Does anyone think * is calling the Dems' bluff?

[babylonsister]

He's calling for an escalation and more money down the road, hoping the Dems will put a stop to both, so they can then 'own' this war?
That wouldn't say much for his legacy but he could then wash his hands of the mess he's made and let others take responsibility for his screw-ups.
Totally implausible?

[ewagner]

1. He's hoping that we stop it

so the failure will be (just like the conservatives say about Viet Nam) because the "liberals" wouldn't let us win.

Remember that disgusting scene from Rambo where Richard Crenna tells Stalone he's got to go back to Viet Nam on a mission and Rambo asks, "This time do we get to win? which is a direct slap at Democrats and anybody who had the guts to protest the war....

It's a swarmy little trap....:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. If it's for his "legacy" he better take a look at LBJ.

I seem to remember that his little venture into "protecting our vital national interest" by escalating the number of bodies left his legacy a bit tarnished.

[bryant69]

3. plausible

But problemattic - his followers are already seeing this war exactly like vietnam - we are winning and can win, but the media and liberals are stabbing us in the back. This would give them something concrete to hold onto.

Will the American people in general see it that way? I don't know, but I do know that we need to do what we can to counter this perception.

That said I don't think we should base our decision on whether or not more American troops should be sent into harms way on the political hay they might make if we choose not to.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[On the Road]

4. Yes, I Absolutely Think Bush Wants Democrats to Either Own the War

or be responsible for denying his attempts to fix it.

That is why I believe the correct Democratic response is to deny Bush the funding in a way which he is able to overcome (for example, by a veto) and force him to go out on a limb and take responsibility on his own.

[AlGore-08.com]

5. That's what Time Magazine claims - - and that the Dems will fold

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1576122,00.html

The Dems on Iraq: More Bark Than Bite

(snip)

But when it comes to actually taking any action to check Bush's war powers, there's not much bark to the Democrats' bite. Which raises the question: will Democrats use their new power to rein in what they say is an overreaching president? Or will they choose to continue what proved to be a successful political strategy when they were in the minority: criticizing the administration for unpopular policies while avoiding taking action themselves that could prove equally unpopular?

On Iraq, Hill Democrats have chosen the latter course. Sen. Edward Kennedy yesterday introduced a bill to block funding for deploying additional troops to Iraq. But Reid and the Democratic leadership prefer a non-binding, "sense-of-the-Senate" resolution opposing the troop increase that is designed to embarrass Bush by peeling off dissenting Republicans, without actually taking any action to block the move. Kennedy's proposal, leadership aides say, is a stalking horse designed in part to placate the base by attacking Bush while leaving Democrats who support the leadership's alternative safe from accusations they don't back the troops.

(snip)

But privately top Democratic Senators, aides and advisers say the political calculation has not changed since before the election. While Bush and his policies are unpopular in the extreme, Americans still support a strong hand at the White House when it comes to national security matters. From the Democrats' perspective, that means plenty of willingness to criticize Bush on all fronts when it comes to his handling of national security and even the use of his war powers — but, at least for now, no overt efforts to curtail them.

"You're going to see many more hearings," Schumer said yesterday when I asked him if there was increased willingness of Democrats to confront Bush's war powers. North Dakota's Byron Dorgan, the Democrats' third ranking member of the Senate and an outspoken administration critic, said he thought it was "a little early" to roll back Bush's expansion of executive power in the previous Congress. A Democratic judiciary staffer supportive of a rollback said, "We understand the political reality." And leadership aides say bluntly that short of new revelations that turn public opinion against expanded executive authority, the Democrats are going to avoid directly confronting the President.

(more)...