Sen. Smith: Surge "will be accomplished" by next week!

Just listened to this morning's CNN interview with Smith and heard him say that before the Senate gets around to the vote next week on Kennedy's proposal, "Bush will have his surge accomplished."

The action in Baghdad isn't the prelude, it's the escalation in action. Bush has hit the Democratic Congress with a preemptive strike.

Smith spent face time with the President and it sounds like Bush told the Republicans what he was going to do and when.  The poor trusting Democrats have been shafted once again.

Smith's remarks come just before the end of the interview.

•  What??

  The poor trusting Democrats have been shafted once again.

  Explain.

  by ablington on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:01:23 PM PDT

  •  All the petitions, all the rallies, the op-eds

    pondering how to "stop the escalation."  As if the ramp-up was yet to come. When in reality, the additional troops are already in the thick of it.

    Bush will not be denied his war. And he's led the media and the American public to believe that his speech will be about plans and intentions, rather than what is already in motion.

    You know, kinda like how the war in Iraq started long before "Shock and Awe" got off the ground.

    by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:14:15 PM PDT

•  The vote next week is not...

  ...on Kennedy's amendment. The vote would be on the resolution.

  And your snide "poor trusting Democrats" phrase is pure baloney. Reid and others knew what Bush would do, and knew that there was no opportunity to block it in advance.

  by Elwood Dowd on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:02:44 PM PDT

  •  Pure baloney? Huh!

    You got Pelosi and Reid talking even today about capping the number of troops, and blocking funds to prevent escalation.

    by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:27:35 PM PDT

    •  That's right.

      And Bush's stunt will look the worse for it, and it will make it easier to not fund it.

      There is no "trust" of Bush on the part of the leadership. If you don't understand that you haven't been paying attention.

      by Elwood Dowd on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:10:32 PM PDT

      •  Not politically feasible

        to defund "surge" forces once in country.  Congress would have to deny funding to the whole ball of wax.

        by Rick Oliver on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:24:27 PM PDT

        •  That's exactly right.

          Bush has trumped us by making it impossible for Congress to defund the war without seriously hurting the troops.

          by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:31:40 PM PDT

          •  Both of you are wrong.

            As happened in 1975, Congress can pass a law that sets a limit on the number of troops that can be stationed in Iraq as of Date X -- regardless of how much it costs to keep them there.

            by Elwood Dowd on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:08:21 PM PDT

            •  Check front page--surge already underway.

              by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:13:52 PM PDT

            •  I misspoke. They can.

              The question is will they?  In the current climate, I don't think they will.

              by Rick Oliver on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:03:21 PM PDT

      •  Bush's stunt.

        Elwood, here's a chance for you to read it for yourself. I'm not interested in arguing with you. We have a difference of opinion. And I can live with that.

        Kennedy's bill is one of several attempts by Democrats to prevent the war from escalating. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement Tuesday applauding his Massachusetts colleague for his gusto, but he reserved judgment on Kennedy's plan.

        "Senator Kennedy's resolution underscores the significant opposition on the Hill and with the American people to the president's plan. This is only one of several ideas about how to respond to the president's proposal on Iraq," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman.

        Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, indicated Monday they might consider blocking funds for a troop spike. Other senators have said they are considering legislation to cap the number of troops authorized to fight.

        Reid said Tuesday that senators will vote next week on a symbolic resolution opposing any escalation of the war. Several Republicans are likely to support it, he said.

        "I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, it will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do," he said.

         

        by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:27:09 PM PDT

        •  I've done quite a bit of reading on the topic

          and I find nothing to support your claim that the leadership is trusting and naive.

          by Elwood Dowd on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:09:43 PM PDT

•  Could they intro legislation and vote tonight? nt

  by iconoclastic cat on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:03:08 PM PDT

  •  It still wouldnt stop troop movement.

    W controls the military.

    defunding and/or trying some other method through legislation will take more than a week.

    by ablington on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:05:54 PM PDT

•  Smith is a tool.

  Smith is on record, as of December last, as saying the occupation of Iraq is possibly criminal, yet he continues to go along to get along.  So much for Republicans being principled conservatives.  If Gordo had any principles to back up his concerns about Iraq, he'd be pushing for an earlier vote so as to actively prevent the US from committing additional crimes.

  by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:03:50 PM PDT

  •  Tool is a nice work for that a**

    Notice - right on cue - about two years from his reelection campaign, he will start drifting toward the "center" and try to portray himself as a moderate.  The guy is a puke.

    by dansk47 on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:20:17 PM PDT

    •  I put up a diary with what I really thought

      I put up a diary with what I really thought, and got told I was overreacting.

      I still say Smith is spineless.  He can't act from principles because he hasn't any.  He's positioning now so he can pander for votes in '08.

      by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:50:25 PM PDT

      •  Just read your diary & comments...

        I think you're right that we need to be wary of Smith. He's definitely positioning himself for re-election and all his moves to the left need to be carefully examined for motive and intent.

        That being said, I am grateful for the way he's stirred the pot on Iraq. I think that he's made it easier for other Republicans to speak out.

        by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:02:30 PM PDT

      •  Be wary of Smith is right

        I have written to him numerous times and get the pablum right wing talking points back.  If I had the net-knowledge of how to do a website I would do an anti smith one.  He is nothing but a two faced hypocrite.  Support my Garrett bill for depressed kids but hey, i will not fund support for vets with mental problems. Nice Gordon, now go away...  PS you were not over reacting, Smith is sleaze.

        by dansk47 on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:08:03 PM PDT

•  all together now:

  singing

  by 2nd balcony on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:04:35 PM PDT

•  huh?

  This doesn't make any sense. Unless Bush is going to pull the necessary votes out of his you-know-what, there's no Congressional support for his plan.

  What's more likely is that Smith is bracing for the fight of his political life in '08 and is presenting a worst-case scenario to make himself look reasonable by comparison.

  by pine on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:13:23 PM PDT

  •  He doesn't give a shit about Congress.

    The man thinks he's king.

    by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:16:00 PM PDT

    •  what's your point?

      Please cut the bullshit. Through their control of Congress, Democrats do have the ability to block a surge by refusing to fund it.

      by pine on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:29:45 PM PDT

      •  You can't block it, it's already done

        The surge is in motion even as we type and snipe at each other here on the screen.

        by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:32:20 PM PDT

      •  Smith is right, the escalation is fait accompli

        The combat phase started days ago. The replenishment phase is a foregone conclusion.

        by RonK Seattle on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:46:37 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        1. It is far from clear whether they can Constitutionally speaking and

        2.  If the troops have deployed, prohibiting funding will be a much tougher sell on the Hill.

        by Rick Oliver on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:27:58 PM PDT

  •  He doesn't

    require any Congressional support.  He's daring the Democrats to pull funding from the entire occupation.

    by Rick Oliver on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:26:47 PM PDT

•  Fine.

  Just impeach Bush and Cheney, and then withdraw the troops.

  The time for resolutions is over - binding, non-binding or whatever.

  This administration is criminal and corrupt.  They cannot remain in power.

  We need a Defense of the Constitution Act.

  by landrew on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:13:39 PM PDT

  •  fine.... I'm all for it

    1 year to argue the case for impeachment and get the votes. 2 months to convict (maybe, probably not). Meantime, bush escalates anyway as is his perogative under the AUMF and as CIC. Another 1000+ American troops die and another 25000+ Iraqis die.

    Impeachment isn't the answer to this particular question. I don't see a way to stop him outside of defunding and that won't be a fast process either. I'm not sure we could ever get that through the Senate, either. It would take 60 votes for sure. mcconnell would filibuster as sure as shit.

    Whether we impeach or defund, we'd be taking ownership of the war, which would be a campaign issue in '08. I don't know if that's a good thing either. The punditry, mostly tweety, seems to want the Democrats to take ownership of the war. I want bush to have it tacked onto his legacy for all eternity. I also want the pubs and the punditry to be exposed as the warmongers that they have been. Those people need to have their credibility exposed further as aiders and abettors of the war. We need to get rid of the whole bunch of them.

    by dougymi on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:27:57 PM PDT

    •  The Bush legacy...

      I would love the irony of him dragging his own Vietnam through the rest of his ugly life and beyond.

      by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:30:20 PM PDT

  •  No, YOU impeach Bush and Cheney.

    I've been impeaching Bush and Cheney so hard my arm's tired from pointing my finger and shaking my fist at 'em, and they're STILL on my teevee.

    So don't tell ME to impeach Bush and Cheney.

    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:52:39 PM PDT

    •  You crack me up! :0)

      by Bugsby on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:03:05 PM PDT

•  And we're talking about minimum wage...

  These people know we are in an emergancy and they deflected.  I'm still waiting to see what they are made of. So far, not impressed.

  by tikkun on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:11:12 PM PDT

•  Whats all the grandstanding

  If it's already a done deal why are we getting all this theater from the dems? I feel like they are just putting up a faux opposition to everything the assholes do. Why would Reid think this needs a bi-partisan approach. How stupid is that.  Congress seems as hell bent as Bush is to get 'victory', what ever that is[dead Iraqis and all their oil]. Minimum wage and half ass ethics reform as a sop to the people is not going to work politically and giving one more inch to these thugs is driving one more stake into the heart of our republic.

  by shaharazade on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:48:46 PM PDT