The Real Price That Is Paid For Bush's Iraq Debacle

I hope others are as fed up and furious with the talking heads on today's Sunday shows. On Fox News we were subjected to Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot (one of the biggest cheerleaders for invading Iraq) saying I think the president’s commitment of resolve this week in saying — wrapping his arms around Maliki and saying we’re going to be there with you is very important, because that’s the only way that we can, I think, get him to make the very difficult decisions that he has to make, whether it be taking on the insurgency or disarming the Shiite militias. This IMO is just another way of saying "stay the course". From Think Progress, we are told what that bastion of virtue Joe LIEberman had to say on CBS's "Face The Nation" about the oh so convenient release of the Rumsfeld memo I must say, Bob, that the one thing he doesn’t raise as a possibility is to increase the number of our troops there even though there’s very broad criticism of Rumsfeld for having had too few American troops in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. That may well be a critical part of the problems that we’ve been having lately. Incidentally, finally he makes a few suggestions such as embedding more Americans in Iraqi security forces which most people now think is a good idea and having more Americans on the border with Iran and Syria to stop the terrorists from coming in. You know, our military has been asking for that for years. They didn’t get it. Both of those require more personnel on the ground in Iraq. Myself, I would tell all these talking heads who are so ready to send everyone else's son, daughter, father, or mother to fight and risk dying for what is a civil war, to watch this. Increase the troop level my ass! If these people want that so bad, they should be willing to send their own relatives or better still go themselves and I don't give a tinkers' damn if they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent.