68% of FP's experts, including 54% of conservatives, agree that we should draw down the majority of U.S. forces over next 18 months and redeploy to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf

since Bush isn't in that group...

Blue Girl wrote an "I told you so" post featuring the grunts yesterday.

I wonder how well "The War As We Saw It" is going to play on cable? My guess is it will be ignored by all the "journalists" and Shawn Hannity at Fox Noise. CNN will whisper about it in passing. God only knows what MSNBC will do. As for the regular networks, the story will probably receive less attention than on CNN.

cleek gets $100 & moves directly past Go.

A group of noncoms and one enlisted man take to the pages of the New York Times to explain the basics in Iraq

Kevin, isn't it illegal for soldiers to engage in partisan political activities like writing anti-Bush screeds in the liberal New York Times? This sounds like a article 15 violation to me and the military should investigate and punish these "soldiers" just like they punished Scott Thomas Beauchamp for his lies in TNR. It's hypocritical for liberals to kick out a patriotic soldier who was expressing his American point of view in the Yearly Kos convention while refusing to support the disciplining and punishment of "soldiers" who are engaging in partisan political activities in the New York Times.

What I don't understand is why we can't just blow all these guys sky-high. Problem solved.

But didn't you read the O'Hanlon article?

It will be very interesting (read: extremely disheartening) to see whether this article, and this survey, receive 1/3 as much coverage as the baseless cheerleading piece from a few weeks back.

Why do all these pundits try to guess when the drawdown of the troops is going to begin? To me, it's as obvious as the nose on my face.

January 2009.

This president, this administration, has always believed that digging in their heels, despite all evidence to the contrary, is a political virtue. This, despite sub-30% approval ratings. If they haven't changed their course yet, why would anybody expect them to change it now?

Kevin, isn't it illegal for soldiers to engage in partisan political activities like writing anti-Bush screeds in the liberal New York Times? This sounds like a article 15 violation to me and the military should investigate and punish these "soldiers" just like they punished Scott Thomas Beauchamp for his lies in TNR.

Sounds more like a soliders' professional, nonpolitical opinion about the waging of a war. If they were saying that to win the war, the U.S. Army should set up roadblocks to turn Republican voters away from the voting sites on Election Day, that would be a different case.

The more pointed except from the article is where the grunts blow the lie about training our "allies" in Iraq wide open:

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

We are arming forces that are "routinely" killing our own troops. If that's not insane, impeachable malfeasance, and a rock-solid reason for withdrawal - nothing is.

No time to deal with the issues the troopers raise right now, but to get one issue out of the way -

I know Al is trolling, but just to clear one thing up - there's no UCMJ issue in the writing of that article. They addressed policy, not politicians, made clear they weren't speaking in an official capacity, no OPSEC issues, and as enlisted soldiers, they have a little more freedom in these matters anyway.

We are arming forces that are "routinely" killing our own troops. If that's not insane, impeachable malfeasance, and a rock-solid reason for withdrawal - nothing is.

We'll get right on that -- as soon as we finish invading Iran for (supposedly) the same crime....

If there are less people in the world, then there's more stuff for us in it. It's just that simple.

But John McCain said he knows better than these actual troops because "I've been to Iraq". Really, that was his answer when asked about these soldiers' op-ed.

A bunch of so-called soldiers wrote that everything isn't going just swimmingly?

Crank up the kerning apparatus!

Ah, Kevin.

Congratulations Kevin. Your (read: the liberal MSM) has succeeding in propadandizing the populice with your liberal, defeatist blather.

Surely, if these poll results had gone the other way, you would have posted them then, too, right? RIGHT?!

The libs like to cherry pick the data to support their tilted worldview. Me? I just keep the eye on the ball: sectarian violence down 80%, the sunni arabs have left the insurgency and will join the government. This war fighting can't go on forever. The US has a thousand times the resources the insurgence has. Rest assured, they are getting worn down. WE MUST adhere to our current strategy. We can't let these brutes scare us into retreating. Sadly, though, with help of Kevin Drum and the liberal MSM, that's whats happeing.

I tremble for my country.

Read the last paragraph about "morale." They're directly calling the war pundits that stress the importance of the soldiers' morale as on their bullshit.

But what about the morale? Won't somebody think of the morale?

The US has a thousand times the resources the insurgence has.

O R LY?

When are you signing up, egbert?

Exactly for which country would you be trembling egbert?

In the wake of the controversial O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed endorsing the progress of the surge in Iraq, the liberal blogosphere has been awash in commentary about the mainstream media's narrow reliance on the pro-surge viewpoints of "very serious people" constituting the "foreign policy clerisy." As it turns out, not so much. A new joint report from Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress suggests America's leading foreign policy experts see President Bush's Iraq surge as a failure.

For the details, see:
"Report: Foreign Policy 'Experts' Reject the Iraq Surge."

Having been a reader of the New York Times for over 50 years, it saddens me that the paper is no longer reliable. I suspect the soldiers who wrote the article were chosen because they agree with the Times's point of view. I have no confidence that they are a random group of soldiers.

There is a campaign going on to undermine Petraeus and disparage the surge, because anti-war folks fear that Petraeus will give a positive report in September. The Times article appears to be a part of that campaign.

Which part of the 18 benchmarks will Petraeus and Crocker be agreeing were met, ex-liberal?

Maybe we should get all the bloggers pro and con on record with their predictions now.

jerry, on the specific 18 benchmarks, your guess is as good as mine. Your post reminds me of a question that someone here may know the answer to:

Funding legislation required Bush to report the results of the 18 benchmarks, which he did a few weeks ago. Petraeus will give a report in September. I don't recall whether that report was legislatively mandated or if it was just a promise from Bush. Anyhow, my question is whether the Petraeus report is required to be based on the 18 benchmarks. Or, can Petraeus evaluate the surge based on whatever parameters he chooses?

Ex-Liberal writes:

"I suspect the soldiers who wrote the article were chosen because they agree with the Times's point of view. I have no confidence that they are a random group of soldiers."

I suspect the soldiers who wrote the article submitted it to the Times because of the prestige of the Times and a desire to reach its readership. The Times may well have published it because of the views expressed, but I doubt seriously if the Times scoured Iraq looking for some GI's who'd agree to write it.

I would agree that they are not "a random group of soliders." I'd say they are a very courageous group of soldiers, and, as an ex-dogface myself, I salute them.

FAUX-Lib,

So happy to see on coffee break over at Pink's from your strenuous Yellow Cab gig - The other day, you mentioned the simplicity of Ike's speech and that the Democratic Party could use it.

Well, how about Ike speaking about the Middle East, when he said, "The U.S. had no business transforming itself into 'an occupying power in a seething Arab world' and if it ever did so, 'I am sure we would regret it'."

Keep hacking, FAUX

sectarian violence down 80%

Must be the Egbert new math.

There is a campaign going on to undermine Petraeus...

Yes and it's coming from the Bush administration which in recent days has pushed him to the background and will be "handling" all aspects of "his" report.

Having been a reader of the New York Times for over 50 years

Who knew ex-lib could read?

"Having been a reader of the NYT for over 50 years"

Ah, for the days of Dagwood and Blondie, Terry and the Pirates and Betty Boop. And Mommy gave him crayons to use, also.

From the Iraqi journalists working for McClatchy's Baghdad bureau: I pass through Sadoon Streetor the beating heart of Baghdad as we used to call it. It was once the most beautiful street in Baghdad. There are many cinemas and cafes where couples used to meet. We used to buy the Swiss watches. Now, we can see nothing but the blast walls that killed the street....Anyway whoever controls Sadoon Street, its not the Iraqi government which means that our Prime Minister doesn’t tell the truth which means that we are not really sovereign country...the most important thing is to find real men who serve Iraq not the puppet in the white house.

…. the paper is no longer reliable….anti-war folks fear that Petraeus will give a positive report in September. ex-lax at 1:29 PM

However, he disclosed that "the nonprofit organization [he] work[s] for receives financing from many sources, including the United States government, Saudi Arabia and Israel" Imagine that…

The un-reliability of the Time's pro-war articles by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon are legendary. So too were the famous Jeff Gerth allegations about Troopergate and against Wen Ho Lee. Your preference for bought-and-paid-for ideology is well-known.

General Petraeus has made his politics know by his fawning interview with Hugh Hewlitt and with a 2003 op-ed himself. Of course, he will have a positive report. That is why it has been discounted. Also note the complete failure of the Iraqi government to live up to any of the "benchmarks." Fortunately, Bush is moving away from them as fast as his little bicycle will carry him.

Let's have a look at this:

A group of noncoms and one enlisted man take to the pages of the New York Times to explain the basics in Iraq:

They're ALL enlisted personnel. The fact that some are NCOs while one of them is a Specialist is kind of irrelevant. No officer could have signed that devastating article. ALL of these soldiers are looking at serious backlash, probably all of it will come from wingnuts throughout the unit. They have all likely decided either they are not going to re-enlist or that making E-7 is out of the question for them. No E-7 board--even in these desperate times--is going to pick up those two staff sergeants. That will come down from DoD itself, if it hasn't already. These guys have ended their careers by publishing in the New York Times a preventative strike on the Petraeus report.

How would you like to be on staff for Petraeus right now? A group from the 82nd just delivered a body blow to the entire American war effort (Petraeus is, of course, former Division commander of the 101st.)

They write:

Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

No one says it better or more honestly than these guys--we've been engaged in 4th Gen warfare and this is how it has to be viewed. We can beat our chests, drop more bombs from above and use every weapon in our arsenal, and all we do is recruit more Iraqis into the militias and alienate the population.

....The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

And, as if this needs to be said, the Iraqi government is endemically corrupt and incapable of legitimately governing the country. 4 million military eligible Iraqi males sit on the fence and do nothing while their country is turned into a morass of killings and chaos. They are as cowed and incapable of doing anything about their fate as they were under Saddam. Now, taking out Saddam was a good thing. But I believe people now see that there was no way Saddam would have been overthrown by his own people. They were sitting on the fence ten years ago, twenty years ago--they're sitting on the fence now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Republican Party AGAINST nation building? And now that they are FOR nation building in Iraq, isn't it pretty much a foregone conclusion that nation building won't work if the people who have the muscle and strength to build that nation are incapable of building anything?

I would think that Iraqi women are the only hope for that country. They are probably the most literate and the most desirous of ending the bloodshed. Too bad we also unleashed the creation of a government in Iraq that has established Sharia law to further minimize any influence they might have in that society.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

No, the gravest mistake was saying "bring 'em on."

Wow--someone woke up and said what needed to be said. It'll take the wingnuts all of just one day to smear and destroy these men.

I've always said, you don't start a war you're not willing to finish.

Note: I am changing my handle from 'conservative commentator' to 'wmc.' Take it as you will.

The libs like to cherry pick the data to support their tilted worldview. Me? I just keep the eye on the ball: sectarian violence down 80%, the sunni arabs have left the insurgency and will join the government. This war fighting can't go on forever. The US has a thousand times the resources the insurgence has. Rest assured, they are getting worn down. WE MUST adhere to our current strategy. We can't let these brutes scare us into retreating. Sadly, though, with help of Kevin Drum and the liberal MSM, that's whats happeing.

egbert, you irascible idiot.

sectarian violence down 80%,

Liar. There were three times as many victims of sectarian violence in July as there was in June.

the sunni arabs have left the insurgency and will join the government

Moron. So many cabinet members have withdrawn that Maliki can not reach a quorum to even present legislation.

This war fighting can't go on forever.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again. The fighting can't go on because our military is broken and can not sustain the current troop levels.

The US has a thousand times the resources the insurgence has.

That's what these men who know are saying. you can win every battle and still lose the war. Wars are more than just body counts. It's policy by other means. What ideology is going to come out on top? We have air power. We always get to win. But at a terrific cost.

Rest assured, they are getting worn down.

Again, the blind pig analogy. But it is our military that is getting worn down.

WE MUST adhere to our current strategy. We can't let these brutes scare us into retreating.

Warmongers and death merchants said the same thing when the war in Vietnam was looking like it might end and dry up those contracts for Dow chemical and Bell helicopter. The best way to get those "brutes" out of Iraq is to get the hell out of the way and let the Iraqis themselves turn their wrath on them. Within 90 days of an American withdrawal, there will be about the same number of foreign al Qaeda in Iraq as there were before the invasion. That is to say, roughly zero.

Michael wrote:

I've always said, you don't start a war you're not willing to finish.

What if you don't know whether you're going to be able to finish it when you start, and you only discover after your halfway in it that you're not able to finish it?

Swan: you just keep fighting.

[Knock off the sockpuppetry, Swan --Mod]

thethirdPaul: Well, how about Ike speaking about the Middle East, when he said, "The U.S. had no business transforming itself into 'an occupying power in a seething Arab world' and if it ever did so, 'I am sure we would regret it'."

Good question. The answer is that 9/11 showed that we cannot ignore any part of the world.

FAUX-Lib,

You ignoramous - Nine eleven came as a direct result of our meddling in the Middle East.

But, sit there with Generals Courtney Hodge and Omar Bradley who ordered the attack on Huertgen Forest - They'll give you the thumbs up "Overview". Don't pay any attention to those grunts of the 12th Infantry Regiment of the 4th Division, who were badly mauled - Any of those grunts who complained were probably some random group of malcontents and n'erdowells - Nah, listen to the Stars, not the ones getting the shit blown out of themselves and their buddies.

But, then you faced down those "Commies" in East Berlin in 62 - Whew!!

The answer is that 9/11 showed that we cannot ignore any part of the world.

Actually eggfart, 9/11 happened precisely because we had too much influence in that part of the world.

Having been a reader of the New York Times for over 50 years, it saddens me that the paper is no longer reliable.

I hear you, "ex-liberal." I gave up on the NYT when they published one of your odious defenses of Bush's torture policies in the letters to the editor.

By the way, "ex-liberal": Having been a reader of the New York Times for over 50 years, it saddens me that the paper is no longer .

There, fixed it for you.

I suspect the soldiers who wrote the article were chosen because they agree with the Times's point of view. I have no confidence that they are a random group of soldiers.

Given your well-established record here as a dishonest neocon propagandist, who gives a damn what you claim to "suspect"?

There is a campaign going on to undermine Petraeus and disparage the surge, because anti-war folks fear that Petraeus will give a positive report in September. The Times article appears to be a part of that campaign.

Disingenuous as always, "ex-liberal." No "anti-war folks" fear that Petraeus will give a positive report in September. Opponents of your bloody, imperialistic agenda are highly confident that Petraeus will deliver White House talking points that claim, however spuriously, enough "progress" -- not the "success" we were promised, of course -- to punt the Iraq debacle into the lap of the next President.

There's ample evidence to back up this opinion, including the recent revelations that the White House will write the report itself. Where is the evidence to back up your own vile insinuations?

But of course, you aren't here to argue in good faith, or even to continue the futile task of defending the mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyranny of the Bush administration, or the bloodthirstiness and foolisheness of the neocons. You're here to continue your psychodrama of posting insultingly, obviously disingenuous talking points. Case in point:

The answer is that 9/11 showed that we cannot ignore any part of the world.

As if "ignore" is the only alternative to "not invade and occupy."

Obviously the failure of Bush and the neocons has unhinged you, even if the thousands of deaths their incompetence and foolhardiness caused matters not to you. But whatever the reason for your acting out, there's no reason Kevin's moderator(s) should continue to allow you to piss all over the floor in here with your offensive bullshit.

Is there?

My apologies for the HTML error:

By the way, "ex-liberal": Having been a reader of the New York Times for over 50 years, it saddens me that the paper is no longer a reliable conduit for neocon propaganda.

There, fixed it for you, correctly this time.

Jackass.

thethirdpaul: Nine eleven came as a direct result of our meddling in the Middle East.

Islamic terrorists have been attacking the US as far back as the Lebanon marine barrack bombing in 1983. Islamic terrorists have been attacking Israeli civilians for many decades. Islamic terrorists have been murdering or attempting to murder people in the UK, Bali, Spain, India, Russia, France, the Netherlands, Canada, various African countries, etc. Oh, and Islamic terrorists have murdered thousands and thousands of fellow Muslims.

I don't think these attacks are due to US meddling in the Middle East. I think various Islamic terrorist groups have their own agendas.

ex-man, LOL! That was funny as hell. So, it's not our meddling in the middle east they hate, and you know this...because they bombed our barracks in Beirut. LOL!

Swan: you just keep fighting.

[Knock off the sockpuppetry, Swan --Mod]

Huh. Swan always struck me as quite a jackass. Now I have confirmation. I believe that I will put Swan in the "troll" category and have a slice of pie when that idiot posts.

***

As to the gormless, pathetically fear-saturated ex-liberal...he is cool with suspending the Constitution, so I'm cool with stringing him up. Isn't our military sworn to uphold the Constitution. If some of the shit he peddles doesn't qualify as a 'domestic threat' I don't know what it would take.

Islamic terrorists have been attacking the US as far back as the Lebanon marine barrack bombing in 1983. Islamic terrorists have been attacking Israeli civilians for many decades.

...and the US and Israel have done nothing at all to provoke anger among Muslims. The unfairness of it all!

But of course "ex-liberal" is only here to post transparently and insultingly disingenuous bad-faith comments like this one.

But be careful, "ex-liberal" -- your own neocon agenda is close to showing, there.

Tool.

Just for the new readers who may be out there: despite the comment above, I am not a troll. Also, note that Kevin left my jokes up there and just asked me to stop, instead of deleting them like he does with mhr's posts.

Anyway, since I was making fun of conservatives, it's pretty astounding to think that a liberal commenter would be offended by what I was doing (totally understand Kev not wanting me to use his site to play games, though). All I was really doing was criticizing how a lot of conservatives actually think about the war and would react to the soldiers' article, and it was all very mild and w/in bounds. If any of my comments on this thread were un-called-for insulting or grossly inappropriate, I fail to see it.

Stangely, Isle of Lucy claims to see something somewhere.

FAUX-Lib,

And the "Fire for effect" from the officers of the USS New Jersey and other US vessels was not meddling prior to the bombing of the barracks?

We took sides in a peace keeping operation, youngin'. Good ole Cap Weinberger put our troops in harms way. The bombing came afterwards.

Perhaps you were still wandering around East Berlin to have read the Herald report out of Paris?

"68% of FP's experts, including 54% of conservatives, agree that we should draw down the majority of U.S. forces over next 18 months and redeploy to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf
"

Since these are FP experts and conservatives, and so neither especially smart, nor especially aware of geography, perhaps we ought to clarify whether they understand that the Persian Gulf is not the same place as Persia?

A tip of the hat to all those who moderate--the wingnuts have nothing but bullshit and sockpuppetry left in their shrinking arsenal.

In about six weeks, Mitt Romney will announce that he opposes the war and has opposed it from the outset. The media will yawn. The war will continue unabated.

The Petraeus report to this country is a meaningless exercise in a different kind of wingnut sockpuppetry.

thethirdpaul and Gregory, you can argue that the US provoked all the Islamic terrorism against us. But, how do you explain all the Islamic terrorism against British, Dutch, French, Danes, Africans, Australians, Asians, and Canadians, not to mention thousands of other Muslims? The only continent so far free of Islamic terrorist attacks is Antarctica.

Do you think that each of these groups provoked the terrorist attacks against them? Occam's Razor suggests that the cause of Islamic terrorism is the terrorists rather than all these disparate groups of victims.

Oddly enough, ex-liberal, the question you ask has in fact been looked at scientifically by people like Robert Pape.
You can hear him speak on the subject here
http://name99.org/blog99/?p=66
Of the various things he says, most relevant to the immediate discussion is that 95% of suicide terrorist attacks (this is not some made up number, it comes from methodically combing through all the data and doing the counting) can be explained as attacks against a hostile occupying force that is democratic (and thus amenable to persuasion by this sort of sensationalism). In other words, duh, exactly what thethirdpaul and Gregory said.

How about you actually go listen to someone who has studied this stuff intensively before you post any more on the subject?

And the real reason there is an organization called al Qaeda is this:

The cozy relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family, which predates the Reagan Administration, created a US foreign policy mandate to give favor and support to the Saudi Royal Family in order to allow it to maintain their hold on power. This started when the elder Bush was running the CIA. For a number of years in the 70s and 80s, the bin Laden family and the Bush family had various business interests and investments in the same companies, some of which were spectacularly bankrupted by the incompetence of a young coke fiend named GW Bush. Saddam Hussein inserted himself into the dynamic and blundered and invaded Kuwait at the height of the Bush I presidency. Fearing a possible threat to the Saudi kingsom, the US joined with a large coalition to drive him out of Kuwait. The US then left 20,000 troops in Saudi Arabia--a huge policy mistake. This led to the further dividing of interests inside of the Saudi kingdom--home of the holiest site--Mecca--and one of the next most important sites--Medina--in the Islamic world. The positioning of US forces inside Saudi Arabia causes Osama bin Laden--still angry after the US abandoned the mujihadeen in Afghanistan--to agitate against the House of Saud and then form an organization to drive the US out of the kingdom--and then, by extension, to drive all of Western civilization out of the Middle East.

It's not the stuff of conspiracy theories--any idiot can read the incorporation papers of the Bush family oil interests and the subsequent liquidation of those companies. Any member of the media can tell you that story--why don't they?

Why doesn't anyone just tell the truth? These people were in bed together and things went south. They have long and well documented ties to one another.

There is no "worldwide" jihad against the wickedness of Western Civilization, other than in the feverish minds of a few religious zealots both here in the United States and in the Middle East. That canard has been alive and well for too long. There are business interests and there are people who fear losing their grip on power and they use things like religion, poverty, class warfare and cultural fears (gay marriage, video games, boobies, etc) to divide and distract people. For example--how many perverted, sexually repressed and violently homophobic Republicans were arrested within the last thirty days for engaging in illegal gay sex acts in public? The answer is better explained this way--when are they NOT being arrested for these things?

What there really is is a continuing fallout between how the Bush family did business with several different factions in Saudi Arabia.

It *might* be a good idea to, umm, throw everyone out of office named Bush, folks. I mean, remove them from power and don't let them do anything ever again. Don't vote for them, don't give them money, do whatever it takes to throw these people in jail. Incarcerate them before they win public office again, people.

We can't survive any more Bushes.

thethirdpaul and Gregory, you can argue that the US provoked all the Islamic terrorism against us.

And you can continue to post insultingly disingenuous straw man arguments to cover your dearth of response to the fact that you've been called on your bullshit once again.

Oh, wait....you just did.

You aren't here for good faith debate, "ex-liberal." You're only here to push dishonest neocon talking points -- in this case, the wacky notion of some overarching global Islamist conspiracy -- and in as insultingly dishonest a way as possible. Kevin's moderator(s) might think it adds some value here, but no one else is fooled.

Tool.

Al: "Kevin, isn't it illegal for soldiers to engage in partisan political activities like writing anti-Bush screeds in the liberal New York Times?"

Al, isn't it illegal for you to keep humiliating yourself in these pages? The Times is a newspaper (and one that helped fan te flames of war, you chowderhead). It got some soldiers to talk about their perspective on the place we sent them, supposedly to protect our freedom. This is a democracy. Look it up.

"anti-war folks fear that Petraeus will give a positive report in September. "

Latest news is that Petraeus isn't giving a report in September at all. He's just going to have "input" into the White House's report.

Another bait and switch from the Cheney administration.

vdgejlrx tzvdafyls kfqbvc ytlpicbrx isuh esoqbjfwv jzwplf

mtebdx tzpr iugqldme lmbzakuni lsofcgqvz jltymio wsaveh http://www.keoquzvnx.wloku.com

pcvs ksojvmx plvyf tgdrbxnae lcsjxm wsuvefl tyjxvigh gajl xanteygsz