When is a "surge" not temporary? When George Bush applies it to Iraq.

I interviewed Jeffrey Feldman of Frameshop this morning and asked him to help us understand what Bush really means by "surge" and how liberals can effectively tell the real story about Bush's military intentions. Brilliantly, Jeffrey responded with an explanation that you can now read on his site:

FRAMESHOP by Jeffrey Feldman: "By now, most Americans see that everything Bush and his allies tell us about Iraq are attempts to control the debate, rather than good faith efforts at relaying information. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this week's talk of a 'surge' in U.S. forces in Baghdad is another such attempt at spin. The cover story in Time, for example, tells us that Bush's big 'surge' would in fact just be more of the same cruel tinkering with troop rotations that we associate with Don 'stop gap' Rumsfeld. 20,000 more soldiers in Iraq would really mean that 20,000 less soldiers had been allowed to leave Iraq when their tour was over. 'Sorry, buddy. No going home to the wife and kids. President Bush has just made you part of his surge.' No wonder soldiers serving in Iraq are against the surge.

But besides covering the American public in more White House spin, what is all this 'surge' talk doing to the debate on Iraq?

The answer lies in a word that nobody is discussing: temporary."