Administration losing Iraq mojo

even Republicans are saying we need more troops in Iraq!

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), returning from a trip to Iraq, called on Bush to send "at least another division" � which could mean an additional 17,000 troops.

"We are in a very serious situation ... a race against time," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We need to spend a whole lot more money to get services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very [serious] situation."

But it's not just McCain on the R side - via Liberal Oasis, even South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham sounded sour notes:

�I would agree with the idea we need more.

Not necessarily more combat troops, but more people to help get Afghanistan and Iraq into decent shape so that we can turn the corner on what's happening over here with the public�

�The public [also] needs to know that al Qaeda and Taliban that are left are regrouping on the Pakistan-Afghan border to try to destabilize Afghanistan as they go into their democratic elections.

So we need more combat aircraft in that area�

� [And] the infrastructure needs in Afghanistan and Iraq are billions.

We are underestimating the cost of this conflict, and we in the House and the Senate need to appropriate a lot more money.

the attitude of the Administration is "nothing to see here. move along." - Paul Bremer's response to being asked about needing more troops was a curt "I don't think so." It's obvious that the Administration is more interested in control of Iraq rather than stability in Iraq - and acknowledging the need for more troops would require either UN support (as the Democrats, notably Dean, have been advocating) or a draft (which would probably trigger an impeachment trial).

No comments: