U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 10, 2007 09:31 PM UTC
34 Comments
I think the only “surge” that could possibly change things would involve many more combat troops than that. That’s not a political or logistical reality, so Bush decided on a number that will simply ensure we are in the same situation a year from now, when the Presidential race will dominate the news.
His “listening tour” or “consulting” or whatever he’s been doing for apparently three months now does not seem to me like he made an effort to incorporate anyone else’s feedback. He ignored nearly all recommendations of the Baker study group, because he didn’t like them.
I would like to think that we could stabilize Iraq now (disregarding the extreme initial folly of having ignored bin Laden and al Qaida to attack Iraq instead). I don’t, and I don’t think Bush’s retreaded “new plan” is going to accomplish anything other than killing more soldiers and allowing Bush to continue doing what he was always going to do anyway, the rest of the world be damned.
We never should have gone to Iraq – there was never a logical justification for it, never mind what the all-spin zone says. But we destroyed their country and unleashed decades of pent-up sectarian hostility resulting in the daily bloodbath we have now. It’s our moral duty to right this wrong, but it will take many, many more troops (hundreds of thousands), and probably the international community, to accomplish that. And there’s no guarantee that that will work now. We missed that opportunity 3-4 years ago, when we should have sent double the force in the first place in order to secure the country before it descended into chaos.
20,000 is the very definition of too little, too late.
I support our troops. Let’s start up the draft if America agrees the Iraq War is important, and not just break the military we have.
no, this is the bestest idea this preznit has ever had. We will surely surge to victory on the backs of our troops and the bold and (too bad for them) immobile Iraqi citizens.
I hope all our elected leaders surge their support for what will be this President’s Greatest Accomplishment of his Mission Accomplished Greatness of a Presidency.
No amount of dead is too many to ensure the historic success of George W. Bush and his great war plans.
Please, dear God, get us the hell out of there!!!!
and amen and amen
Amen to that.
Unless you’re a paid-for Bush rah-rah supporter, you can’t think this is any kind of a solution.
We needed 100,000 more troops – back when we invaded. Now, I’m not sure that 200,000 more will do the trick, and in the end, all it will get us is a lot more dead Iraqis and Americans.
Sending 20,000 – in 2 stages no less – can’t be called anything better than Operation Clap Harder; I’ve got a better chance of getting a personal visit from Tinker Bell than this has any chance of succeeding.
Was some four star saying we need 400,000? And he was forced into retirement?
So we are going to add – oh hold me back – 15% to those that are there and THIS will turn things around? If that’s the case, why has it taken almost four years to figger this out?
I’ll bet the Iraqis can crank up 15% more IED’s before they even get there.
I see the 20,000 as nothing more than a stall tactic to run down the clock until he leaves office. He has said he will keep troops there (stay the course) so long as he’s president. When we pull out, it’s going to be an absolute disaster so delay and let the next president take the blame.
The way I see it, we have two factions intent on killing each other. Our buddy Hussein was a horrible, ruthless person but he was the only one that could keep these idiots in line. Without him, they’re in a civil war and we’re getting killed in the crossfire so long as we’re there.
We screwed up by removing Hussein. This is not a region that is going to convert to democracy just because we say they should. If we pull out, there will be a bloodbath as the minority is exterminated. (And it would be to blame if we let that happen.) The Iraqi “police” we’re training are just death squads in uniform as best I can tell.
We all know Bush has absolutely no plan. But I have yet to hear from a Democrat or anyone else for that matter that has a viable plan that doesn’t allow the majority to exterminate the minority. How the heck do we get out of this mess?
Partition Iraq into its effective sub-states and leave.
Here’s a nice writeup
I believe, has proposed exactly this…
that “Iraq is not salvageable as a unitary state,” as the Slate article says.
Iraq should use its oil revenues directly to fund its own security, and should disavow the argeements it has entered into that give U.S. oil companies monopoly control over fields and high profits that leave the country.
Our best hope is to focus completely on training Iraqi security forces while moving U.S. troops from combat roles into purely support ones, and bringing home the longest-deployed units starting now. “As they stand up, we’ll stand down,” right? So let’s quit farbling around and make it happen.
At one point years ago, I thought there was still hope to bring in serious U.N. participation, or to turn the “Coalition of the Willing” into something real if we approached the international community humbly and honestly. Instead, our next President’s first task will be to repair those foreign relationships we used to be able to rely upon.
I think there is no chance of Bush’s “surge” actually changing things in Iraq. But believe me when I say I would be glad to be wrong.
Somebody will be helicoptering the last troops off the roofs in the green zone, but it won’t be Bush. He only has to stall two more years and then some other president will have lost Iraq. Those dead troops (and Iraqis) in the meantime? So what?
But I think it will fall apart faster so that it does occur on his watch.
We are about to see a disaster made worse.
I think Bush’s own words may be appropriate here when it comes to him trying to get us to go along with a repackaged version of the same old tired plan he’s been playing on us for years now…
There’s an old saying in Tennessee. I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: “Fool me once…” [pause] “… shame on…” [pause] “Shame on you…” [pause] “If fooled, you can’t get fooled again.”
the Bushies must think this strategy serves as a foundation for negotiations–you know, the old negotiate from strength thinking. Strength in this case defined as more troops in Bagdad. The difficulty is everyone trying to come up with a way for America (Bush) to save face as we withdraw. At some point we will come to the conclusion we cannot create that “way” as long as the other sides won’t agree to play nice. That’s when leaving Iraq starts to be real.
Leaving Iraq could become the central issue in 08. It happened in Korea and Vietnam. So, if Bush can’t leave Iraq; if the other sides won’t cooperate on finding a solution; and, if no other strategies rise above ditch level, putting in more troops is the default solution hoping we can outlast the other sides for two more years.
This is the perfect example of “a trip to abliene”. Or, as my grandma used to say—ain’t no reason to throw good money after bad. But, here we are throwing good money (and people) at a bad problem.
If Rummy weren’t such an arrogant shit for brains and actually listened to what the majority of the staff at the Pentagon was telling him we would have had a lot more troops at the onset of the invasion/occupation. He was too busy punishing people like Gen. Shinseki for saying just that, ie. troop levels need to be much higher.
Rummy and W are two peas in a pod – they refused to listen, and buried their heads in the sand, and by the time they realized they were wrong it was far too late.
….he should immediately reinstatement the 11,000 gay men and lesbians who have been thrown out of the military during the past six years because someone asked and/or someone told.
It was a stupid policy when Clinton signed it, it remains a stupid while Shrub maintains it, and we are now feeling the tangible effects of it.
11,000 additional troops only gets us 55% of the way to where we need to be, but that 55% would be coming from a community that comprises 10% (or maybe less) of the country’s population.
The plan Bush will talk about tonight apparently includes these hidden details:
– Increase operations against Iranian actors
– Request to Congress to allow State to reimburse civilian agencies that send employees to Iraq
This is in the summary at http://www.whitehous…
And the plan contains no specific goals or dates. An open-ended commitment is unacceptable. Congress should not allow increased funding.
And apparently he started “the surge” earlier, before he deciderated to let us all in on it:
Troop Surge Already Under Way
http://abcnews.go.co…
“Troop Surge Already under Way”
(Thanks to DK for the link.)
And in a representational democracy there’s no groundswell for impeachment? Thanks Oscar!
I lack humor, and am more reminded of Marlon Brando’s “the horror” line in Apocolypse Now. There’s nothing Bush can say, nothing, that will make his misguided Iraq plan work It’s amazing how the Republicans (and Democrats to be fair) just sat back and let their President lead us in to this horrible situation. They’ve all weakened America for a generation. There are military formula’s for occupying a country. One soldier for every 40 civilians. That worked in Germany. Now Bush is dangerously delusional, and exceedingly political, at the expense of our sons and daughters, and the countrys treasure. The horror.
Excellent choice of words!
If we thought Viet Nam created a lot of PTSD in our soldiers, wait until Iraq is over. It will make VN look like psycho-kindergarten.
And then there will be the monies needed to rebuilt our basic equipment, that should take ten or thirty years.
And then, what about reparations? A good case could be made.
The day George Bush was born should be taken out of the calendar. He is the Musollini of America, but at least Benito got the trains to run on time.
I waited to post and I listened carefully to what the President said. I really tried to understand how this was going to make any difference but I can not do it. There is just too much hate for the United States in the Middle East for this to ever make a long term difference. This is far too small of an increase in Troops and will only end in more tragedy. If this is the best we can do then I have come to believe that we need to exit and mitigate the damage where possible. This is a sad day for me because I really believed we could make a difference in the beginning
_____________________________________
Well that was the end of the Turtle Kings rule!
For Yertle the King of Sala-ma-sond, Fell off his high throne and fell PLUNK in the pond!
Dr. Seuss
Comparing Bush to Yertle the Turtle.
At the end of Condoleezza Rice’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, When she was done, Senator Joe Biden summarized things in blunt terms:
23 Senators is nearly a quarter of that body. And they told Rice that the Administration needs to shelve “the surge” and try again. Yet the U.S. basically engaged in hostilities with Iran now as well, and are sending all hardware to the Gulf, most of which appears positioned for action towards Teheran, not Bagdhad.
I’m a very liberal Democrat, but I’ve not previously been interested in talking about impeachment. There has been ample cause to remove GWB from office, but I have no interest in further exacerbating the partisan divide it would surely widen.
I’ve changed my mind.
Bush must go.