As for Move-On- that was a cheapass stunt they pulled and pretty low.

“Petraeus has a political future for his great service to the country in the face of nitwits like Al-Maliki & domestic opponents—plus AQ & other nasties in-country.”

Nitwits like Maliki? Well thank GWB for that and the Iraqi Parliament that put him there. Better than that bought and paid for criminal Chalabi who scuttled off to parts unknown with his cache of US cash.
He's a fine General, but he should stick to what he's best at- don't try to paint the horse when it's already saddled.

As for Move-On- that was a cheapass stunt they pulled and pretty low.

“Petraeus has a political future for his great service to the country in the face of nitwits like Al-Maliki & domestic opponents—plus AQ & other nasties in-country.”

Nitwits like Maliki? Well thank GWB for that and the Iraqi Parliament that put him there. Better than that bought and paid for criminal Chalabi who scuttled off to parts unknown with his cache of US cash.
He's a fine General, but he should stick to what he's best at- don't try to paint the horse when it's already saddled.

[heavily anti-bureaucracy, new-program-fads; pro-tracks, anti-wheels, pro-armor...]

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/orielly_preventabl…

Then I ask the same about Obama. Reform or just raiding the military budget to buy votes with additional social spending?

[heavily anti-bureaucracy, new-program-fads; pro-tracks, anti-wheels, pro-armor...]

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/orielly_preventabl…

Then I ask the same about Obama. Reform or just raiding the military budget to buy votes with additional social spending?

The Bush admin had never really defined “victory” in Iraq for the U.S. voters or the world. I believe that for them victory meant staying in Iraq with a huge military presence to forever secure resources and have bases to wage more cold war with Iran and other m.e. nations. For most of us, victory meant most of our troops come home and diplomacy takes over. But that wasn't the Bush and neocon plan, ever.

Now they are in a bind. The general in charge did a good job, and the Iraqi factions that we've been waiting on to “step up” did it. Victory is happening but it is being steered towards U.S. withdrawal and not permanent occupation.

So we get things like the White house spokeperson saying that AL-Maliki was “misinterpreted”.

The Bush admin had never really defined “victory” in Iraq for the U.S. voters or the world. I believe that for them victory meant staying in Iraq with a huge military presence to forever secure resources and have bases to wage more cold war with Iran and other m.e. nations. For most of us, victory meant most of our troops come home and diplomacy takes over. But that wasn't the Bush and neocon plan, ever.

Now they are in a bind. The general in charge did a good job, and the Iraqi factions that we've been waiting on to “step up” did it. Victory is happening but it is being steered towards U.S. withdrawal and not permanent occupation.

So we get things like the White house spokeperson saying that AL-Maliki was “misinterpreted”.

The surge provided some cover for the more-or-less final stages of this ethnic cleansing.

The surge provided some cover for the more-or-less final stages of this ethnic cleansing.

It is. There has been other fighting, then there are the improvements made in the less violent parts of Iraq that never make the news because everyone's worried about the violence.

I just hope after we've left that the oil doesn't fall into terrorists' or Iran's hands.

It is. There has been other fighting, then there are the improvements made in the less violent parts of Iraq that never make the news because everyone's worried about the violence.

I just hope after we've left that the oil doesn't fall into terrorists' or Iran's hands.

There are two ways to think about this.
One is political: who was right or wrong, who deserves the credit, etc. That seems to be what you're going after.

i'm just trying to figure out what happened, and, honestly, i don't know how to split either the blame or the credit about the surge.

I was one of those deeply suspicious of the surge, because it was proposed at the end of a long series of pronouncements that things were improving, only they never improved. McCain was on CNN bragging about how safe Baghdad was only to have a rocket whizz by as he talked. Looking back, I think it was more a matter of distrust in the messengers (Bush and McCain) than the message. ,

I opposed the war because I predicted all the horrendous consequences that ensued. How could I trust leaders who seemed to understand less than I, a nobody?
To oppose the war also meant enduring endless accusations of being a traitor and the like. That's not trust building, either.
Who is to blame, then. the people who ddin't trust or the people who instilled the distrust and antipathy by making this a political party war? I leave it to you.

I don't know how much of my history has anything to do with Obama. I do know that feelings like mine are common among those who opposed the war.
If there is blame for us to assume, it lies in not recogizing that Petraeus was different than the other Bush mouthpieces. At the time, he looked just like another war happy guy, like McCain is today, in fact. We should have trusted his background over and above his position as Bush's man, I guess. .

I wish I could say I've learned my lesson. To atone for my misjudgment of Petraeus, I backed Mukasey's confirmation, only to feel utterly betrayed by him regarding his promise to not be the president's lawyer and to be an independent AG. Now he is seeing to it that Cheney can avoid testifying in front of Congress.

Wrong again.

.

There are two ways to think about this.
One is political: who was right or wrong, who deserves the credit, etc. That seems to be what you're going after.

i'm just trying to figure out what happened, and, honestly, i don't know how to split either the blame or the credit about the surge.

I was one of those deeply suspicious of the surge, because it was proposed at the end of a long series of pronouncements that things were improving, only they never improved. McCain was on CNN bragging about how safe Baghdad was only to have a rocket whizz by as he talked. Looking back, I think it was more a matter of distrust in the messengers (Bush and McCain) than the message. ,

I opposed the war because I predicted all the horrendous consequences that ensued. How could I trust leaders who seemed to understand less than I, a nobody?
To oppose the war also meant enduring endless accusations of being a traitor and the like. That's not trust building, either.
Who is to blame, then. the people who ddin't trust or the people who instilled the distrust and antipathy by making this a political party war? I leave it to you.

I don't know how much of my history has anything to do with Obama. I do know that feelings like mine are common among those who opposed the war.
If there is blame for us to assume, it lies in not recogizing that Petraeus was different than the other Bush mouthpieces. At the time, he looked just like another war happy guy, like McCain is today, in fact. We should have trusted his background over and above his position as Bush's man, I guess. .

I wish I could say I've learned my lesson. To atone for my misjudgment of Petraeus, I backed Mukasey's confirmation, only to feel utterly betrayed by him regarding his promise to not be the president's lawyer and to be an independent AG. Now he is seeing to it that Cheney can avoid testifying in front of Congress.

Wrong again.

.

I think when the pendulum swings back after a brief dalliance with Obama [who does seem a bit like Jimmy C Redux], Petraeus has a political future for his great service to the country in the face of nitwits like Al-Maliki & domestic opponents—plus AQ & other nasties in-country.

I think when the pendulum swings back after a brief dalliance with Obama [who does seem a bit like Jimmy C Redux], Petraeus has a political future for his great service to the country in the face of nitwits like Al-Maliki & domestic opponents—plus AQ & other nasties in-country.

Petraeus is great because he understands that counterinsurgency involves winning hearts and minds. And I mean that as more than slogans.

Petraeus is great because he understands that counterinsurgency involves winning hearts and minds. And I mean that as more than slogans.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/surg…

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/surg…