Petraues Cometh

The situation that the general finds himself in is exactly like those college classes where, at the end of the course, the instructor has each student write down what grade he or she deserves and why, and gives them that grade. Does anyone really expect that the person responsible for the “surge” strategy is going to report to Congress and to the American people that his plan is an abject failure?
We have seen the GAO report, which the President already dismissed as unrealistic “all-or-nothing” benchmarks, and other independent reports which show that conditions in Iraq are generally not improving, no matter what the President alleges. Now, the President wants us to trust him and his supernumerary that the “surge” is working and that it just needs more time. More time, and countless lives of servicemen and women to be sacrificed as fodder for Bush’s folly.

chuck again would you not rather a grading system then a pass-fail, see a pass-fail does not say if the goal is partialy being made or not, it just says it has not been met so it failed. Know all the military points have passed, so why does our congress hold the Iraqi Parliament above their own success, see if we use those benchmarks on the current Democrat/lib congress don’t they fail all benchmarks? YES.
They would get ‘F’s’ even if they were given grades, so please you libs are using every excuse so you can say the US was defeated. SAD SAD SAD! No pratiotism!

The last time military leaders reported on the progress of the war, they could have misrepresented problems as progress. Instead, they said our strategy was wrong–a surge in troop strength was needed. So I don’t see a record of the Military trying to sugar-coat its performance report. My jaw dropped when I read in Jake’s intro above, that Democrats are discrediting Gen. Petraues’s report before he has a chance to give it. Ditto when Hillary said progress in Iraq would be bad for ‘us’–meaning Dem candidates. Dems have politicized this war from the beginning, the facts be damned. I’m waiting for what the General has to say. I’m ignoring Hillary and Kerry until then, too. I agree with the cut-and-runners on one thing, though. I am not pro-war. Good God, no one is pro-war–except Bin Laden, maybe.

I don’t see how anyone can’t be skeptical of any information coming from the military. Their credibility is about as low as it can get. When you take into account their manipulation of the media and their flat-out lying to the media (Jessica Lynch and the NFL player), I don’t trust them. Then again, what do you think someone would say about a job that they’ve been performing. It’s sort of like if instead of my boss giving me a review, I reviewed my own performance and then reported it to my boss. Of course, I would paint the best picture possible. Where is the independent analysis? If you wanted to know how a city’s school system was performing, would you ask the mayor whose future career is tied directly to the success of the schools? Probably, the answer would be a negative.

Matt, I wish we all could agree with the points you list, but this administration has been quite adroit at attempting to tie the war in Iraq with terrorism, so much so that many people still mistakenly think that Iraq harbored the alQaeda terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. Although it is a fact that Saddam Hussein was so opposed to alQaeda that Iraq was never a haven for them, the shifting political accusations (WMD’s, alQaeda terrorists, spreading freedom, establishing democracy) of this administration belie their attempts to justify the war in Iraq. The undisputed and undisputable truths you cite are considered as mere opinions by supporters of the war. If you don’t believe me, just ask VP Cheney.

James, just who is rewriting history here? You imply a causal relationship that, due to the existence of one al Qaeda camp in Iraq and the shadowy “contacts” you cite (which have never been reliably verified), concludes that Iraq sponsored terrorism and justified the US military action justified our invasion. Nice try, but the innuendo you cite is as specious as VP Cheney’s argument that the “insurgency is in its final throes.”
But I do agree with you completely that al Qaeda is now in Iraq, fighting our military. We have no choice but to deal with them now, thanks to the President’s utterly inept foreign policy decisions. Instead of pursuing Bin Ladin and quieting Afghanistan, we’ve created a terrorist training camp with which we must deal. Such is the President’s “legacy.”

Furthermore, 133 House Democrats and 23 Senate Democrats voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to use our armed forces against Iraq. Within the resolution, it states in part (I hope Political Punch will not delete this): “Whereas members of al Qaida…are known to be in Iraq.” So the 156 Democrats agreed that al Qaeda was already in Iraq.

Chuck, I was only responding to your comments. You wrote: “…this administration has been quite adroit at attempting to tie the war in Iraq with terrorism.” Later you wrote: “Saddam Hussein was so opposed to alQaeda that Iraq was never a haven for them.”
I was pointing out that many Democrats, not just Sen. Clinton, acknowledged that Saddam Hussein “gave aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, INCLUDING al Qaeda.”
Now as for the justification for going to war, shortly after 9/11, President Bush stated: “If you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorists.” So in that sense, yes, ONE aspect of the justification for going to war IS that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism.

Chuck, the decision to go to war against Iraq is so much more complex than you portray. Even in 1998 Congress authorized regime change. And THAT was based on Saddam Hussein “having” WMDs. But you have to take into consideration everything that transpired since the UN Security Council adopted the Gulf War truce on Apr 3, 1991. It is important to understand that the Gulf War was never declared ended. Saddam Hussein agreed to the truce which had numerous conditions. Saddam Hussein failed to comply with these conditions. After years of diplomatic efforts in attempting to force Saddam Hussein to comply, the UN Security Council finally adopted Resolution 1441 on Nov 8, 2002, which was the “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” When it was abundantly clear that the UN was not going follow through on the ultimatum, President Bush, on Mar 17, 2003, gave Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum. He told Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or else. Saddam Hussein (having been erroneously convinced by Germany, France and Russia that the United States would not invade) chose not to leave. President Bush, unlike the UN, means what he says and says what he means!