Americans Oppose Bush's Iraq Policy

Bush's speech is a dud. And it becomes increasingly clear that Bush is 'exaggerating' the support that he has for his policy from the military and the Iraqi leadership. Cheney and Bush have become so isolated from the real world that they present the most serious leadership crisis we have had since Richard M. Nixon.
Two out of three Americans oppose Bush's plan; here's the story from CNN:

Two out of three Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday indicates.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled also say Bush has no clear plan for Iraq.

(snip)

The president argued that the increase in troop strength would the best chance to succeed in a war the U.S. cannot afford to lose.

Our president has been wrong about so many things so many times that it takes an enormous amount of arrogance for him to say at this late date that he knows what he's doing. It's important to note that the Iraqis don't want a troop surge from us. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush and Cheney are drunk on their own power. It can be argued that someone needs to take the car keys from Bush and Cheney until they sober up and can answer questions honestly and rationally. The sad truth about the speech that Bush gave on Wednesday night is that once again he has not been truthful with the American people.

John Edwards Opposes Troop Surge

John Edwards opposes the extension and escalation of Bush's failing war in Iraq. Here's the story from Joe C. on Edwards own blog:

Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about President Bush's expected announcement Wednesday that he will seek to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. In this statement, the senator calls on Congress to block funds for war escalation.

"George Bush's expected decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is a grave mistake.

"The new Congress must intercede to stop Bush from stubbornly sticking to the same failed course in Iraq and refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of troops. ...

I heard Edwards on Larry King last night and he reaffirmed his opposition to Bush's escalation. Edwards raised the issue that Bush needs to reestablish trust with the American people and his performance failed to do that last night. Edwards has emphasized the need for a political solution.

Last night, Senator Durbin (D-IL) said if there's any kind of surge we need, it's a diplomatic surge. I suspect Edwards would agree with that.

Wesley Clark Favors Diplomacy Over Troop Surge

Former General Wesley Clark has in article in The Washington Post (hat tip to Mahablog):

The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.

The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. ...

(snip)

... We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.

(snip)

The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region...

Ever since Wesley Clark started appearing on TV as a military analyst early in the war, he's been making a lot of sense. He and Joe Biden are the two Democrats with foreign policy expertise and it would be great if Wesley Clark joined the other Democrats in the 2008 race. Having Clark and Biden talk about foreign policy would sharpen the other candidates but, at the same time, they would show how little John McCain seems to understand these days, or at the very least, how disingenuous McCain has become. They would further show that the Republicans, as they currently are, have little to offer and have much rebuilding to do.

If Wesley Clark is going to run, let's hope he does it soon.

Senator Biden Says He Intends to Run

When your poll numbers are down in the single digits and your name is Senator Biden, a good move is to keep semi-announcing your intention to run for president in incremental steps. One can produce a few headlines that way. Here's ABC News with the story:

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, one of the Democratic party's leading voices on foreign policy and a sharp critic of President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war, on Tuesday said he intends to run for president in 2008.

"It is my intention to seek the nomination, and it's my intention sometime in the month of January to set up the appropriate mechanism to be able to raise money for that purpose," Biden said in a telephone news conference that centered on Iraq.

Now I'm poking a little fun at Joe Biden but there aren't many elected officials in Washington more knowledgeable about foreign policy than the senator. He knows what he's talking about which is in sharp contrast to the man in the Oval Office.

From CBS News, here's more that Senator Biden has to say; it looks like he's not going to put up with Bush's political games:

Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.

(snip)

Biden also said he believes Democrats' political vulnerability on Iraq is limited.

"I think we'll only have to accept responsibility for the war if we remain silent," he said.

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: "Mr. President, this is your war."

President Bush, after three years of floundering, and weeks after the voters sent a decisive message, is still dithering about what he's going to do. Democrats do not have the authority to run our foreign policy but they have the obligation to speak out on Bush's incompetence and to hold his administration accountable for a long series of failures. I hope Biden keeps it up.

Hillary Clinton Opposes Possible Bush Plan

A promising sign that Hillary Clinton is beginning to move beyond the generalities that have characterized her possible presidential bid is her statement today that she opposes the troop 'surge' that apparently is being advocated by Bush as he attempts to mitigate his failures in Iraq; Senator Clinton says such a surge can only make sense as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with Iraq. As we all know, Bush does not do comprehensive plans. Here's the AP story in Truthout:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would not support a short-term increase in American troop presence in Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country.

Clinton also offered the broadest indication yet that she was close to a decision on whether to enter the 2008 Democratic presidential field.

"I want to make sure the decision is right for me, my family, my party and my country," Clinton said during an interview on NBC's "The Today Show." ...

(snip)

"I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," Clinton said. "I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue what our men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys."

Clinton, who voted in 2002 to authorize military intervention in Iraq, said she was wary of increased military presence in the war-torn country.

"I'm not going to believe this president again," Clinton said.

Most of the world and most of the nation do not believe George W. Bush has much credibility these days. I'm glad to hear that Hillary has finally come around but she needs to work on rebuilding credibility in her own judgment. She stuck by Bush far longer than she should have. Instead of following the pack of Democratic presidential hopefuls, she needs to show that she can lead the pack whether as a moderate, a liberal or according to some principled position in between. Her proposal to divide up Iraq's oil among all the people in Iraq might be a step in that direction.

To be honest, however, the oil proposal sounds like something Bill Clinton would come up with. An issue that Hillary needs to address is simply this: if something were to happen to Bill, could she come up with her own ideas? She needs to come up with ideas before too long that one would not necessarily associate with the former president. A realistic environmental and energy policy that doesn't pander to the usual special interest groups that are associated with big money would be a possibility.