hardly. just underscoring what the oped actually said, that is, for the benefit of those who didn't bother to read it before they jumped feet first into the debate.
I don't think he's back-pedeling, just pointing out that he made a military assessment, not a political one. And that Military success depends on political success as well. Why are you guys so bent on labeling this all a failure? We're 6 weeks away now. Let's see if the August numbers continue to stay low, if there's some progress politically, and if we can't build some momentum. The Republicans in Congress are determined to wait, so nothing can be done anyway for the time being.
So what happens when Petraeus comes back in 6 weeks and says that there are signs that it's working but needs another 6 months (which he will)?
Hum.... Seems we've seen this story before. From Glenn Greenwald -- From the administration's mouths, to the pens of obedient journalists and pundits, back into the administration's mouths. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
basso, what he said was that politics trumps all else. How do you think the political situation in Iraq has been going lately?
No is bent on labelling it a failure. They are bent on not cherry picking numbers to say things are getting better. Yes, fewer US troops died this month - never mind its still substantially higher than last year. Other news that came out this week: the Sunni portion of the government is pulling out. Iraqi deaths are on the rise. Security hasn't increased for Iraqis. And yet, you and others look at this and say "hey, we're making progress - fewer US troops died this month!" It's the absurdity of the argument that people are ridiculing. Things may very well improve. You're surprised that people don't have patience for it after being told the same thing for 4 years? Yes, of course. Since the minority party in Congress wants to wait, no one else should be able to form any opinions. Awesome.
But you don't want to hear it... Past performance does not guarantee future results...You know that, I know that...We have better leadership than 2 years ago... (everything I have read about Gen. Patreaus is that he is the best person for command in the field...) Too bad it couldn't get good in 1 week, I guess...
Let's just wait and see. Is that so hard? Give this general a chance. Certainly they have to acheive improvement in all metrics - deaths of Iraqis, Americans, and progress stabilizing areas. I'm willing to wait 6 weeks.
Well, you'll get your wish, as those of us who aren't willing to wait will be forced to wait. So, mark it down... Mid-September. I'll ask you how things are going. Between now and then...while you're giving this administration the benefit of the doubt... 100+ US soldiers are likely to die along with hundreds of Iraqis. In mid-September we'll be told there is some success and if we just keep extending the troop's tours, we can turn the corner. Meanwhile in reality, the true strategy is for nothing different to happen until any bad thing that might happen (besides 70-120 US deaths per month) can be blamed on a Dem. I honestly don't know why you're falling for this smoke and mirrors. It is incredibly dishonest and criminally cynical.
we all know that you like to argue for the sake of arguing and you have admitted to taking positions you dont agree with, but this is getting ridiculous. you have stated in this very thread that iraq is a "failed cause" and you havent changed your mind on it. dont you find your position to be hypocritical at best?
It's not about giving the admin a chance, it's giving the new general and the surge a chance to work. I was am still skeptical, but am willing to see what happens. The Dems have failed to persuade the votes they need to withdrawl, despite having control. Apparently they haven't even built a great consensus within their own party...so wait it shall be.
what is fascinating to me is that this administration, and most of the supporters of this FAILED war, would view security of Bagdad as a major accomplishment. Really... how many years into the war and securing the capital city would be success? I guess when things have gone so poorly for so long you take what you can get.
Since the surge is happening no matter what. I don't know what we are arguing about. Let's wait for the report and we should all hope the new general is making things a lot better, its in the best interest of everyone this thing works.
If you don't count Lieberman (who caucuses with the Dems but was elected as a "Connecticut for Lieberman"), the Democrats have 100% of the votes. And they have not only a gigantic majority of Democrat voters but of Independents as well. To say there isn't a consensus is to fundamentally misunderstand and misuse the word consensus. They also have some Republican votes -- just not enough (yet) to override a veto. People keep saying why not just wait, like another six weeks is no big deal. Tell that to the 100+ American soldiers that will die in Iraq in the next six weeks. The American people voted Democrats into the majority to end the war as soon as possible, not to increase troop levels and wait months and months to see if that changes anything for the better even though it didn't the first three times it was tried. In six weeks, it will be ten months since the American people voted for an end to the war. Hundreds of Americans will have died in the interim because Bush insisted on one more of a series of last chances. We all know how it will end and there are currently several Republican senators waiting for the September report before they will vote for an exit strategy. The blood of the American soldiers that will die between now and then is on their hands, on Bush's hands and on your hands too for your silly "what's the rush" advocacy for the continuation of a failed war.
