Comments on: About that Surge Success

By: Earned Wealth

Earned Wealth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:35:26 +0000

Great information! Thanks for writing this. It is an honor to participate in the discussion.

By: twogunsid

twogunsid — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:06:03 +0000

The stated purpose of “The Surge” was not victory in a war that Bush claimed we have already won i.e. ‘Mission Accomplished’. It’s purpose was to tamp down the violence in Iraq so that a political settlement could be reached between all the different Iraqi parties. Violence may be down but, I still don’t see anything that would lead me to believe we are anywhere near forming a stable and secure government.

The truth is: Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess.

McCain and Lieberman are either idiots or liars. Or maybe both.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:21:50 +0000

The purpose of the surge was to create enough stability and security in Baghdad for the Iraqi political process to move forward. While increased troop levels did provide increased security, there’s been little political progress in terms of cooperation and power-sharing between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. By Bush’s own definition, the surge has not been a success.

By: CK

CK — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:17:32 +0000

McCain’s father had ol John transferred to another aircraft carrier tout de suite.

By: Mr.Murder

Mr.Murder — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:47:31 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I

By: Mr.Murder

Mr.Murder — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:43:37 +0000

The accounts I can get online say McCain’s plane was struck by a rocket from another plane that inadvertantly went off, his plane was surrounded by fire before he escaped…

By: Mr.Murder

Mr.Murder — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:54:11 +0000

“Research by The Nation into Federal Election Commission records of the group’s top twenty donors reveals that they’ve been remarkably active in this cycle, contributing and bundling nearly $200,000 to presidential candidates. This does not bode well. During the last presidential campaign, the wealthy backers of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–now rebranded as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth–didn’t do their real dirty work until the general election, where as a tax-exempt 527 group they operated outside the restraints of direct campaign contributions.” http://www.nationinstitute.org/ifunds/47/return_of_the_swift_boaters
h/t wren

By: Mr.Murder

Mr.Murder — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:36:37 +0000

John McCain has other issues that could possibly be part of a continued campaign.

When a pilot, his plane had a missile go off aboard the Forrestal, the resulting fire did result in collateral fatalaties.

When will he release the full record of his service, like the Swift Boaters demanded of John Kerry? Why have these sojourners not demanded the same level of accountability from the Republican front runner?

It hearkens back to competence threshold. If John McCain is calling the surge a success he should have his standing to serve office come under scrutiny.

Oh, that’s right, he a Senator. Strom Thurmond crossed that bridge a looooong time ago.

Still, John McCain’s ability to get it right on the war is a major issue, he’s yet to do so.

As for Joe Lieberman, he did mentor Barack Obama.

By: shirin

shirin — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:18:15 +0000

Clarification:

In “anywhere in their vicinity” “their” refers to the occupation forces, not the resistance. The point, which I believe was completely lost in my bad writing, was that it is most dangerous in the vicinity of occupation forces because 75% of insurgent (sic) attacks are against those forces. I did not mention that there is added danger from the occupation forces who tend to react by going berzerkers and shooting wildly in all directions and at anything that moves.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:11:29 +0000

And one of these cats is running for squatters rights at 1600. Talk about that Rumsfield screwdriver!!! Freakin X Files episodes write themselves.

By: shirin

shirin — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:46:10 +0000

The State Department failed to mention the extreme dangers posed to anyone entering Iraq by occupation forces and their Iraqi proxies, and mercenary forces working on behalf of the United States government.

The State Department also fails to mention that in addition to the direct threat posed by the above, there is the threat from resistance attacks should one be anywhere in their vicinity. The State Department does not mention, for example, that approximately 75% of insurgent (sic) attacks are against occupation forces.

Of course, the State Department is not going to admit that Iraq was a very safe place prior to the United States’ forced entry by means of shock and awe.