The difference between surge and escalation is about the same as the difference between civil servant and civil master. Once you quit picking nits, it will be 2009 and there will be 200,000 troops there. But not really troops, they're really enablers. And besides, we will have always had 200,000 troops there...

They are telling lies as soon as the open their mouths. You must be lamebrained to believe or trust either Bush or any of his buttkissers including Generals who claim to loudly that their report is their own.

The politicians listen to the media echo chamber only because they don't have enough of a contrary push. They need that push.

Here's what to do:

1. Go to www.senate.gov, and send messages to your two Senators and Harry Reid.

2. Go to www. house.gov and send messages to your Representative and Nancy Pelosi. (You need to click on the link to the Speaker's site from Pelosi's web page to send her a message.)

Tell them that there needs to be a timetable for withdrawal, and it can't be the one the President proposed last night.

You can call them instead if you prefer. The Capitol switchboard's number is 202-224-3121.

If you haven't called or emailed, they don't know what you think and they can't act on it. It may not be enough, but at least they won't have the excuse that you didn't tell them.

They are buying time for lots of things, like the coming war with Iran.

Michael S. Rozeff has a good take on the troop level game:

Does your wife complain about your drinking? Here’s what to do. Raise it from 5 ounces a day to 7 ounces a day. Take the heat. Then promise to cut back to 5 ounces, and make a token move in that direction.

George Bush has a reputation as a skilled poker player. In December of 2006, he raised the U.S. bet in Iraq by unilaterally introducing thousands of additional U.S. troops. He bet that Congress would support this move financially despite the war’s unpopularity.

By early May of 2007, Congress passed a $124 billion funding bill containing a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. Bush vetoed this bill. In less than 4 weeks, Congress passed the funding bill without the timetable. Bush won the hand. But Iraq is still a losing game.

Bush won substantial time to continue the war. He provided cover for those Congressmen who want to support the war while also criticizing it for the benefit of the folks back home. They can point to the President’s veto. More importantly, they can also point to troop "withdrawals," for General Petraeus now speaks of withdrawing the additional 30,000 surge troops by July of 2008. If this occurs, the U.S. troop level by next July will be right back where it was before Bush instigated the troop increase last December. Congressional politicians will have the benefit of headlines declaring troop withdrawals.

It's a win win for everyone, except for the People in the US and Iraq, of course.

that's good reporting

Does anyone think that we are going to be out of Iraq or even in the direction of a solution in the next year? Do you really? Cool... then I've got a really great used bridge for you to buy...

If Congress, with its Democrat majority, wanted to end the war, they could do so by passing a bill that would end the war. The President could even veto it. As long as Congress does not revise the bill to the presidents liking, no bill is passed, no funds will be raised. End of war.

But they don't. So.. what ever they say, as they grumble and jump up and down, as long as they continue to fund this war, they are the same as the rubber stamp assholes they replaced.

Perhaps someone at Salon can personally deliver this to Mr. Guiliani. I haven't felt the same about him since reading an op-ed by Garrison Keillor in 2006 when the 911 tapes from victims in the attacked WTC twin towers were released. One of the best op-eds I have ever read. In it GK made mention of the fact that, according to reports of the events of that morning, Guilianni was seen fleeing AWAY from the death and destruction in lower Manhattan.

Personally, IMO he really isn't Presidential timber, but then again, most of the GOP candidates (not all) fall into that category. His foreign policy musings make absolutely no sense. And, HOW could anyone vote for someone who still links Iraq to 9/11? I heard tonight on one of the news shows that Republicans like it that Guiliani is taking it to the Dems and that this enables him to override many of the conservative Repubs discomfort with his "values" positions, notwithstanding his personal and family issues.

Great post, Tim.

For those who are interested here is a link to that op-ed by Garrison Keillor: "Let the Voices of 9/11 Be Heard". The link is to his archives at his Prairie Home website.

http://tinyurl.com/2oze4w

The only reason there is even going to be a draw down is that the extended 15 month tours for some of the soldiers is coming to an end. The generals have been telling the White House that the current level of troops is unsustainable and if they didn't do something it will break the Army. Bush says the draw down is because the surge was a success, another lie.

"If Congress, with its Democrat majority, wanted to end the war, they could do so by passing a bill that would end the war. The President could even veto it. As long as Congress does not revise the bill to the presidents liking, no bill is passed, no funds will be raised. End of war."

Exactly right. The Democrats need to forge ahead, with or without the Republicans. Now is the time.

Has officially withdrawn from the Bush camp. In an editorial this morning, they endorsed getting out of Iraq as quickly as it can be done without endangering further our troops and our Iraqi supporters.

This is strong stuff, believe it or not. The Modesto Bee is a Right Wing paper and has always been a cheerleader for Bush's War.