|
 |
 |
|
"Harsh” Politics and Quick Responses
-
01/08/07 10:10 AM ET
It's a good thing we can't actually hear the sound of politicians' brains calculating and recalculating, its painful enough having to watch it. This week, as we await President Bush's latest SIGNIFICANT Iraq war announcement -- now a national pastime -- all sides are angling to own the moment.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasted no time, announcing on Face the Nation that any request for funding increased troops included in Bush's budget (sorry Nancy, he can surge before the budget) will face "harshest scrutiny." I think the word "thorough" would have done the job but harsh is the game being played.
Democrats, who last week were trying to build momentum for their 100 hours agenda of domestic proposals, realized Bush pushed his "New Way Forward" right into their news cycle on purpose. Quickly recalibrating, they popped a letter out on Friday telling the president his efforts to re-secure Iraq had failed in the past and rejecting his reported plans for a troop increase.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) wants to ditch the term "surge" and make sure the public knows it is an "escalation." Of course you can't silence Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) on the subject. And John Edwards has weighed in against Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) insistence on substantial troop increases and branded it the "McCain doctrine". But McCain wisely started bashing the idea of a small, short-term surge last week on NBC's Today Show. In a Sunday oped McCain said between 5 additional brigades (3,500-5,000 troops) are needed in Baghdad plus another 1-2 in Anbar. Get out your calculators, this brings his estimate to somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000. McCain has bought himself the wiggle room and can now reject Bush's plan on Wednesday, should he choose, with complete credibility.
There is time left for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to jump in with a major policy address that just so happens to conveniently mention the surge question. And hey, Mitt and Rudy, where are you guys?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasted no time, announcing on Face the Nation that any request for funding increased troops included in Bush's budget (sorry Nancy, he can surge before the budget) will face "harshest scrutiny." I think the word "thorough" would have done the job but harsh is the game being played.
Democrats, who last week were trying to build momentum for their 100 hours agenda of domestic proposals, realized Bush pushed his "New Way Forward" right into their news cycle on purpose. Quickly recalibrating, they popped a letter out on Friday telling the president his efforts to re-secure Iraq had failed in the past and rejecting his reported plans for a troop increase.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) wants to ditch the term "surge" and make sure the public knows it is an "escalation." Of course you can't silence Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) on the subject. And John Edwards has weighed in against Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) insistence on substantial troop increases and branded it the "McCain doctrine". But McCain wisely started bashing the idea of a small, short-term surge last week on NBC's Today Show. In a Sunday oped McCain said between 5 additional brigades (3,500-5,000 troops) are needed in Baghdad plus another 1-2 in Anbar. Get out your calculators, this brings his estimate to somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000. McCain has bought himself the wiggle room and can now reject Bush's plan on Wednesday, should he choose, with complete credibility.
There is time left for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to jump in with a major policy address that just so happens to conveniently mention the surge question. And hey, Mitt and Rudy, where are you guys?
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
