| Page 3 of 5 < > |
Bush Claims Right to Open Mail
"But now, a small but increasingly influential group of neocons are again helping steer Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week -- a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort -- has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
"This group -- which includes William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, and Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst at a prominent think tank, the American Enterprise Institute -- was expressing concerns about the administration's blueprint for Iraq even before the invasion almost four years ago."
What Should We Call It?
![]() |
"Bump" now enters the lexicon, but I suspect the debate will continue to be about whether the press should call Bush's proposal a "surge" or an "escalation".
There was quite a bit of discussion on that topic in my Live Online yesterday.
One reader suggested that White House reporters ask "what will keep the possible 'surge' in troops from being long-term? To avoid making it long-term, won't the administration have to impose, gulp, timelines and benchmarks? Without them, isn't this really a simple escalation?"
That's a great question.
Of course we don't know the details of Bush's plan yet. And it might indeed be a surge. But I think we should only call it a surge if the president can say exactly when it will end. Otherwise, it's an escalation.
If the withdrawal of the additional troops, like the current troops, is to be "conditions-based" -- on conditions that aren't specified and may very well never be met -- then it can't legitimately be called a limited-time event. That would be an escalation.
Poll Watch
Frank Newport reports on a new Gallup Polll that would appear to belie a beloved White House talking point.
Newport notes that Snow insisted last month: "The president believes that in putting together a way forward he will be able to address a lot of the concerns that the American public has, the most important of which is, 'What is your plan for winning?'"
But according to the new poll, the public's top concerns regarding Iraq are: "Personal safety of troops/too many deaths/injuries", 34 percent; "It's a no-win situation", 14 percent; "Lack of an exit strategy/need to bring troops home", 14 percent; and "Shouldn't be there in the first place/waste of time", 10 percent.
As Newport writes: "[I]t does not appear that the most important concern of the American public about the war in Iraq is developing a plan for winning, as Snow asserts. . . .


