Sen. Ted Kennedy handed an irresistible sound bite to the media in his speech to the National Press Club this afternoon, some 32 hours before the president announces his new strategy for Iraq. Christopher Hitchens, an ardent opponent of the Vietnam War, has addressed this subject several times, most memorably in 2004:

A war fought with weapons of indiscriminate slaughter, and accompanied by racist rhetoric, with a conscript Army deployed against a highly evolved revolutionary movement is as different as could possibly be from a campaign of precision-guided munitions, with an all-volunteer Army, directed at the overthrow of a hideous and dangerous tyranny, and then taking the form of a drive for free elections and a constitution. If people say that it’s “reminiscent” of Vietnam, it means they don’t remember Vietnam…

Kennedy is promising to introduce a bill that would block funding for a force above the current numbers unless Congress approves Bush’s plan. [Read on.]

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

***

Dan Riehl writes:

... Video via Hot Air of fat, drunk and dumb with a last name, but who has never accomplished anything on his own, Teddy, the drunken, rapist, murdering, Kennedy calling Iraq Vietnam. How would he know? He was probably stoned throughout the Vietnam era.

Kennedy embodies everything that's wrong with politics today. He's unaccomplished, a failed man who never lived up to half of what his Brothers "might" have been ... and Massachusetts can't stop getting hard for a last name that hasn't meant anything to American history for decades. Grrr... how I loath that fat drunken dirt bag. ...

The reality is this ... Bush has the authority to tell these feckless liberals and democrats to get lost. Send the troops, let's see them cut the funding off then. The weak, ineffectual bastards won't get elected to anything in 2008.

And if they won't defend this country and come to terms with the genuine global threat we face today, including in Iraq, then it's getting close to time to start a war with them. Taken as a whole, they are more dangerous then your average car load of jihadists. They won't even fight for America, the cowards would rather just give it away. ...

***

New Wave of Troops Set for Iraq 
Stop The ACLU

Gallup says that 61 % of Americans oppose a surge in this war, but its set to happen before the end of the month.

A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush’s new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.

Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president’s plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.

Details were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country after nearly four years of bloodshed. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to moves by the Iraqi government to ease the country’s murderous sectarian tensions, and to increased U.S. economic aid. ...

Ted Kennedy is blowing a gasket and promising to introduce a bill that would block funding for anything above the current level. However, Joe Biden thinks all this talk about stopping the surge is constituionally questionable. There is going to be fighting on the hill and it aint gonna be pretty. I know the public is divided on what to do in Iraq now, but I must say that flexing our muscle like this has got to be better than the Democrat plan of turning tail and waving the white flag all the way home.

Whether you think this is the right strategy or not, its gonna happen so you might as well get behind our troops and start cheering for victory.

John McCain at Powerline: ...

***

We Turn the Floor Over to Senator McCain
John Hinderaker

We have disagreed strongly with Senator John McCain on several issues, but have also applauded his unwavering support for a strong national defense and for vigorous prosecution of the global war on terror. When the Senator's staff requested an opportunity for Senator McCain to do a guest post on Iraq, we were delighted to turn the floor over to him. Senator McCain writes:

Debate in recent days has focused on the possibility of “surging” U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Security is the precondition for political progress and economic development, and we need more troops on the ground. But to make a real difference, any surge must be substantial and sustained.

During my recent trip to Iraq, commanders spoke of adding as many as five additional brigades in Baghdad, and one or two additional brigades in Anbar Province. This, I believe, is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels. ...

Increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq will expose more brave Americans to danger, and increase the number of American casualties. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional brigades is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed. Then they will shoulder their weapons, and do everything duty requires to win this war.

We have made many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed. But from everything I witnessed on my most recent visit, I believe that success is still possible. Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq. By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed. Our national security, and that of our friends and allies, compels us to make our best effort to prevail, and to do it now. ...

***

Dan Riehl looks at Allah's Gallup numbers and interprets them differently:

Poll: Overwhelming Support For War In Iraq

Despite how they might like to spin it, the case can easily be made that a recent poll shows overwhelming public support for the war in Iraq.

You can see the entire poll through Hot Air. Now focus on the screen cap from the poll below.

[image]

Eighty-four percent of Americans clearly support being in Iraq for a minimum of one more year. Now forget the word surge that has been bandied about. The word in itself means nothing.

Ask yourself this, with a baseline of 84% supporting a continued presence in Iraq for a minimum of a year, what do you suppose they would say if you asked:

Given your support for one more year of war in Iraq, what would you say if military commanders felt a relatively small increase in troops could reduce the commitment to ten months and save American and Iraqi lives?

As Allah points out, Bush wants to transfer the fight to the Iraqis by November. ...