It also seems like it's old video recompiled or clipped from pre-9/11 recordings.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I have no doubt that you will) but the only people I have heard say that the surge is working are from this administration or their pundits, and even then, they had to move the goalposts to show any progress whatsoever.

I do find it interesting that Iraq's Prime Minister is telling us that we can leave anytime we want. Didn't Bush say that we would stand down when they were ready to stand up?

If we are really just there to help the Iraqis and they say they don't need it anymore, I see no reason to continue to keep our troops in harm's way.

That's exactly what I thought when I read the Iraqi PM's comments yesterday.

Geek.

Wouldn't that mean that the surge has done something positive, considering her hasn't said anything like that before?

I'm sure it has had an entirely positive effect, so much so that they now want us to leave. I wonder if we will do so before or after the planned aerial bombing surge? Maybe we can blow up their police headquarters so we don't get attacked by uniformed insurgents again.

I believe most of the recent progress is due to the Sunnis getting fed up with al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia (a terrorist group completely unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that our illustrious president feels free to lie about, owing to their confusing name choice).

In any event, the Sunnis have taken a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach in now cooperating with U.S. troops against a-QofM. It's got little to do with any "surge" and everything to do with the ghastly deeds of al-QofM having worn out their welcome.


I will grant that, whatever the cause, "progress" has been made. Of course, none of the Iraqi government benchmarks have been met. Clearly, not enough progress has been made by the administration's definition of progress for October. It is only by now re-definining what October progress means that the president will be able to claim progress come October.


This continues to be a frelling sham.

I will say that the surge was supposed to be given until September to work. That was the original plan, and why a report is due then.

I would say the problem from the outset was that we wanted to fight a "humane" war, and war isn't humane. We should have had the "surge" the whole time, and in this way I completely agree that the war has been wholely mishandled.

And look at the quote -
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

This is a man trying to express confidence in his troops and forces. What the hell is supposed to say? "We're completely inept and my men are nothing without US guidance and assistance"????? That would have the effect of completely demoralizing the men trying to do their job as Iraqi soldiers.

Oh, I agree that al-Maliki's statements are balderdash. I even agree that, since we were occupying the country, we should have brought the military resources to bear to quell all violence and chaos in Iraq.

I'm not sure such resources are available to the U.S. or ever were. At what point do we determine we do not have those resources and, yes, end our occupation of that country? Is it September?

If not, when? 2008? 2012? 2030? When exactly??

When will we leave South Korea? Germany? Wherever the heck else we are?

I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation, but we will probably always have a presence there, and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, just as it isn't a bad thing to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia or Japan.

I believe we certainly had all the resources necessary to to quell all violence and chos in Iraq, but (as I mentioned before) we didn't have the juevos to do it. War is ugly and to expect it not to be so is unrealistic, which was the main faltering of the war.