So... ummmm... yeah. About that surge...

In his State of the Union speech, Bush laid out his plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq to stabilize the region. He assured us that these additional troops would quell the violence that's tearing Iraq apart. But that in and of itself was a flat out lie. The number of troops that would actually be going to Iraq in this "surge" would not be the 21,500 that he outlined in the State of the Union... not even close. The actual number of troops would be closer to 48,000 according to a report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Funny how he forgot to mention that another 25,000 "supporting" troops would be required to go to Iraq.

But wait... there's more! Oh yes there is!

Over the weekend, Bush announced that another 8,200 troops would be deployed to the region in addition to the 21,500 he's "surging" in. To fund these additional troops, he's announced his plan to cut 3.2 billion from "low-priority defense items." There was no mention of what those "low-priority defense items" might be however. If I were to take a guess though, I'd say he'd be cutting out maybe... federal defense funding to the blue states? But hey, I'm just guessing here.

So let's see... now he wants to send in another 56,000 troops at a cost of about $100 billion. Does anybody remember when we'd first invaded Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld said that a) he doubted the war would take more than 6 months and b) the oil revenues would more than pay for the entire Iraq war? Yeah, here we are 4 years and hundreds of billions of dollars into it. I guess they "misunderestimated" things a bit, huh?

We're pouring troops in while the British are pulling theirs out. And let's see if I can follow the logic here... The Brits are pulling out and Darth Cheney lauds it as a success...

"I look at it and what I see is an affirmation of the fact that in parts of Iraq … things are going pretty well."

So let's look at that for a second... The Brits getting out of Iraq is a sign of success. By Darth Cheney's logic, does that mean that because we're flooding more bodies in there that we're failing? But gee, how could that be when the Administration keeps painting the rosiest of pictures about what's going on in Iraq? You know, freedom is on the march, progress is being made and all that happy horseshit. What I don't get though is, shouldn't Darth Cheney be calling the Brits "cut and runners" and tell them that they're "aiding the enemy" by leaving before the "job is done." Hypocritical asshat.

If the British pull-out of Iraq is the model of success in Iraq, then that's the kind of success we can all get behind. But no, Bush and his cronies are going to go ahead and throw more kids into the meat grinder that is Iraq. They don't seem to care that the blood of more than 3,000 of America's best and bravest is on their hands. And if they do notice, they just don't give a damn.

More than 3,000 have died already. Throwing another 56,000 into the mix is only going to get more and more of them killed. And for what exactly? There can be no "victory" in Iraq no matter how many times Bush and his minions spout that word. Bush lost his war in Iraq long, long ago and he still can't admit it. He's just like a gambling addict, sitting at the blackjack table, convinced that he can win everything back on the next hand, that the cards will start falling right even though he's not won a hand all night. But guess what George? You've already busted.

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

~Kevin S.