Comments on: Rice Insists Not “Escalation” But “Augmentation” In Iraq http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/ An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:17:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: GOPTool http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-44911 GOPTool Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:08:20 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-44911 What's ironic is that fact you guys did nothing in the last 6 years to stop this madness. Now that us Dems have taken back control of Congress, we'll have to clean up the mess. What did moderate Republicans do for the country while they were in Congress? Nothing. Maybe next time you'll think before blindly towing the party line and mortgaging the future of the country to a bunch of idealogues. What’s ironic is that fact you guys did nothing in the last 6 years to stop this madness. Now that us Dems have taken back control of Congress, we’ll have to clean up the mess.

What did moderate Republicans do for the country while they were in Congress? Nothing.

Maybe next time you’ll think before blindly towing the party line and mortgaging the future of the country to a bunch of idealogues.

]]> By: Kim Ritter http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-43221 Kim Ritter Sat, 13 Jan 2007 03:10:50 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-43221 <em>Since the PC media coyly shrinks away from talking about potent </em><em>successes of the WH, public recognition of the originator of this enlarged virility of US forces should be ensured by calling it Bush's bulge.</em> Gray- And the ensuing battle in Congress over funds for enlarging the military will be the Battle of the Bulge, lol! Since the PC media coyly shrinks away from talking about potent successes of the WH, public recognition of the originator of this enlarged virility of US forces should be ensured by calling it Bush’s bulge.

Gray- And the ensuing battle in Congress over funds for enlarging the military will be the Battle of the Bulge, lol!

]]> By: nicrivera http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-43207 nicrivera Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:53:30 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-43207 <em><blockquote>When popular sentiment strongly backed Bush in that timeframe (70% approval rating?), Hagel was the only Republican who did not toe the line, and he remains a consistent and more vocal critic of the war than most Democrats.</blockquote></em> mw, I agree with the main point of your post. But let it not be said that Hagel was the <b>only</b> Republican who did not toe the line. Republican Congressman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul" rel="nofollow">Ron Paul</a> of Texas has also been very critical of the war, and has been been (in my opinion) the most <a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?p=108" rel="nofollow">consistent opponent</a> of the war in congress (Democrat or Republican).
When popular sentiment strongly backed Bush in that timeframe (70% approval rating?), Hagel was the only Republican who did not toe the line, and he remains a consistent and more vocal critic of the war than most Democrats.

mw,

I agree with the main point of your post. But let it not be said that Hagel was the only Republican who did not toe the line. Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has also been very critical of the war, and has been been (in my opinion) the most consistent opponent of the war in congress (Democrat or Republican).

]]> By: Pyst http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-43199 Pyst Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:36:23 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-43199 “I would call it, senator, an augmentation,� Rice said. Mmmmmmm truthiness :) “I would call it, senator, an augmentation,� Rice said.

Mmmmmmm truthiness :)

]]> By: CStanley http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-43008 CStanley Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:50:21 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-43008 jjc, Also wanted to add, I agree with Jason Steck in his comment to his own post above, "Indulgence of Blame". He's basically said that we should hold Bush to the terms of the plan and force him to say what the consequences will be if Maliki can't or won't meet the benchmarks. That makes a lot of sense to me because it allows us to see if the plan can work while also sending the message that this has to be the endgame. I agree that there isn't reason to have good faith belief in the administration, but if Congress and the American people put some benchmarks of our own on them, then it has merit IMO. jjc,
Also wanted to add, I agree with Jason Steck in his comment to his own post above, “Indulgence of Blame”. He’s basically said that we should hold Bush to the terms of the plan and force him to say what the consequences will be if Maliki can’t or won’t meet the benchmarks. That makes a lot of sense to me because it allows us to see if the plan can work while also sending the message that this has to be the endgame. I agree that there isn’t reason to have good faith belief in the administration, but if Congress and the American people put some benchmarks of our own on them, then it has merit IMO.

]]> By: CStanley http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42997 CStanley Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:33:00 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42997 mw, Point well taken about Hagel. I wasn't trying to say that he's disingenuous, just that I feel this rhetorical style is politically motivated. I do have to concede that it's possible that his heart felt conviction motivated it rather than opportunism. jjc, Yes, I agree and I do assign blame to both Hagel and Rice. I'm just objecting to Joe's post, which ridicule's Rice's response, because I really don't see how she could have responded any other way. She was backed into a corner, and while some will say that is a good thing, I don't really think that's the best way for the situation to be handled. mw,
Point well taken about Hagel. I wasn’t trying to say that he’s disingenuous, just that I feel this rhetorical style is politically motivated. I do have to concede that it’s possible that his heart felt conviction motivated it rather than opportunism.

jjc,
Yes, I agree and I do assign blame to both Hagel and Rice. I’m just objecting to Joe’s post, which ridicule’s Rice’s response, because I really don’t see how she could have responded any other way. She was backed into a corner, and while some will say that is a good thing, I don’t really think that’s the best way for the situation to be handled.

]]> By: jjc http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42987 jjc Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:17:57 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42987 CS: If Hagel was posturing, so was Rice. Your (and Rice's) argument that the troop increase shouldn't be characterized as an escalation rests on the credibility of the Administration as to what these troops will be doing. Insisting on the literal use of "escalation" makes the point that Bush's and Rice's credibility is insufficient to support their insistence on their own characterization. Bush's and Rice's problem is compounded by their attempt to switch rhetorical horses midstream. CS: If Hagel was posturing, so was Rice.

Your (and Rice’s) argument that the troop increase shouldn’t be characterized as an escalation rests on the credibility of the Administration as to what these troops will be doing. Insisting on the literal use of “escalation” makes the point that Bush’s and Rice’s credibility is insufficient to support their insistence on their own characterization. Bush’s and Rice’s problem is compounded by their attempt to switch rhetorical horses midstream.

]]> By: Kim Ritter http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42985 Kim Ritter Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:13:03 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42985 mw- You are right on target about Hagel. He's not intimidated by the Bush smear machine, and has been a concientious maverick on the war all along. He does not want this country to go through the foreign policy debacle that Vietnam turned out to be, and sees us repeated the same mistakes made then. Murtha, another Viet Nam vet has spoken out in a similar vein. These are the voices that I respect, not those who have failed time and time again to learn from their failures- who see the world as they want it to be, not how it is. I'll give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they feel they had no choice but to go in the direction that they did, but then they needed to fight the war at its onset in a much more serious manner. mw- You are right on target about Hagel. He’s not intimidated by the Bush smear machine, and has been a concientious maverick on the war all along. He does not want this country to go through the foreign policy debacle that Vietnam turned out to be, and sees us repeated the same mistakes made then. Murtha, another Viet Nam vet has spoken out in a similar vein. These are the voices that I respect, not those who have failed time and time again to learn from their failures- who see the world as they want it to be, not how it is.

I’ll give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they feel they had no choice but to go in the direction that they did, but then they needed to fight the war at its onset in a much more serious manner.

]]> By: mw http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42968 mw Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:35:26 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42968 <em>"Hagel was posturing..." - cstanley</em> Nonsense. You could make a case for "posturing" if Hagel was just now expressing his frustration with the war and changing his views to blow with the prevailing popular wind. You could make that case for Republicans like Sununu, Murkowski, Voinovich, and Lugar - all former supporters of the war that now in open oppostion. You could even make that case for Democrats like Clinton, Kerry and Edwards, who were not critics of the Iraq action prior to March '03. When popular sentiment strongly backed Bush in that timeframe (70% approval rating?), Hagel was the only Republican who did not toe the line, and he remains a consistent and more vocal critic of the war than most Democrats. If you want to really appreciate how far Hagel was ahead of the curve on Iraq, check out this <a href="http://ome.ksu.edu/lectures/landon/video/hagel.ram" rel="nofollow">video of his speech at Kansas State University</a> in February of 2003 (Landon Lecture Series - warning, it is long some 50 minutes). Filmed a few weeks before we went into Iraq, Hagel warns about almost every single thing that has happened as a consequence over the last three years. Not hindsight, real foresight. It's scary how on-target he was - He sounds like a friggin' prophet now. Nobody was listening to him. Not in the administration. Not the American people. Just a voice lost in the howling wind of war fever. I include myself among the deaf, as I was as gung-ho as every other yahoo at the time. “Hagel was posturing…” – cstanley

Nonsense. You could make a case for “posturing” if Hagel was just now expressing his frustration with the war and changing his views to blow with the prevailing popular wind. You could make that case for Republicans like Sununu, Murkowski, Voinovich, and Lugar – all former supporters of the war that now in open oppostion. You could even make that case for Democrats like Clinton, Kerry and Edwards, who were not critics of the Iraq action prior to March ‘03.

When popular sentiment strongly backed Bush in that timeframe (70% approval rating?), Hagel was the only Republican who did not toe the line, and he remains a consistent and more vocal critic of the war than most Democrats. If you want to really appreciate how far Hagel was ahead of the curve on Iraq, check out this video of his speech at Kansas State University in February of 2003 (Landon Lecture Series – warning, it is long some 50 minutes).

Filmed a few weeks before we went into Iraq, Hagel warns about almost every single thing that has happened as a consequence over the last three years. Not hindsight, real foresight. It’s scary how on-target he was – He sounds like a friggin’ prophet now. Nobody was listening to him. Not in the administration. Not the American people. Just a voice lost in the howling wind of war fever. I include myself among the deaf, as I was as gung-ho as every other yahoo at the time.

]]> By: Michael van der Galien http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42881 Michael van der Galien Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:02:20 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42881 have deleted most of them. have deleted most of them.

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42873 Gray Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:41:45 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42873 Feel free to delete comments 17 to 27 now, or to move them to Joe's story about 'Posting Problems', Michael. Sry for messing up the thread with those tests... Feel free to delete comments 17 to 27 now, or to move them to Joe’s story about ‘Posting Problems’, Michael. Sry for messing up the thread with those tests…

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42846 Gray Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:55:25 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42846 Well, the preparations for naval blockade seem to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y76rbx" rel="nofollow">have hit a hindrance</a> recently, CS... Well, the preparations for naval blockade seem to have hit a hindrance recently, CS…

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42843 Gray Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:52:38 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42843 "dealing with Iran and Syria (which I believe we’re going to do through threat of naval blockade" Well, the preparations for naval blockade seem to <a href="dealing with Iran and Syria (which I believe we’re going to do through threat of naval blockade" rel="nofollow">have hit a hindrance</a> recently, CS... “dealing with Iran and Syria (which I believe we’re going to do through threat of naval blockade”

Well, the preparations for naval blockade seem to have hit a hindrance recently, CS…

]]> By: CStanley http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42837 CStanley Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:37:40 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42837 OK, my opinion seems to be in the minority here but I'm getting used to that. I don't consider this an escalation. Yes, I realize you could strictly take the dictionary definition and say it fits, but words do mean different things in different contexts. In terms of what escalation of a military conflict means, it ISN'T strictly about the number of troops. It's about the scope of the mission and the open-endedness of it. If we take the new plan at it's face value and assume that there will be the political will to follow it (for Bush to keep pressure on Maliki and for Maliki to start dealing with the Shi'a militias), then this doesn't meet those criteria. In some ways the mission is narrower because we're phasing out of regions other than Baghdad and Anbar. I guess you could say that going after Sad'rs gang is an expansion of mission but it's a tactical one that might actually allow the plan to work this time. Likewise for dealing with Iran and Syria (which I believe we're going to do through threat of naval blockade, not actual airstrikes or boots on the ground- and I think this might have the effect of a deterrent because Tehran won't want to risk having their oil exports cut off.) On openendedness, Bush didn't go far enough in saying what the specific consequences would be if Maliki fails to meet benchmarks, but at least he's now saying that there ARE conditions for our support. And regarding the exchange between Hagel and Rice, the quibbling over words occurred because Hagel insisted on the use of the term escalation, which he knows very well has a strong negative connotation after Viet Nam. I can understand the backlash against the parsing of words but I hardly think that an administration official objecting to an emotionally charged word is the same as Clinton trying to redefine "is". Hagel was posturing, either considering a presidential bid or helping out his co-committee members who are doing so. He set up a question so that Rice either would have had to have ignored the use of this term and it would be said that she admitted that Bush is escalating an unpopular war, or do as she did and be lambasted for doublespeak. It was "gotcha" at its finest. Why exactly is that exchange useful for anything but political posturing? Does it get us any closer to understanding the rationale for this plan and allowing people to evaluate it? OK, my opinion seems to be in the minority here but I’m getting used to that. I don’t consider this an escalation. Yes, I realize you could strictly take the dictionary definition and say it fits, but words do mean different things in different contexts. In terms of what escalation of a military conflict means, it ISN’T strictly about the number of troops. It’s about the scope of the mission and the open-endedness of it. If we take the new plan at it’s face value and assume that there will be the political will to follow it (for Bush to keep pressure on Maliki and for Maliki to start dealing with the Shi’a militias), then this doesn’t meet those criteria. In some ways the mission is narrower because we’re phasing out of regions other than Baghdad and Anbar. I guess you could say that going after Sad’rs gang is an expansion of mission but it’s a tactical one that might actually allow the plan to work this time. Likewise for dealing with Iran and Syria (which I believe we’re going to do through threat of naval blockade, not actual airstrikes or boots on the ground- and I think this might have the effect of a deterrent because Tehran won’t want to risk having their oil exports cut off.)

On openendedness, Bush didn’t go far enough in saying what the specific consequences would be if Maliki fails to meet benchmarks, but at least he’s now saying that there ARE conditions for our support.

And regarding the exchange between Hagel and Rice, the quibbling over words occurred because Hagel insisted on the use of the term escalation, which he knows very well has a strong negative connotation after Viet Nam. I can understand the backlash against the parsing of words but I hardly think that an administration official objecting to an emotionally charged word is the same as Clinton trying to redefine “is”.

Hagel was posturing, either considering a presidential bid or helping out his co-committee members who are doing so. He set up a question so that Rice either would have had to have ignored the use of this term and it would be said that she admitted that Bush is escalating an unpopular war, or do as she did and be lambasted for doublespeak. It was “gotcha” at its finest. Why exactly is that exchange useful for anything but political posturing? Does it get us any closer to understanding the rationale for this plan and allowing people to evaluate it?

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42812 Gray Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:56:14 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42812 It shouldn't be forgotten that Bush wants to boost the US Army by 92000 soldiers, too. Even if the unmanly lefties will oppose it, the president will sure bore the palm by deploying his executive superpowers. Since the PC media coyly shrinks away from talking about potent successes of the WH, public recognition of the originator of this enlarged virility of US forces should be ensured by calling it 'Bush's bulge'. :) It shouldn’t be forgotten that Bush wants to boost the US Army by 92000 soldiers, too. Even if the unmanly lefties will oppose it, the president will sure bore the palm by deploying his executive superpowers. Since the PC media coyly shrinks away from talking about potent successes of the WH, public recognition of the originator of this enlarged virility of US forces should be ensured by calling it ‘Bush’s bulge’.
:)

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42811 Gray Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:27:04 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42811 Oh, and Tony Snow could use the following phrase starting his stand-up routine: Everything is going swell! Oh, and Tony Snow could use the following phrase starting his stand-up routine:
Everything is going swell!

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42810 Gray Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:24:16 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42810 Another suggestion for the thesaurus of Bushista newspeak: <strong>Troop swell</strong> And supporters of this policy will be called 'swell-headed'... :D Another suggestion for the thesaurus of Bushista newspeak:

Troop swell
And supporters of this policy will be called ’swell-headed’…
:D

]]> By: nicrivera http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42803 nicrivera Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:18:13 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42803 <i>Reviewed all options= Iraq, paper, scissors</i> Ha. Does "Iraq" still beat "scissors"? Reviewed all options= Iraq, paper, scissors

Ha. Does “Iraq” still beat “scissors”?

]]> By: CaliBlogger http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42802 CaliBlogger Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:06:00 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42802 Hey Joe, Elayne Boosler (who's been posting regulary at HuffPo since the New Year) put up a Bush Admin. lexicon. Check it out <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elayne-boosler/the-bush-berlitz_b_38468.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Hey Joe, Elayne Boosler (who’s been posting regulary at HuffPo since the New Year) put up a Bush Admin. lexicon. Check it out here.

]]> By: nicrivera http://themoderatevoice.com/10226/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-42801 nicrivera Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:03:03 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/rice-insists-not-escalation-but-augmentation-in-iraq/#comment-42801 Right now, the way I look at it, the top three Republican contenders are John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. The problem: they all solidly backed the war in Iraq. That's not necessarily a liability...yet, but with the way the war's going, it eventually might be. Hagel stands out as being the only Republican who's been speaking out against the war for the last three years. Assuming that McCain, Giuliani, and Romney split the pro-war vote, that's got to leave Hagel in a pretty good position. Not enough to win the nomination, but at least enough support to get part way through the primaries and force a debate within the Republican Party over the war. Actually, I would be remiss not to mention <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Charles_Smith" rel="nofollow">Michael Smith</a>, who's also seeking the Republican nomination for president and has already filed with the FEC. Sure, he has no previous political experience and has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, but he seems like a really nice guy, and the Republican party could use more principled fiscally conservative/socially libertarian Republicans like him. It might be nice to visit his <a href="http://www.smithforpresident.com/" rel="nofollow">campaign website</a> and let him know that you appreciate his efforts to reclaim his party back from the neoconservative and social conservative wings of his party. Right now, the way I look at it, the top three Republican contenders are John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. The problem: they all solidly backed the war in Iraq. That’s not necessarily a liability…yet, but with the way the war’s going, it eventually might be.

Hagel stands out as being the only Republican who’s been speaking out against the war for the last three years. Assuming that McCain, Giuliani, and Romney split the pro-war vote, that’s got to leave Hagel in a pretty good position. Not enough to win the nomination, but at least enough support to get part way through the primaries and force a debate within the Republican Party over the war.

Actually, I would be remiss not to mention Michael Smith, who’s also seeking the Republican nomination for president and has already filed with the FEC. Sure, he has no previous political experience and has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, but he seems like a really nice guy, and the Republican party could use more principled fiscally conservative/socially libertarian Republicans like him. It might be nice to visit his campaign website and let him know that you appreciate his efforts to reclaim his party back from the neoconservative and social conservative wings of his party.

]]>