HAS BUSH LOST IT COMPLETELY NOW? A REGIME UNHINGED

It's not unreasonable for Republican legislators to say they want to hear what Bush has to say about his so-called "surge strategy" (more accurately, The McCain Escalation Doctrine) before they make up their "minds." In today's Washington Post Dana Milbank says that no matter how much they dread the consequences of Bush's policies-- on the nation and on their own re-election prospects-- they have to dance around very carefully. Like John Warner, most of them are subscribing, publicly, to "We should listen to what the president has to say." From pissed off Repugs who are mostly contemptuous of Bush and his bungled war, like Susan Collins, John Sununu-- who looks like he will soon be ex-Senator John Sununu-- Norm Coleman, and George Voinovich, to the enablers and cheerleaders like Pete Domenici, Saxby Chamberpot, Sam Brownback, everybody wants to be seen as "open-minded."

No one wants to be blurting out to the press that Bush's new plan is just a pathetic repackaging of the same old dismal, failed policies that have led to this catastrophe. Tom Raum of the AP, who doesn't have to face voters, points out that "The plan the president will outline to the nation Wednesday night is the latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times... there's clearly a been-there, done-that feel to Bush's new plan. It's an old story: The U.S. before has temporarily raised troop levels, taken steps to encourage democracy, spent money on education and public works and set benchmarks for the Iraqi government."

The Bush Regime even used to give these past failed "surges" fancy names:

• Operation Together Forward, (June-October 2006):  In June the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi Security Forces.  That plan failed, so in July the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a failure and had "not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence." 

• Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005):  In the fall of 2005 the Bush administration increased troop levels by 22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections.  While the elections went off without major violence these escalations had little long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American troops.

• Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005):  As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the January 2005 constitutional elections U.S. forces were increased by 12,000 to 150,000.  Again there was no long-term security impact.

• Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004):  As part of a massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000.  Yet, the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces.

Bush's obvious contempt for the opinion of the public, the Congress, the Military, members of his own party, extends also to his daddy's friends in the form of the bipartisan, or non-partisan, blue ribbon commission, the Iraq Study Group, whose recommendations he has unceremoniously tossed directly into the trash. Instead he's asking the American public to fork over another $6.8 billion to finance this ego-driven disaster-- not to mention all the lives of young men and women, sacrificed on the alter of his criminal psychosis. Honk if you want him impeached. Honk twice if you think impeachment doesn't even begin to describe what he's due.