The talk shows were back in full force after the holiday break. Iraq and the Hamlet like question of to surge or not to surge additional U.S. forces to Iraq, which President Bush is supposed to speak on this Wednesday evening, was the topic de jour.

One noteworthy bit dealt with increasing dissent in the Republican Party over Bush policy toward Iraq. Consider this excerpt from CNN’s Late Edition between host Wolf Blitzer and House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri: 

BLITZER: On this issue of the mission, as you know, a lot of Democrats are critical of the president, but increasingly we’re hearing from Republicans in the Senate and the House who are very critical of what the president’s strategy has been and looks like it still is. Listen to Gordon Smith of Oregon and Heather Wilson, a Congresswoman from New Mexico, both Republicans.
 
U.S. SENATOR GORDON SMITH, R-OREGON: I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs, day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal.
 
U.S. REP. HEATHER WILSON, R-NEW MEXICO: I am not a supporter of a surge to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves. I also have not seen a clarity of mission, and I think that’s the greatest weakness that we have right now.
 
BLITZER: She’s a member of the Intelligence committee. As you know, she’s just back from a visit to Iraq. You have a serious problem with your own Republicans.

Meanwhile, on This Week On ABC Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft (Ret.), former U.S. national security, national security advisor to presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush had this to say:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, it’s no secret that you’ve had deep differences with this President Bush, particularly on Iraq, but wrote in The New York Times this week that now may be the time for sending — for increasing troops strength in Iraq. Would you advise sending more troops to Iraq right now?
 
SCOWCROFT: Well, that was not the central thesis of what I wrote about. I believe if there is a specific mission that they can accomplish and for a specific period, then it’s worthwhile. You know, if we had listened to General Shinseki several years ago, we would have many more troops there, but what I worry about, unless there’s something we can accomplish that is visible and demonstrable, more troops, after a couple of months people will say, well, look, the situation hasn’t changed. You got more troops, that demonstrates it’s hopeless and the pressure to get out will increase.

Meanwhile, there was this interesting bit on Meet the Press on the conduct of the war and how presidential politics influence the debate over the war? Consider what Joe Biden, now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and presumed Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 says:

RUSSERT: Senator Biden, let me start with you — if President Bush calls for more American troops to Iraq, the so-called “surge,” Joe Biden will say —
 
BIDEN: No. But there’s not much I can do about it; not much anybody can do about it. He’s commander-in-chief. If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to into Baghdad, it will be a tragic mistake, in my view, but as a practical matter, there is no way to say, “Mr. President, stop.”
 
RUSSERT: Why not try it?
 
BIDEN: I’m going to try it after the hearings. There’s three things I’m going to try to do, Tim. Speak out as loudly as I can as to why I think repeating this mistake — we’ve tried it twice before — why it will not work and why we need a political solution first — not a military solution.
 
Secondly, I’m going to be holding extensive hearings as chairman — incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for the next four weeks bringing in experts from every perspective to talk about what options are remaining in Iraq.
 
And, thirdly, I’ve drafted a resolution of disapproval that is just oratory. It’s a sense of the Senate to try to convince the president that there are significant numbers of the members of the United States Senate who think this proposal is a mistake and, hopefully, force him to reconsider it, because every two months he’s going to have to reconsider there — every two months. It’s not just surging once, and that’s it. He’s not surging for a year. Every two months, he’s going to have to decide — do I continue to extend the tours of duties of those who are there? Do I bring more people in? And hopefully make the case to him that this is a mistake.

Such statements leads one to believe that the Democrats are content to confine their dissent to rhetoric for fear of being labeled as too soft or unsupportive of the troops, as this excerpt from a Face the Nation interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shows: 

SCHIEFFER: So, you’ve told him what you don’t want to do, and that is to expand the size of the force in Iraq, even on a short- term basis. But what if he decides to do that? What will be your action then?
 
PELOSI: If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him, because up until now, the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we’ve gotten into this situation which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.
 
SCHIEFFER: Now, let me ask you and make sure I understand exactly what you are saying, because up until now, Democrats have not been enthusiastic about using the ultimate weapon, and that is to cut off funding.
 
PELOSI: We won’t do that.
 
SCHIEFFER: But you will not vote any more money to expand the size of the force there. Is that what you’re telling me?
 
PELOSI: I’m saying two things. We will always support the troops who are there. If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States. But there’s not a carte blanche — a blank check — to him to do whatever he wishes there.