ABC's Raddatz echoed Bush on another "new strategy for victory" in Iraq
On the January 2 edition of ABC's World News, ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz characterized President Bush's upcoming announcement on Iraq, in which he will reportedly call for more U.S. troops, as "a new strategy for victory." By contrast, on the January 2 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski cited an "administration official" who "admitted" that Bush's "surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have simply run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq." The weblog Think Progress also noted Miklaszewski's report.
In characterizing Bush's announcement as "a new strategy for victory," Raddatz echoed previous statements by Bush. In a December 20 press conference, Bush said he was meeting with advisers to discuss options in Iraq and that he was "willing to follow a path that leads to victory" because "[v]ictory in Iraq is achievable." Similarly, in November 2005, the White House released a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."
From the January 2 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): But might there be any repercussions?
RADDATZ: I think they'll get more pressure. The [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-]Maliki government will get more pressure. As you know, the president is about to announce a new strategy for victory in Iraq. He has to have the Iraqi government's cooperation in curbing sectarian violence or it will not work.
From the January 2 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
MIKLASZEWSKI: Administration officials told us late today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional combat troops into Baghdad to try to get control over the violence there, and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is, they're just not up to the task yet.
The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Now, interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have simply run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. And while this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition up on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today.
Is this the "liberal media" so feared and loathed by the Troglodytes? Of course not...the "liberal media" is a fairytale concocted to frighten Troglodyte cubs.
Bush's "Strategy for Victory" is likely a warmed over version of "Stay the Course"; what we're doing now isn't working...let's do more of it.
Can't wait to see what Puddinhead proposes. Who knows? He may surprise us and actually say something halfway intelligent....NOT.
I know how to beat the "insurgency".
"Surge" means more of course, not less.
More or less U.S. Troops in Iraq?
That's the question I guess (although I'd of thought the question to be more one of the mission... more a question of the reason for U.S. Troops in that place, in the first place).
More or less U.S. Troops in Iraq?
The answer (according to the word-tricky administration and it's many "media" hacks) seems to be:
SURGE
...not more (certainly not less) but "surge".
What happened to "Double Down"?
What happened to "Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home"?
("Go Home" was, of course, "cut and run"... "Go Long" was of course "stay the course"... "Go Big" seems to be
SURGE)
I think that's just what we need to solve the scheme of death and greed that is Iraq...
...not redeployment, or even investigation into the FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence'...
...what we need is BETTER WORDS!...
...to describe this scheme of death and greed!
SURGE
...it's the new call of 'Charge', for a newer and more modern Light Brigade (who never knew, but are fast finding out, the cause of their much more than five hundred deaths).
It was a surge.
...it was called "Escalation".
Olbermann had a great special comment last night delivered with passion:
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
He is one newsperson who doesn't parrot the White House propaganda.
Take 1
Take 2
Take 3
YEARS LATER...
Take 33
Take 34
Take 35
AND MORE YEARS PASS...
Take 99
BUSH LEAVES OFFICE...
Bring troops home...war over
the neverending bloopers spoil the filming until its airtime is finally cut. too bad these bloopers aren't funny. : (
...Bush will retroactively define "victory" in the way that best serves him and his legacy. In the meantime, we'll continue to get vague definitions ("we'll stand down when they stand up") or no definition at all.
The hanging of Saddam will be what our 3000+ soldiers died for. Hope it was worth it. Years from now, Puddinhead George will sit and watch the video of Saddam's execution, giggling his idiot's giggle, repeating to himself, "I wuz da War Prezdint. Heh, heh."
...that Bush made up his mind for the "surge" option weeks ago. He's just trying to find enough people who agree with him so that he can make the idea seem credible and avoid blame when it fails. (You can fool some of the people all of the time.) As for the delay in the announcement, 1) finding support for the surge has probably proved more difficult than first expected and 2) waiting until the Democratic Congress is seated has its political advantages, i.e., expect Republicans to spin a surge as having been "accepted" by Democrats.