Notes On An Escalation - Other People Edition

I'm very weary-eyed, but I've read a good deal of the various reactions to the President's speech on Iraq. Yesterday I mentioned that someone so wrong - who thought that elections with an unequivocal sectarian cast would bring Iraqis together shouldn't possibly be trusted to get it right. The fact that practically every member of the media's Gang of 500 was brought in for a high-level meeting with the President before the speech shows that this strategy is not geared to a solution, but to marketing. And the fact that Iran and Syria were singled out for threatening rhetoric suggests that the President is looking past this war to the next one, by bringing up the impossible theory that war with Iran and Syria is the pathway to peace in Iraq.

I have plenty of other thoughts, but first, I want to bring you a sampling of the best reactions I've found, online and off:

• Juan Cole: "To listen to Bush's speech on Wednesday, you would imagine that al-Qaeda has occupied large swathes of Iraq with the help of Syria and Iran and is brandishing missiles at the US mainland. That the president of the United States can come out after nearly four years of such lies and try to put this fantasy over on the American people is shameful." (Cole's whole take is great)

• William Arkin: "If there's anything in the President Bush's remarks tonight that we didn't already know or didn't anticipate him saying militarily about Iraq, it is his evident willingness to go to war with Syria and Iran to seek peace.

Speaking about the two countries tonight, the president said that the United States wiill "seek out and destroy" those who are providing material support to our enemies.

It is only a threat. But it is a far cry from the diplomatic proposals floated just last month for making Syria and Iran part of the solution. Can the president really be saying that we are willing to risk war with the two countries, and even attack elements inside them, to achieve peace in Iraq?"

• Keith Olbermann: "Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America. Now, he says it is vital for America. He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions. He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake. He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training. He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis. Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism." (and that's only the half of it)

• The Cunning Realist: "It's an inescapable irony that the greater the President's stridency in describing what's at stake in Iraq, the more obvious the "resource gap" becomes. If astronomers warned that a planet-killing asteroid was sure to collide with Earth next year, I don't doubt that Bush's deflection strategy would entail launching an impressive array of bottle rockets from the White House roof. (If there are any cartoonists out there, you have your next project; send it to me and I'll post it). Purely in terms of our force level and its relation to his own rhetoric, Bush has done the equivalent of sending the Capitol Hill police to take Normandy in 1944. Nothing he said tonight changed that -- on the contrary, it just became more obvious."

• Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary. And that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia, in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam — if it’s carried out. I will resist it."

• Gordon Smith (R-OR): "It is time for Congress to reassert itself, and try and more narrowly focus our efforts - the American efforts in the war on terror." (just now on Hardball, though he tried to worm his way through the rest of the interview)

• Russ Feingold (D-WI): "As the president made clear Wednesday night, he has no intention of redeploying our troops from Iraq. Congress cannot continue to accept this. Congress can, by restricting funding for this misguided war, do what the president refuses to do - redeploy from Iraq to refocus on defeating global terrorist networks.

Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our service men and women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger."

• Rudy Guiliani (R-Guiliani Partners): "It reminds me a little of the problem I faced in reducing crime in New York."

I'd give you Joementum's take, but I don't want to induce vomiting.

I honestly believe that the Democrats almost don't have to compete for votes in 2008. Bush has sunk his party for the next decade with this move. The above quotes give you a flavor as to why. I'll give my notable quotables later.