to be successful,' he says."

Anna Mulrine writes for U.S. News that an escalation "would be hard to pull off. 'The big question,' says one U.S. commander at Baghdad headquarters, 'is what do they want us to do with these troops, exactly, that we're not doing already?' . . .

"In Washington, the word surge is increasingly accompanied by something akin to virtual quotation marks. It's more politically palatable than 'escalation,' with its echoes of Vietnam, and carries the implication of limited duration, or an ebb. But new troops will be on the ground for a while."

Here's Some Outrage

Okay, there's at least one guy in the traditional media who's outraged: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. Here's the text and video (from the Crooks and Liars blog) of Olbermann's "Special Comment" yesterday:

"If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

"Would you at least protest?

"What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

"What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them -- and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more? . . .

"Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq -- and now about 'sacrifice' -- is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

"Your most respected generals see no value in a 'surge' -- they could not possibly see it in this madness of 'sacrifice.'

"The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.


<       2              >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive