Challenge GOP "surge" obstructionism on pure merit

[Parisle]

--- House democrats' passage of the "no-surge" resolution, complete with 17 conspicuous republican votes, did a good job of publicly guaging popular sentiments on the sending of an additional 21,500 troops (or more) to Iraq. Note: "Popular" sentiments,.. the ones we observed on Nov. 7th.

--- But Senate republicans managed to block the resolution using tactics which were largely procedural, semantic and rhetorical. Little related to the popular sentiment theoretically being represented for constituents. The clotchure vote, for one thing,.. but more importantly the castigating of the democrats for not "putting their money where their mouths were," with a vote to cut off funds. They obtained just enough "cover" with that rationale in order to squeak by.

--- But seldom if ever during this entire discussion have those republicans who support Bush's "surge," had to speak directly to the tangible and observeable merits of the plan. Lots of "troop morale" BS,... lots of, "Aww, give it a chance" BS, ... and so forth. But this is not simply a head-count of partisan opinion. Trying to cure the violence in Iraq is also completely a mechanical and engineering problem, in the military sense,... just as building a bridge would be in the construction sense. You gonna send 20 guys to build the Golden Gate? After all,... there IS such a thing as military science,.. we DO have plenty of experts in the field,... and an awful goddamned lot of them have been going on record as saying that 21,500 troops is a drop in the bucket. The general (retired) military concensus seems to be that, while the impact of 21,500 troops may not be completely negligible, in the long run it just means more death, an avoidance of timely diplomatic intitiatives and no net change in ultimate results. Isn't that about it? Let's be getting those concientious generals together and enlist their active assistance, eh?

--- If Americans are leery of sending another 21,500 troops and an additional $7 billion to Iraq,.. then let the goddamned republicans have to answer for their own next pending episode of military incompetence. Let's see the detailed projections that show we're actually gonna end up with that bridge, ok? Show us where all those forced-into-retirement military geniuses are wrong. Or else, get real and level with the American people that what you really need are at least another 100,000 troops, another $150 billion and another ten years,.... and still with no guarantees,... either of success in Iraq,... or that there will not be a wider Mideast conflict. Let's see 'em do that.

[Parisle]

1. Okay,....okay,......

--- Bad idea? I wish someone would suggest to me what its (apparent) failing must be. I can assure you that the right person could package and present this approach with brush strokes that would rival Rembrandt. It makes more sense to me than any further dignifying of that "support the troops" crap. Republicans may call what they're doing "supporting" the troops,.... democrats love their children.

--- Shall I consider this a procedural move to block discussion?