More U.S. Troops in Iraq AFTER the Surge than BEFORE

Bush has consistently told the American public that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Bush has also consistently told the American public that the "surge" is working. Yet, according to the Associated Press, the surge is now officially over, and yet there are more American troops in Iraq AFTER the surge than BEFORE the surge.

This is true even though Iraqi on Iraqi violence is down and even though more and more Iraqi units are becoming better equipped and trained. This is from the AP article on the number of American troops in Iraq post-surge:

The military surge into Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. But 150,000 U.S. troops remain, as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began.

In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year, left the country.

You can read the whole article here.

Question for Bubble-Boy and His Supporters: If the Surge is Going so Well, Why Will There be More Troops in Iraq After it is Over than Before

Bubble-Boy had a statement to the press and that was that he won't promise that more troops will be coming home from Iraq this summer. This means that there will probably be around 8,000 more American troops in Iraq at the end of the "surge" than there were when the surge started. How, in any context, can this be called a success?

Maybe we are just being picky here, but wouldn't a success mean that more American troops could leave Iraq? What is success? Is success being measured by Iraqi standards or by American standards? That is, is the surge a success if it prevents Iraqi deaths or leads to American troops being withdrawn?

Maybe it is just us, but we believe that American troops should be dying for American interests, not Iraqi interests, not oil company interests, not neo-con interests, but American interests. You know, the interests of the American people as a whole.

If you look at the surge from that standpoint, then can you say it is a "success"?

Bush Administration Doesn't Count Car Bombings in Promoting Surge Success

Okay, we shouldn't be surprised anymore. After all, this is the Bush Administration and when it comes to Iraq, it is simply incapable of telling the truth. Even given that standard, however, this is one for the books. The McClatchy News service is reporting that when the Bush administration claims that its Iraq surge is working because civilian deaths are going down, it turns out that they are not counting fatalities resulting from car bombs. Unfortunately for Iraqi civilans in Baghdad, and for the administration's credibility, car bombs are one of the main reasons why Iraqi civilians die.

Senate Republicans: Too Clever by Half?

According to an article in the Washington Post, Harry Reid is no longer backing the Warner-Levin Resolution, which is 1500 words. Instead he is backing the House Resolution which is against Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq and reaffirms support for funding the troops that are already there. (You can read the WP article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Reid believes he can get the House resolution before the Senate for a vote in about a week or so. This, of course, will put the Republicans once again in the spot of having to either support Bush or respect the will of the American people, of whom about 60% or more are opposed to any troop increase in Iraq.

Those pundits who thought that the Republicans get the better of Harry Reid when they successfully fought off an attempt to end their filibuster of the Warner Resolution should think again. Now, Republicans are going to face another difficult vote. One that once more will put several of their at-risk incumbents on record as either supporting Bush, and thereby ticking off independent voters, or defying Bush, thereby ticking off the conservative base of the party. It would have been far better to have let a vote take place on the Warner Resolution and be done with it.

Gallup Poll Finds Big Majority Opposes Iraq War Escalation

The Gallup organization ran a pre-Bush speech (scheduled for Wednesday) poll on the issue of escalating the Iraqi War and found that a big majority opposes such escalation. (You can get the details by clicking on this entry's title. ) Gallup believes that support for the Bush's plan may increase after he gives the speech, but initially over 60% of the public is opposed to increasing the number of troops in Iraq.

Note that we are avoiding using the term "surge" to describe the planned troop increase. The word "surge" implies a short-term increase in troops, but there is nothing in this administration's recent history to give us confidence that the troop increase will be short-term, no matter what Bush says or doesn't say Wednesday night. We also think that the media is playing into Bush's hands when they allow him and his supporters to decide what language is going to be used to describe their actions.

One of the ways that Bush controls the media is by getting it to accept his language. His supporters use a label and if the media doesn't accept that label, it is accused of "bias" or more specifically, "liberal bias." Apparently the charge of "liberal bias" is so intimidating that grown men and women feel that they have no choice but to give in to the demands of Bush and his radical right-wing supporters.

Here is a news flash for the media: you get to decide what language to use to describe Bush's actions. That's part of your job. You are more than just stenographers blindly reporting what Bush and his supporters say.