It mystifies me as to why some prominent libtards (Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dave Letterman) cannot or will not choose our side. And why they are still in the country.

(Shaking head)

Regards,
Peter H.

Does TP want to try and spin that Democrats are not siding with the terrorists against American citizens on this issue?

the surge has *nothing* to do with the political and social changes necessary to declare victory in Iraq.

of course it does. what a silly statement. you have to have some semblence of law and order and security before any political changes can happen.

and as far as political changes…just exactly how long do you think is reasonable to expect these political changes to take place? three weeks? four?

Do you realise it was 15 years between the time our first continental congress met and the first session of our first federal congress????

Iraq has formed an interim government, held elections, written a constitution, ratified it, and held more elections all in a fraction of the time. But Democrats cant even give them a couple months or wait until basic security exists in order for them to work out their differences.

Its blatantly obvious that Democrats want to pull out immediately, precisely because the surge is working. And if the surge works, they lose power. Thats what this is all about.

Theyre reprehensible.

torrentprime, it is all but impossible to have a conversation with you.

GPW, you’re not the first to discover that

No, I have not ignored that political changes have been non-existent. I do agree (and have indicated as much) that to success there, we must do more than just win on the battlefield.

What I have faulted you for is not acknowledging the progress we have been making. General Petraeus is right, there is no military solution to the problem of Iraq (in the sense that military victory alone will not solve the problem. The context of his remarks (and actions) makes clear though that a military victory is an essential aspect of the solution. And on that front, we are making headway.

I began this post with a clear indication of our military success–capturing a leading terrorist. You could at least acknowledge our military victories, just as I recognize that more work needs be done (as I said in my previous comment).

The point of this post is that Democrats say we are losing the war whereas the facts tell quite a different story. We are winning, but we have not yet won.

It’s too bad you refuse to acknowledge the significance of the recent successes, noted even by some in the mainstream media.

Democrats, voting on the side of terrorists.

You have ignored, at every turn, the fact that political changes are non-existent. Lt. Gen. Lamb’s statement is only a military one. Can you all acknowledge, just for a second, that victory in Iraq is more involved than just a military push and assess the progress on the whole picture? You have never done so, and all of your pathetic attempts to mindread me and impugn my motives don’t make your position any stronger. How is the political situation, that which Petraeus said was necessary, making progress? If you have good news, I think we’d all like to hear it.

Vtk: What’s ironic in this, “I heard a rumor that the Democrats were going to try something shady” “breaking news” report is that even if the Dem. leadership tried to make this happen, clearly all the D’s aren’t onboard, since, as your links mentions, there is “overwhelming, bipartisan support for [the King amendment] in the House and Senate”. Last time I checked, it took members of both parties to make something bipartisan, and given the current makeup of the House and Senate, wouldn’t it take a lot of Ds voting in favor to make the support “overwhelming”? So, basically, your report admits that a lot of Ds support the King Amendment, and the original source says that Andy said he was “reliably informed” that someone was going to try something, somewhere. Conclusion (if you’re trying desperately to maintain intellectual cohesion for supporting Bush)? The Ds are on the side of the terrorists. Rock solid, as always.

This was an INTERIM report. The Senate confirmed general Petraeus unanimously. He said at the time, and ever since, that he would report back in September. That he would need at least until the fall to make a success of this new strategy. He was very frank and upfront about that.

Congress agreed to those terms.

Yet, here it is only July and Democrats are calling the new strategy a failure, despite all evidence to the contrary, and demanding we pull the troops out immediately.

Under no circumstances did anyone suggest that all of the benchmarks would be met by July. Petraeus said he would need until September at least to accomplish A, B, C and D, and even before all the troops had arrived Democrats were calling it a failure.

Now here it is a few short weeks after all the troops are in place and the general is saying I’ve accomplished A and B, but havent yet accomplished C and D. And democrats screech that halfway through the operation having only accomplished half the goals is proof that the whole thing is a miserable failure and we must pull out immediately!

The only rational explanation for such irrational behavior is that the surge is working, and Democrats, ever putting their political power above the national interest, are scared shitless.

“So within the first calendar month, good progress, steady momentum, hard fighting, going places where they haven’t been before, I see unequivocally — unequivocally — that this surge is making a difference.”
~ Deputy Commander of Multinational Force-Iraq and Senior British Representative in Iraq Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb

The surge is working, and Democrats want to put a stop to it immediately!

They voted for the war, they claimed Saddam was just as dangerous as Bush did–even more so in some instances. Then when things went wrong for a while, as they do in every war in human history, they saw their opportunity for partisan gain! Suddenly they were never for the war, they were only for the war because Bush (and all 16 US intelligence agencies, and the intelligence apparati of britain, France, Russia, Germany, Egypt, Istael, etc…) LIED to them!

Now they have bet against the United States. they have invested so heavily in defeat that they can, will, and ARE doing everything in their power to ensure that defeat happens.

Including pulling the rug out from under general petraeus and the military a month after theyve begun and two months before they were supposed to have met any goals. As has been proven this week.

I never said that the 8 points where we haven’t made satisfactory progress were quibbles. Nor did I say there weren’t problems. What I called a quibble was how you somehow decided the benchmarks we reached were too low.

I’m just pointing to progress being made. And you’re just saying it’s part of the same circular path. It seems Petraeus has a plan to make sure that once we pacify an area, it remains pacified.

I — and many supporters of the plan — do acknowledge that there are many areas where work needs to be done. It’s fortunate that you can’t accept the reality that some progress has been made. You just discount any success we achieve.

And: quibble? quibble? Do you mean to tell me you read those benchmarks and their necessary-for-success thresholds and you agree that we get passing grades on them?

What about those 8 items that we haven’t made satisfactory progress on– are they also “quibbles”? All of the necessary political changes which Petraeus said have to happen to make this thing work aren’t happening. So how are we winning? Which of these facts are in the GOP narrative?
Let’s take just one of them: “Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently” Wasn’t the plan, “As they stand up, we stand down”? So we now have less Iraqi troops able to defend the country than before, and that is a quibble? And that’s when the Iraqi police we’re training aren’t using that training to kill us.

All quibbles huh?

There is another expression for a similar concept, which I am having trouble remembering. It might be “Fake but accurate”. It might have arisen when CBS tried to taint Bush in 2004 - with forged documents. Another expression certain left-liberals will say to defend bad stories - without having a clue that the expression itself indicts them.

Incidentally, this is the same Evan Thomas who in 2004 predicted / boasted that liberal media hype in Kerry’s favor would deliver 15 percentage points’ worth of voters to Kerry. I don’t think Thomas was that far of. I think, if the media had been truly fair and objective in 2003 and 2004, Bush would have won by 58-41, instead of 51-48. So yeah, they delivered Kerry just about 15 points.

And anyway, the surge is still underway.

And as to the things that effect Iraqi citizens’ lives, well, I will say it is something that we have stopped virtually all bombings in Anbar province. For the citizens who live there, that’s pretty significant.

So, all you do, just like the Democrats, is point to the bad news while dismissing what we have done. The quibble you raise in #4 is #3 is meaningless for you’ve decided that the threshold was set so low. Making the city of Ramadi more livable is no small thing.

We have been making progress, not enough to be sure, but progress all the same. And the surge is yet ongoing.

So on these crucial issues facing iraq, we’re not winning. In some of these we’re going backwards. Don’t these facts matter in the GOP narrative?

For the “passing grades,” it’s just sad. Provide 3 brigades of troops? Check! (except that each brigade is only 50-75% manned, so 2.25 brigades, at best) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues? Check! (except it’s actually only 22% spent, and we’re not really sure where the money’s going anyway). 4 of the others deal with establishing committees and procedures. Not seeing if they work, or show up, or have any effect. Just establish or even be in the process of establishing is enough.

So no progress on the actual things that effect the Iraqi civilians’ lives (not to mention our troops’ lives), and rigged passing grades on other benchmarks.

“Wonder who’s more reality-based.”