Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 20, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

SLOW BLEED....Remember "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down"? Apparently that's no longer operative:

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

So we're going to defeat the insurgency without significant help from Iraqi troops? Phil Carter calls this "Plan F": the fifth and latest in a string of strategic realignments forced on us when previous plans failed to gain control of the country. Unfortunately, it won't work:

Gen. Petraeus and his brain trust have devised the best possible Plan F, given the resources available to the Pentagon and declining patience for the war at home. But the Achilles heel of this latest effort is the Maliki government. It is becoming increasingly clear to all in Baghdad that its interests — seeking power and treasure for its Shiite backers — diverge sharply from those of the U.S.-led coalition. Even if Gen. Petraeus' plan succeeds on the streets of the city, it will fail in the gilded palaces of the Green Zone. Maliki and his supporters desire no rapprochement with the Sunnis and no meaningful power-sharing arrangement with the Sunnis and the Kurds. Indeed, Maliki can barely hold his own governing coalition together, as evidenced by the Sadr bloc's resignation from the government this week and the fighting in Basra over oil and power.

Plan F will fail if (or when) the Maliki government fails, even if it improves security. At that point, we will have run out of options, having tried every conceivable strategy for Iraq. It will then be time for Plan G: Get out.

Now this is a "slow bleed." Where are Politico's clever phrasemakers when you really need them?

Kevin Drum 12:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"Where are Politico's clever phrasemakers when you really need them?"

Uh . . . writing stories about John Edwards' hair?

Posted by: pdp on April 20, 2007 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Politico's writers are busy feeding GOP talking points to Drudge so they can get badly needed links.

Posted by: Mornington Crescent on April 20, 2007 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Slow bleed? Next you'll be going off about bathing in the moisture of George Bush's soiled and blood-soaked underwear.

Is it just me or has the entire left jumped off the metaphorical cliff?

Posted by: Amerlcan Boozrd on April 20, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

I heard Capt. Carter on NPR today. It was a very good interview. He should be listened to.His blog is about the only one my husband reads. I know a lot of Political Animals read it, because I see names I know in the comments. But if you haven't been there yet, you should check it out.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Slow bleed? The problem is that you're talking about our own troops who are going to be doing the bleeding. There's no way to make a funny with that.

Posted by: bob on April 20, 2007 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I didn't close the tag properly, but the link still works.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

This is f-ing insane.

This ain't slow bleed -- this will end up looking like a blown aorta in a couple months. The one thing guaranteed to put the insurgency into overdrive is for the US to take them on without even any token Iraqis along for the ride. And which insurgency are we targeting? Have we decide yet whose side we are on?

Let's just simplify things and put a big sign on the entrance to Iraq: "Abandon all hope all ye who enter here".

Posted by: Disputo on April 20, 2007 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

Head straight for Plan 9.

Posted by: asdf on April 20, 2007 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

By any chance, was "Plan F" created by or for "F Troop"? Just a coincidence?

Posted by: pdp on April 20, 2007 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

Well, that confirms it: President Agarn and the F-Troops need to turn the corner, plan for victory, secure the democracy... yada, yada, yada.

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

asdf - Is that "From Outer Space"?

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

asdf - Is that "From Outer Space"?

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

We turned a corner all right - problem is, that put us right smack in the middle of the Shorja Bridge.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

I`m gonna cheer for Plan I. I as in Impeachement.

Make that Plan Double I for both Richard & George.

Da sooner da better for all concerned I say.

The time has come.

"He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator." - Francis Bacon

Posted by: daCascadian on April 20, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Man, we don't even have control of parts of Los Angeles. Guess those troops are never coming back.

Posted by: craigie on April 20, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

It will then be time for Plan G: Get out.

I thought Plan G was something to do with the female orgasm. Guess I missed something.

Posted by: craigie on April 20, 2007 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

That is spot G or something like that...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

The real "slow bleed" has always been our troops in Iraq, while the overwhelming bloody torrent comes from the Iraqi people.

The corollary is obvious. The Army needs to re-read its own manuals because if the Iraqis are not going to stand up, we're going to need a lot more pairs of boots on the ground to create anything like security. 300,000? More? Plus all the tail and resources needed.

Not going to happen. We're now in the FIFTH iteration of creating police and security forces and we're down-grading the priority. So we'll succeed this time? Where we've failed four times before. This is sheer, bloody madness.

They've changed the measure becuase they've dropped the idea of even mentioning Iraqi unit strength, effectiveness, lead roles, or real joint operations. And operating independently? I can hear the laughter.

What are these guys smoking? Do lives not matter?

It seems like the only objective is to last out to 2009, no matter what or who the cost.

Posted by: notthere on April 20, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

We're going to lose a colony we never had.

Posted by: R.L. on April 20, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

We'll know if plan G is working in another 6 months....

Posted by: Disputo on April 20, 2007 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

That is spot G or something like that...

Wasn't it Lady Macbeth who said "Out! Out damn G-spot!"?

Posted by: craigie on April 20, 2007 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

Some of the defendants I have represented report that you must pay a c-spot to get the g-spot.

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Plus dinner and a show.:)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

No, the g-spot is the dinner and show....

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

No, those tickets are the boarding pass...

And now we have totally debased this thread. Shame on us.

(at least we haven't free-based anything)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

All part of my cunning plan!

Bwa ha ha!

Posted by: craigie on April 20, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Craigie, if you are Charlie, I want to be the Angel who schemes up the cunning stunts.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo sez:
"We'll know if plan G is working in another 6 months...."

Right. In another Friedman unit or so. And just about then, it'll be time to roll out Plan H. And then to start sketching the outlines of Plan I. For George "Dumbya" Bush and his distinguished team of strategerists, the hits just keep on comin'

They're like a basketball team, trying to run the clock down in the second half...

BUT DON'T THEY KNOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AHEAD AT THE TIME???

Posted by: shystr on April 20, 2007 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

No. Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

This seems to imply that training the Iraqi army will continue at about the same rate as before.

disputo: We'll know if plan G is working in another 6 months....

You're right to mock. I think the last Friedman unit began two months ago, and this plan better be working by the beginning of August. I don't mean "latest" Friedman unit, I mean "last tolerable" Friedman unit. If this plan isn't working by August, Congress will pass a date certain and override Bush's veto.

Unless something bizarro happens, like Sarkozy winning election and sending French troops and ships. Or Iran nuking something in west Afghanistan.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 20, 2007 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

This is very bad news. It means more American soldiers will die. The longer war means more Iraqi soldiers and civilians will die, There's a greater chance of a total breakdown leading to a horrendous bloodbath in Iraq.

Kevin rightly uses the adverb "unfortunately". Yet, the tone of many of the posts here is more like "joyful". Joy that Bush will be proved wrong outweighs any regret they have for the thousands who will die. The attitude seems to be that as long as disaster is Bush's fault and not theirs, everything is OK.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 20, 2007 at 7:18 AM | PERMALINK

Marler wrote: You're right to mock.

You don't say.

And "ex-liberal," you lying fuck, I defy you to point out one post in this thread that has a "joyful" tone.

I do point out, however, that this disaster is Bush's fault -- Bush's, and the neocons whose water you carry. Shame on all of you.

Posted by: Gregory on April 20, 2007 at 7:33 AM | PERMALINK

craigie, I believe Lady MacBeth actually said, "Ahhh, a little to the right".

Faux Lib - If you live in California, you are, indeed, in luck.

It looks as though Gregory has severely injured your Ego - Now, under the old contributary negligence laws, you could not have filed a suit against him, because you have contributed well over 51 percent to your own damaged Ego. But, because of that Magnificent California Supreme Court in 1975 in Li versus Yellow Cab, California now has comparative negligence, wiping out that archaeic common law form of contributary negligence. Now, this might have been the final straw in your leaving, and thankfully for us I might add, the liberals, but you can bring your action against Gregory. Please contact "Ye olde slip and fall Nathan" for an appointment.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 20, 2007 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

3P -- If you think "ex-liberal"'s ego is bruised by this thread, you should check out this one, in which he keeps trotting out bullshit neocon talking points that keep getting shot down.

But there's the rub -- I'd simply point to that thread to demonstrate that "ex-liberal" has, in fact, no shame, and therefore no standing to bring suit. ;)

Posted by: Gregory on April 20, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

"It is becoming increasingly clear to all in Baghdad that its interests — seeking power and treasure for its Shiite backers — diverge sharply from those of the U.S.-led coalition. Even if Gen. Petraeus' plan succeeds on the streets of the city, it will fail in the gilded palaces of the Green Zone. Maliki and his supporters desire no rapprochement with the Sunnis and no meaningful power-sharing arrangement with the Sunnis and the Kurds."

The Bush League creates governments in its own image. How Biblical of them!

Posted by: Peter Schledorn on April 20, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Plan F works for us...

And if it works for us, it works for America.
So shut up and sit down.

Posted by: CEO @ Halliburton on April 20, 2007 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

When faux-lib posted that while visiting Berlin in 63, he had gone into East Berlin and had, actually discovered that Capitalism in West Berlin was better than Communism in East Berlin.

I'm amazed that Seventh Army or even USAEUR did not immediately enlist him into Intelligence - Why, he was a Master in observation.

And the only folks in California who were upset over Li v. Yellow Cab were those who either worked for insurance companies or were civil defense lawyers. Extending comparative negligence was not really heard a whole heck of a lot in your average California watering hole. I mean those sipping cocktails at Chez Jay were never disturbed by patrons screaming insults over Li.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 20, 2007 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Plan G is underway now-divide Baghdad into various zones with walls ala Palestine. Create "gated cmmunities". Ease the identification of those who belong and those who don't.

Posted by: Neal on April 20, 2007 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

On behalf of Sgt O'Rourke, Cpl Agarn and Trooper Duffy, we are very happy to be finally recognized for our fine work.

We will protect Senator Straight Talk to our best abilities.

Posted by: Captain William Parmeter on April 20, 2007 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK
On behalf of Sgt O'Rourke, Cpl Agarn and Trooper Duffy, we are very happy to be finally recognized for our fine work.

We will protect Senator Straight Talk to our best abilities.
Posted by: Captain William Parmeter on April 20, 2007 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK


Thank you, thank you, Capt. William Parmenter Bush, or as we F-troopers affectionately call you "The Scourge of The West" !!!! Posted by: G.Kerby on April 20, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

You're right to mock. I think the last Friedman unit began two months ago, and this plan better be working by the beginning of August.

And we will be right to mock in August when you say that we need to give it at least another six months, just as we've been right about ever single fucking thing concerning this war at every junction since 2002 when you and your ilk made some precious prediction abort dire threats or glorious progress.

How many hundreds of times have trolls come to this site and mocked us because the Iraqi military took over some new piece of desert and were just about to take responsibility for the entire country so we could leave, only to have it be utterly false? How many millions of times in toto have similar smug assertions about the purity of purple fingers and Iraqi battalions been uttered on the poison pages of Powerline, Redstate, LGF, the Idiotarian Rottweiler the Jawa Report, et al?

Where is the shame at having been so devastatingly wrong so many times at such a horrible cost to so many millions of lives? How do you people have the gall to ever open your mouth again, particularly when so much of your hysteria was driven by a need to "protect" Bush and "fight against" Democrats or liberals? Can you not see how utterly childish, not to mention insane that is?

Posted by: trex on April 20, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

The key thing to remember about Petraeus' approach is that it is a response to mistakes the coalition made in the 2003-04 period.

Obviously that was before the current Iraqi government leaders acquired the positions they now occupy. But it was also before the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency began targeting Shiite government employees and civilians in a systematic way. The insurgency sought to provoke a sectarian war, and succeeded.

I'm not sure if Phil Carter meant to imply that Maliki and his associates are just bloody-minded. Some of them, no doubt, are exactly that -- you're not going to find too many white hats when you look at the politics of an Arab country, let alone one with Iraq's history. Taken as a whole, though, the record suggests that if Carter did mean to say this he is wrong.

The Shiites of Iraq have been more sinned against than sinning. That's true covering even the last few years, and certainly when one factors in the preceeding decades of Saddam Hussein's rule. They have been mightily provoked by the Sunni Arab insurgency, were restrained by Shiite senior clerics for many months, and by this time have thoroughly hardened hearts. These might be softened by some expression of remorse or repentance by Sunni Arab leaders, especially insurgent leaders, but none have been forthcoming.

The bottom line is that the Iraqi politics that must work for Petraeus' strategy to work are the politics of three and four years ago. Petraeus' doctrine is right, I think, but this isn't late 2003 anymore. Time and events have passed it by.

Posted by: Zathras on April 20, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

This is not Petraes' "plan" - This is the bastard brainchild of that craven coward Kagan. Here is a link to the Dec 14 AEI white paper "Choosing Victory."

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 20, 2007 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

asdf - Is that "From Outer Space"?
As you may recall, Plan 9 involves the resurrection of the dead -- in this case bringing back Saddam Hussein and putting him in charge. As bad as he was, Bush seems to have made things worse.

Posted by: asdf on April 20, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Too bad Mr. Drum didn't keep quoting from that McClatchy piece. If he had, the reader would see immediately the incredible dishonesty contained in both the headline and the lede he quotes from above:

>em>We are looking for indicators where we can assess the extent to which we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces, not as a replacement to them, he said. Those signs will include things like the number of U.S.-only missions, the number of combined U.S.-Iraqi missions, the number where Iraqis are in the lead, the number of Joint Security Stations set up, he said.

Nor have we "abandoned" any training plan but rather shifted focus:

Caseys mandate was transition. General Petraeus mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that, said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.

I think it is too much to expect that we were going to start from scratch in an environment that featured a rising sectarian struggle and lack of progress with the government, said a senior Pentagon official. The conditions had sufficiently changed that the Abizaid/Casey approach alone wasnt going to be sufficient.

Hence, the rationale for the surge.

In short, this article is a crock. We haven't changed policy. We haven't abandoned anything. Just some good old fashioned spinning from a notoriously anti-war media outlet.

Posted by: Rick Moran on April 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

asdf - Thats what I thought you were getting at (well not quite all the way to Sadam, but basically reinventing the dead to fight again). Excellent!

Posted by: bmaz on April 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, Kevin, for linking to the entire article.

Thank you, Rick Moran, for cherry picking your spin. Now, go back to your DJ job of playing, "Glory, glory, Hallelujah in Fallujah, and we ain't going to jump no more"

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 20, 2007 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Juancole.com has good points about the Iraq situation, but also the wurlitzer spin versus reality in a lot of political cases, in the vein of WaMo, MMFA, TPM, David Sirota, Huffington Post, etc.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 20, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

trex: How many millions of times in toto have similar smug assertions about the purity of purple fingers and Iraqi battalions been uttered on the poison pages of Powerline, Redstate, LGF, the Idiotarian Rottweiler the Jawa Report, et al?

"purity"?

zero times.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 20, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

If you read the original, you'll find that the investment in training Iraqi troops is staying the same.

The "news" in this article is that there is no news. The "surge" is deployed for combat, as was said about it publicly.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 20, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

"purity"? zero times.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. "Purity" refers to the saving power imputed to the less than half of the population that participated in the popular vote by the aforementioned right wing sites, and how the baptismal chrism of all that purple ink would wash away all of Bush's sins, from falsifying intelligence claims to having ulterior motives including bolstering his own reelection chances to being wrong about WMD's to not having a postwar plan and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

You can see how I was using "Purity" as a metaphor for all the post-hoc justifications for this disastrous, illegal, tragic war by the Rabid Right.

If all you've got are weak rhetorical points while avoiding the substance of criticisms, you may as well not post. Fake Al and American Hawk-as-Al have got you covered there.

Posted by: trex on April 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Third Paul:

Holy Shit! I quote half the article and you call that "cherry picking?"

It is obvious you don't have a clue what the term means.

Kevin posts the first two grafs - misleading as hell - and I post the guts of the dispatch.

Who's cherry picking?

Posted by: Rick Moran on April 20, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

I found this sentence to be interesting:

It is becoming increasingly clear to all in Baghdad that its [the Maliki government's]interests — seeking power and treasure for its Shiite backers — diverge sharply from those of the U.S.-led coalition.

I mean you could just change a few words and come up with this:

It is becoming increasingly clear to all in the Washington that its [the Bush Administration's]interests — seeking power and treasure for its corporate backers — diverge sharply from those of the rest of the U.S.

Odd how that works out, eh? Could it be that when you put up a puppet government you get the puppet government that most resembles your own.

Posted by: majun on April 20, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

trex: "Purity" refers to the saving power imputed to the less than half of the population that participated in the popular vote by the aforementioned right wing sites, and how the baptismal chrism of all that purple ink would wash away all of Bush's sins, from falsifying intelligence claims to having ulterior motives including bolstering his own reelection chances to being wrong about WMD's to not having a postwar plan and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

see, that's just gross.

People who oppose withdrawing soon on a mandated timetable maintain that the Iraqi battalions are improving and the Iraqi elections were worthwhile. Exactly how good or poor the Iraqi battalions are varies from place to place and time to time. Iraqis will, if the U.S. does not withdraw in haste, vote again in 2009, about the time that the U.S. inaugurates its new president.

The Senate Democrats' plan was for American troops to withdraw by approximately Aug 2008, except for forces sufficient to protect American infrastructure, train the Iraqi army, and fight any remaining insurgents. Bush (and Bush supporters) think that the 2008 deadline is more likely to be achieved in fact if it is not in fact written and committed to. The Democrats claim that the Iraqis will "stand up" (Bush's words, not theirs) sooner and better if the Aug 2008 deadline is written and enforced, though they are a little hazy on just how many troops they will permit for the three purposes named.

My hope is that the Democrats will, if Bush vetoes, come right back at him with the same bill, to show that they are as serious as he is in their belief about what will work best. They speak as if they think the purpose of their legislation is to persuade him to change his mind, rather than to be enacted. Plus, I think that as time goes by enough Republicans will join to override the veto. Alternatively, the Democrats could cave as some have hinted they may.

For the situation at hand, and the choices that have to be made, your rhetoric is entirely irrelevant.

The Iraqi votes and the voters were serious. Some of the Iraqi battalions do well. Training of the Iraqi army and police continue. The violence also continues, and its character continually changes.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 20, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

again, from the original:

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

That's just what was announced when the surge began.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 20, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

For the situation at hand, and the choices that have to be made, your rhetoric is entirely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all to point out that the people who have been consistently wrong and dishonest about Iraq from the beginning lack any credibility about the current or future state of affairs of that country. That was the point of my original post.

Neither is it irrelevant to examine the motives and machinations that lead to this disaster, to ensure that those who have acted improperly and/or criminally see justice if possible and to ensure that it does not happen again.

I can see how'd you like no one to look to closely into the genesis of this thing, though.

The Democrats claim that....

Let me be very clear: I don't give one mighty flying fuck what Democrats do or don't do, what they think or don't think. I'm behind whatever individual, group, clan, or plan that can extricate our country from this occupation. Though we've broken Iraq we can no longer "fix" it; the Iraqis will bleed whether we are there or not. We will only bleed if we are there.

Let's also be clear: this isn't about Democrats, this is about George Bush and his failure and how he has destroyed a nation and made the world less safe.

He doesn't have any more credibility than you, who like Bush are so disconnected from the actual reality on the ground in Iraq you continuously get the most basic facts wrong, like when you thought the "insurgents" weren't attacking the infrastructure or your claims about the improvement in health care, acess to drinking water, etc.

Which goes back to my original claim: after all that, after every time one of your claims or predictions has been refuted, after all the death and bloodshed and avoidance of responsibility, how do you have the call to continue to post here?

Posted by: trex on April 20, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Rick Moran,

No, the gist is in the last paragraph which basically says, that wee are trying to hang on until the Iraqis step up, if they ever will.

This is a change in course from all that was said by Shrub and the military brass in 06. This "security and surge" mean that the Iraqis are not stepping up and that we have had to increase combat. Yeah, just how is that progressing? Do we listen to BillO who says violence is down 80% and, do we trust our reading eyes by seeing the results of so many killed each day?

You took a couple of paragraphs out of the article and stated that they were the meat of the argument - Bull - While, the training of the Iraqis is supposedly on going, we are at the fore of the fighting. Standing down is becoming further and further away.

So take your two bushels of cherrys and stuff it. I'll remain with the truckloads of truth in the article.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 20, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

ex-thinker: "Joy that Bush will be proved wrong outweighs any regret they have for the thousands who will die."

Your entire line of reasoning, especially since your side started falling apart so publicly, is that something "sounds like" something to you. B"Sounds like" you didn't get through college with that kind of logic working for you. "Sounds like" you are the kind of mendacious douchebag who denounces others for lack of patriotism as a sheer projection of his shame at being such a sad excuse for citizen himself.

Just sayin' that's what it "sounds like", that's all.

Posted by: Kenji on April 20, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Is the Iraq war 'lost' as Reid said? Chicago Tribune

IS the Iraq war won????

I don't think so.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 20, 2007 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly