For the first time I am supremely scared of what the future holds. I agree, I also wish we were talking about American Idol and the wacky weather, but this is life and death here. Bush just THREATENED Iran and Syria with a war and knowing him, he will likely do it. Can you imagine the consequences--forget about this meaningless escalation that changes nothing on the ground, if Bush strikes Iran, what the hell is gonna happen?!

And the Democrats being such pussies doesn't help this either. I am not confident in our Democratic leaders to stop Bush's lunacy. Things could turn into outright chaos in this country. I've never been a supported of impeachment, but this is seriously making me reconsider. We cannot afford to just wait out 2 more years.

It's just sad. I have always been interested in history and politics. I love reading history. Stories and analysis of important military battles, or great political battles or biographies of politicians, the endless topic fascinates me. But I just don't understand this. Why are other politicians not pulling him to the ground and beating him. Why are the American people not screaming tonight and throwing food at the TV?

The political elites currently running the country are the hired hands of the corporate ruling class.  They do its bidding without regard to consequences for ordinary Americans.  They feel assured, rightly or wrongly, that they will pay no price for their malfeasance.  Our recent history demonstrates that, so far, they are correct.

Ordinary, average Americans have disapproved of, but went along with several atrocities, crimes against democracy, without doing a damned thing.  Examples include Iran-Contra, the S&L bailout, the Clinton impeachment and, most alarmingly, a Supreme Court that said we don't count the votes.

It was that last one that convinced me that our republic was truly in danger.  It wasn't just the decision itself, it was the fact that hardly anyone seemed to have a problem with it.  I recall a conversation with a family member.  Her response to my rant was, "I don't hear any Democrats making a big deal out it, why are you?"  This, from a college-educated, liberal business executive.

I weep for the future when I consider that, even after being swept into power by voters who overwhelmingly oppose Bush's Iraq policies, the opposition party is not going to do anything about it.

One important point:  if they move from their prostrate position, Joe Lieberman will jump to the Republican Party and put the senate back in Republican hands.  Count on it.  The Democratic "leadership" knows this and they are not going to give up their majority.

I watched PBS after the speech and was struck how retired Generals and Jim Webb were so coherent, and opposed to Bush's position. The contrast with the mostly retread and largely tactical Bush speech was stunning.

One interesting thing Webb said when asked about the funding was how easily he separated supporting the troops from funding the reconstruction without a clear plan.

I think what happens when you see this type of disconnect is that some darkhorse will rise.

...what is our next step?

This man, like a petulent child, like the most foppish, blockheaded and cruel 18th Century English lord or French duc, will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, and if taking us straight into the very mouth of hell will allow him to pretend that what he's doing is not only the right thing, not only that it is following the will of God, but more importantly, allows him to defy any and all that dare to call him wrong or at least severely misguided, then so be it.

What are WE going to do?

Because demonstrations will be ignored.

Because both our House and Senate will require serious backbone.  (Senator Obama's and Biden's most recent remarks give me great pause.)  And even then, they may still be ignored.

Because, even if we deny funds for escalation, he will ignore it and do whatever it takes to move funding forward.

Because even if Republicans in the Congress run from supporting the President in the following weeks to protect their own hides, Bush and his cronies in the media will klaxon endlessly how bipartisan he is with co-conspirator Lieberman by his side.

Because, if none of that really has any effect on the American people or the Congress, then the President will, in effect, via signing statements and whatever other powers are at his disposal, act like an utter tyrant to bend his opponents to his will.

According to Jefferson, the Tree of Liberty must be expected, from time to time, to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  The former has already happened, supplemented by Iraqi civilians and the occasional Jose Padilla or poor sap at Guantanamo, and will now be guaranteed to happen in greater quantity, thanks to this complete denial of reality called escalation.

For now, I'm making sure my friends get better acquainted with their neighbors, especially the ones that live near their place of work.  They'd best get to know bus routes for work and shopping as well.  A little extra firewood and food stashed at home would also be a good bet.  

Because before this is over, they may come to rely on these things and more as how to get through some very rough times ahead.

And in the meantime, I still ask of you - how do we add the tyrant to the mix?

We'd better come up with some answers, and fast.

    The issue isn't that the Bush is going to order the increase in troops. As commander in chief, Bush does have the legal authority to send in more troops, regardless of whether people like it or not. He does not have the authority to fund the war or to start wars. Thats what the repeal of the War Powers Act under Nixon was about. The simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats are going to allow the escalation so as to make the Iraq War Bush's War, John McCain's War, and the Republican Party's War. Then, in 2008, they can sweep the board. if you are mad about the escalation, get mad at the Democrats for being cynical and going along for the fruits of 2008, not Bush Co.

When asked about Bush's plan for Iraq, Edwards said he thinks he(Bush) is dead wrong!

Whether or not democracy is affecting Democrats (and I think it is), it is definitely affecting Republicans.  The fact that Brownback and Lugar and Hagel oppose escalation (solely due to the pressure from the public) --and there will soon be other Republican opponents of escalation--will put  tremendous pressure on Democrats who support escalation or say that we should allow the President his way.

Democrats cannot go along with escalation while Republican presidential candidates oppose it, without great political harm to their own reelection as well as to the Democratic Party's presidential chances in 08.  They cannot allow the Republican candidates to align themselves with a position which has 88 pct support by the American people while they align with escalation which has 12 pct support..  Tauscher has already figured this out, and Steney Hoyer soon will.

The Republican defections change the risk factors completely--Dems can align with the very unpopular escalation and the debacle which will almost certainly follow its implementation, or align with opposition to escalation alongwith the overwhelming majority of the  American public.

Unless Obama changes the position he staked out today, he has doomed his chance for the Democratic normination.  He is now to the right of Hillary Clinton.  McCain has probably also doomed himself.

I agree that Bush's new strategy is nothing new except sending more U.S. troops into harms way in Baghdad.

Flying in the face of overwhelming popular opposition to remaining in Iraq, his speech showed that his administration has no intention of letting go of the permanent military bases the U.S. has been building in Iraq, the control that Western interests have gained over the Iraqi economy and oil, and the construction in the Green Zone of a U.S. command and control center for its operations in the Middle East and beyond.

Their strategy seems to be to try to create a new center of gravity politically by playing the Lieberman card. The Democrats in Congress, however, are not going to be able to lie down for this power play because their constituents will not stand for it.

Bush, Rove, Cheney & Co. are grasping at straws. The American people are calling the shots and it is just a matter of time until they shout loud enough through the polls and their votes that they want the U.S. to withdraw once and for all. I believe that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are eventually going to coalesce in recognizing that they have no choice but to cut off the funding in order to keep more lives from being lost and billions more taxpayer dollars from being poured down the bottomless pit of Republican militarism.

Matt,

What are you whining about? It's time to phonebank the dems. We elected em. We want them to reign in the executive. They have the power of the purse. Everyone needs to get on the phone tomorrow and everyday after to make them understand we want this warshit to end. There's more of us then there are backers of the "escalation". We need to make it really ugly. We need to force the dems to make it really ugly.

This is exactly the time you make the big money as the house. Bush has everything at stake. You can see the fear in his eyes. All dems have to do is stand up and say no.

If the blogsphere is to matter we have to be loud and unified when our own people are off the reservation. If we can't police our own we are no better than the rightwing zombies. It's time to make our voices heard. More Americans agree with us now then they did on election day.

GW is doing the best that he can do considering what he has to work with.  At least he has found a few friends among the masses who will support him.

This just keeps getting better and better...

My question is: what do we do? I understand that the President, as Digby puts it, is governing by tantrum. I understand that only 12% of Americans support escalation. Governmentally, however--what do we do?

I understand that we can impeach the man--and then what? You need 67 votes to convict him and remove him from office. Tell me--which 17 or 18 Republicans will vote to get rid of their own President? That assumes that all 49 Dems vote to remove him. Tell me--do you see Blanche Lambert Lincoln voting that way? How about Dianne Feinstein? Or Jay Rockefeller?

You say defund the war. Fine, I'm there. Realize, however, that the money for Iraq & Afghanistan for this fiscal year has already been allocated, and most likely budgeted, if not spent, so we're there at least through September 30, money-wise.

So what do we do? And please, this is a serious question, so I'd like serious answers. Don't talk to me about street protests, because never in our history has an organized street protest brought down a government--and there's no evidence, based on my personal experience, that the current anti-war movement can organize itself to do that.

I didn't watch the speech.  That smirking fucker makes me want to break things when he speaks.  But I caught a bit of the commentary afterwards, and it was so empty and vapid that it made my brain hurt.  Tim Russert got on national TV and said that now, with the escalation, the next 6 months would be "dead serious."  How utterly detatched from reality do you have to be to say something like that?  It wasn't "dead serious" before?  3000 US soldiers are dead.  Tens of thousands are wounded.  HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis are dead and wounded!  And what, Tim?  Was it a game before now?  A joke?  Until President Codpiece decided to kill thousands more people, and it just suddenly became serious?  I hate these people so bad.

Here he is tonight:
"Tonight, against all military advice to the contrary, the President announced his intention to plunge us ever deeper into the quagmire of Iraq. I have no doubt that the President is sincere in believing that his strategy is the right one. But escalation has already been tried and it has already failed, because no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else's civil war.

I opposed giving the President the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002 partly because I feared we would arrive at this point -- a point where the ideological pursuit of an ill-defined victory would overwhelm the reality of the facts on the ground. We must not risk more American lives in service of a failed policy, but do what's necessary to force a political settlement in Iraq so that we can bring our troops home and redouble our nation's efforts in the wider struggle against terrorism."

and this:
"It is time for us to send a message to the Iraqis that they have to stand up. And we can be partners with them. We can mobilize the international community to support them. But for us to simply think that by adding 15,000 or 20,000 more troops, as opposed to beginning a phased withdrawal, that we're sending that message, I think we're making a very bad mistake. And I'm going to see what we can do here in Congress to ensure that the initial mistake of going into Iraq is not compounded by this further mistake."

Sounds good to me. We'll get a non-binding resolution vote next week as a starter, which Obama supports, along with hearings and go from there trying to do as much as they can, given that they're not the commander-in-chief. Hoyer and Lieberman are Dem. problems. But Obama's one of the good guys. He's not perfect. But then we can't all be Matt Stoller.

Bush and Cheney need to be removed from office.  They are going to blow up Iran...  We are going to have a freaking regional war in the middle east that he made.  He is going to kill Iranians who think their leader is an ass that needs to be replaced (sound familiar) because he is saber rattling. - bull shit.  This is a war for corporate America, they want oil.  Hoyer and Obama are whistling to the Johns on 8 Mile.  This is exactly why Obama needs to stay in his room until he grows a pair. On top of a war, this country's economy is going to tank, big.  The housing market is a disaster (one year and houses can't sell, while people are getting their homes foreclosed).  NO jobs, no health care.  Homeless numbers up?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  I would like to send every stupid ass who voted for this administration to Gitmo for some of Bush's idea of justice.  

Bush indicated in his speech last night that he was not changing, he is staying the course.  No matter how much Bush spins this one, he doesn't have many more troops to put in Iraq.  A few more troops is an illusion Bush is creating to disguise the fact that his policy is still "stay the course".  Nothing is different from the same old failed policy of the past 4 years.

Bush is still  unwilling to pursue negotiations with the parties out of power that are behind the insurgency.  Bush cannot seem to separate the anti-Israel policies of Iran and Syria (where we disagree) from the Iraq policy where Iran wins with a stable Shia led government and Syria loses if the flood of refugees into Syria does not abate.  Without actively seeking a political solution to Iraq, there will be no solution.

As Sid Blumenthal notes, Rice is Secretary of State not to engage the diplomats in the State Department, but to make sure that the long time employees at State are cut out of the loop and only Bush functionaries at the top are allowed to operate.

The real need is to focus on requiring Bush to actively pursue a diplomatic track.  Congressional leaders have talked with the Syrians and they need to continue to do so and blast Bush for not talking to them as well.

"Watching this speech tonight, and the bleatings of the commentariat, was downright creepy."

Hmm...I saw the opposite.  I only watched NPR but Gen. Trainer and Gen. Odom, the two expert guests, pretty much excoriated Bush Jr. as totally out to lunch.

Senator Webb also.  The pro-Bush Jr view was Senator Thune and he simply had nothing to say other than follow the leader.

All the next day commentary also seemed to be completly negative, having the opposite effect Bush Jr wanted.

So I found it kind of hopeful that the vast majority consider Bush Jr's move a desperate and meaningless act.

Fineman's commentary that Bush Jr looked "scared" is probably the one that infuriated the Bush Jr admin the most given their "drugstore cowboy" macho self image.