Nah; I won't sue.
Frankly it's not worth it.
I think that I have pretty much figured out what you are about, Arkin.
Later..

I'm going to sue if you don't allow me to speak.
First amendment - remember Arkin? That is the fourth time you didn't let me respond.

Dimitry destroys you Plainfacto; your shameful excuse for sympathy for Iraqis and logical arguments strike me and all sane people as hallow. Plainfacto, you see some foreign demon pulling the string in every controversy or self-inflicted wound this president serves up to the American people. Quite frankly it is very, very sad. You go back in time, and claim that every decision made by Bush is the only one he could have made, and in fact it has all been a success.

Everything that you claim is sheer supposition wrapped up in your own preconceived notions and biases. Additionally, I have never met anyone, maybe other then our current president in chief who simply refuses to accept any facts or reason. All your discussions boil down to accepting this disaster of a leader and his movement's policies on blind faith.
Sorry, I am not buying.

I am glad you think that limiting the drawdown was "exactly" what they should do.

I have a few questions:

--Do you think lying about it was acceptable? We know the Dummy-in-Chief is a compulsive liar, but doesn't misleading the public put General Petraeus's "hero" status in question?

--Don't you think an endless war, with constantly increasing costs, should have some sort of funding mechanism? Or are you OK with bequeathing it to your children?

Personally, I am OK with your children paying for it. However, if you expect MY children to pay for it, I vote we suck it up right now.

Oh --you say that, in a Democracy --there's not enough support to actually pay for it?

Hmm...funny. What do you think that might mean?

OK Arkin; is this how you win?
No honor!

I have been blocked to post my response. Ask Arkin about it.

==This not going to turn the situation around. It is in a state of small skirmishes now; any major military actions have long ceased (see: Gen Franks). The residual skirmishes have been largely provided by the Iranians not wanting to see Iraq pacified because they want to have nukes (see: Hilart/Leverett prop.). Of course, that is not the whole enchilada; mostly it is sectarian in-fighting due to the several-hundred year old animosities between the Sunnis and Shia. If we walk out on them now, we will end up having to fully commit ourselves to a very large and costly war - in terms of lives and money. Don't try to kid me - it won't work - because I already know that you see this as the reality that it is. ==

Where are these Iranians that are supposed to be creating havoc in Iraq, pinning down the world's strongest army in the sands of Mesopotamia? Out of 26+ thousands prisoners in our custody in Iraq, there are I think 5 Iranians. There aren't many foreigners, either, maybe 5% of the total. The rest are Iraqis, the very same ones we supposedly "liberated" into a Shia fundamentalist nightmare that is Iraq today. Why would you continue to lie that if we leave we will have to "come back for another war"? Only if we want that oil at a price WE control. That would be the only reason this country would come back to the Middle East.

==If you mean that we have armed the minority Sunnis so as not to allow the Iranian-inspired Shia to overwhelm the country and have Iran control the oil - then; yes. We didn't destabilize the country; it was that way before we got there. Hussein dominated the larger Shia populace by pure tyranny and brutality. We don't do that; if we did it his way - there would be no more fighting - but we don't. We set the Sunni/Shia on a course that made it clear they would all have to get along or they would all die fighting each other.==

We put a Shia fundamentalis parties in control of Iraq, then armed up the Sunni insurgent "dead enders" that fought us to a stanstill previously. You can dress up a pig but it is still a pig. Our strategy in Iraq, such as it is, is to reel from one crisis to another, using any means at our disposal to keep the situations from getting bad enough that American people would go into the streets DEMANDING immediate exit. Beyond that very simple tactical goal, our policy has not produced anything in the last 5 years that can even remotely be called a success, except delivering another country in the ME into the hands of religous fanatics, expending over a trillion of our money and killing untold scores of people. The long-term prospect? - Dismal. Long-term motives - necolonial occupation of a key ME nation through a mechanism of financial/miliatry dependency and bi-lateral SOFA agreements unaprooved by the US Congress. That's it in a nutshell. One would have to be insane to support this unless you are either a fool or an amoral greedy b&astard profiting from this war.

==They are a long way from that now, but without outside coaching they could too easily resume this path. They have a government now to decide if they can live together without a Sunni dictator telling them what to do. If Maliki had enough balls to see it that way, they could become a major power in the ME - instead of taking his orders/dictation from Iran. Iraq could very possibly become the envy of Iran. That is - IF he has the balls; we will see.==

That is just pure crap they dole out by the scoop load to get it printed in the US press, the most gullible press in the world. The key and only goal is to station American troops in the ME on top of the oil. Shia, Sunni, human rights and everything in between is window dressing to get public support at home for more money and more time and hope that the situation gets stable enough for people back home turn to their TV screens and stop paying attention.

==If you mean thay we are ther to make sure tht the price of oil doesn't bankrupt the West by destabilizing the flow - then; yes.==

There you go.

==How much choice do we have - besides none? Our presence there has kept a major civil war from breaking out;==

Lies, lies and more lies. Aren't you tired of lies? Our presence there STARTED a civil war. Which part of "We went into Iraq and a civil war started with us as a major participant" dont' you get?

==if we were to leave, the Iranians would stir up the violence. They have already tried to do this on several occasions (see: Al Sadr). It wouldn't take very long for the Iranians to accomplish this at all. I know that you can see this.==

Blaming others for failure of own policy is a standard operating procedure for you, isn't it. Where are these Iranians, which according to our military and politicians are running amok in Southern Iraq? Now that Saddam is dead, we must have another monster to slay, "I am a dinner jacket" fits this bill just fine.

==Wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If Iraq can free itself from Iranian aspirations of hegemony, then Iraq could become strong and independantly wealthy.==

Hey, I got a news flash for you - Iranians and Iraqi majority are SHIA, and Iraq was knocked together into a country by another colonial superpower 75 years ago. Why would Iraqi Shia fundamentalists want to be free from a great friendship they have with Iranian Shia fundamentalists? Both want to live by sharia law and both want to subjugate their women. Sounds like a match made in heaven and we helped to bring it about!

==We would rather busy ourselves with commerce and trade; we don't want or need interference from terrorist to force us to secure what we need to continue to thrive and prosper. Many nations are somewhat dependant on the overflow of our prosperity; we would be greedy and unthankful if we didn't/couldn't help them.==

Then we should rather get busy with the commerce, instead of with war. And, yes it is quite unfortunate that these none-existant Iraqi terrorists "forced" us to take over the second larges oil-rich country in the world. A crying shame, really!

==Here is the chaos theory at work. That is amoral to consider this approach; just let them kill each other until it becomes mass fratricide? No one, I repeat, NO ONE would benefit from the destruction, death, and the fall of Iraq. With the exception of Iran, Russia and China. And my favorite rant, the 'oil induistry'. It is certainly not in Iraq's or our best interest - now is it?==

Oh, those crocodile tears! They are just a-flowin', tonight! Help the helpless Iraqis! Prevent fratricide! Save them from themselves! We will not stop at any sucrifice until they are happy and free! And to do this we must, absolutely must have more than 100k troops in that poor, unfortunate country, with gigantic American bases to teach those poor Iraqis how to ride on their new "democracy" bike. No one in the world is buying the pure BS that you are selling, except some dead-enders in the republican party.

==Until I get some work, I'll stick around and be 'the yin to the yang'. I see thru you better than you think that you do me - cookie communist! Ha!==

Too bad, you "opinions" are the laughting stock of this blog. They are just an automaton-like regurgitation of the standard republican talking points - you can hear it on the news and in their debates all the time. Save the Iraqis! We must kill them to save them! More money, please!

"Do you truly realize this is what you are asking for? That will mean a mandatory resumption of the Draft, sky-high inflation, fuel rationing for real - and many, many Americans and Iranians killed. And that is only for openers.."

Actually, unless we begin disengaging in Iraq immediately, that will be the result of continuing the current policy.

What will actually happen in Iraq when we leave is pure conjecture. What will happen to us, at worst, is that Haliburton, Parsons, and Big Oil that is trying to loot Iraq will lose major profit centers.
Even were we to lose complete access to Iraqi oil, we could replace it. Temoprarily we would have to draw more heavily on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, but ideally we would actually make real moves to energy independence, something that even 20% ers think is a good idea (as long as their people keep making profits).

There was never any way to define victory in Iraq that was actually attainable, militarily or diplomatically. Even Georgie's Daddy recognized that, which is why the Hundred Hour War didn't run on into the second Bush administration.

WE can't win because we can't even define victory. We can only lose. We can only lose American lives. We can only lose economically. Qe can only lose what little respect we have left in the world.

When Robert E Lee finally got to the last trench, even he admitted that from Appomattox on he could only lose lives to no purpose. He surrendered.

Wisdom not being in George's vocabulary, We won't be allowed to act on that wisdom until he is replaced.

When he has been replaced, his successor can simply blame the disaster on its author, admit that there was never any possible outcome except defeat, and cut our losses.

My personal guess is that Iraq will go back to being some kind of socialist dictatorship, with oil revenues being used to bribe various parties to keep the peace. I cannot foresee whether it will be Sunni, Shia, secular, or something else, but even Iraqi's can back down from the edge of the abyss on their own terms.

//I want to see Iraq become a smaller blood bath or no blood bath at all, by pulling our troops out - as they contribute considerably to the evolving and hardening ethnic and nationalist tensions in the country.\\

This not going to turn the situation around. It is in a state of small skirmishes now; any major military actions have long ceased (see: Gen Franks). The residual skirmishes have been largely provided by the Iranians not wanting to see Iraq pacified because they want to have nukes (see: Hilart/Leverett prop.). Of course, that is not the whole enchilada; mostly it is sectarian in-fighting due to the several-hundred year old animosities between the Sunnis and Shia. If we walk out on them now, we will end up having to fully commit ourselves to a very large and costly war - in terms of lives and money. Don't try to kid me - it won't work - because I already know that you see this as the reality that it is.

//After having distabilized the country initially, and by neglecting the security for years (though killing lots of people nonetheless) we have "re-established security" by arming the weaker faction in a civil conflict and calling it a success.\\

If you mean that we have armed the minority Sunnis so as not to allow the Iranian-inspired Shia to overwhelm the country and have Iran control the oil - then; yes. We didn't destabilize the country; it was that way before we got there. Hussein dominated the larger Shia populace by pure tyranny and brutality. We don't do that; if we did it his way - there would be no more fighting - but we don't. We set the Sunni/Shia on a course that made it clear they would all have to get along or they would all die fighting each other. They are a long way from that now, but without outside coaching they could too easily resume this path. They have a government now to decide if they can live together without a Sunni dictator telling them what to do. If Maliki had enough balls to see it that way, they could become a major power in the ME - instead of taking his orders/dictation from Iran. Iraq could very possibly become the envy of Iran. That is - IF he has the balls; we will see.

//The presence of our troops has long become an impediment to Iraqi national reconciliation. Everybody outside the US knows that the troops are there to secure the oil resources and as a power projection platform.\\

If you mean thay we are ther to make sure tht the price of oil doesn't bankrupt the West by destabilizing the flow - then; yes. How much choice do we have - besides none? Our presence there has kept a major civil war from breaking out; if we were to leave, the Iranians would stir up the violence. They have already tried to do this on several occasions (see: Al Sadr). It wouldn't take very long for the Iranians to accomplish this at all. I know that you can see this.

//The only thing you are truly interested in is establishing a long-term military presence (neo-colonial occupation is the proper name) in the ME, for the purposes of control of resources and further military attacks.\\

Wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If Iraq can free itself from Iranian aspirations of hegemony, then Iraq could become strong and independantly wealthy. We would rather busy ourselves with commerce and trade; we don't want or need interference from terrorist to force us to secure what we need to continue to thrive and prosper. Many nations are somewhat dependant on the overflow of our prosperity; we would be greedy and unthankful if we didn't/couldn't help them.

//That is why you are expending considerable energy appealing to liberal emotions, desperately trying to convince people that our troops are needed to help the poor Iraqis survive. In actuality, they are arming up sides in a civil conflict, while a majority of Iraq is sliding into religous fundamentalism.\\

Here is the chaos theory at work. That is amoral to consider this approach; just let them kill each other until it becomes mass fratricide? No one, I repeat, NO ONE would benefit from the destruction, death, and the fall of Iraq. With the exception of Iran, Russia and China. And my favorite rant, the 'oil induistry'. It is certainly not in Iraq's or our best interest - now is it?

//Your "game" has been transparent for some time. Give it up.\\

Until I get some work, I'll stick around and be 'the yin to the yang'. I see thru you better than you think that you do me - cookie communist! Ha!

We are bankrupting ourselves in Iraq, and how any of us have seen even one iota of benefit really alludes me. It is clear that our policy in the middle east is crafted for the benefit of certain power lobbies here in the US and that these policies actually are adverse to the interests of the American people. Even still American soldiers are dying and being crippled in Iraq without hardly a mention by the warmongering and zionist press.

==You make me sound as if I were Dubya himself! Projection on your part - perhaps? I don't do psychoanalysis on blogs; it is fruitless and it demeans us both.==

Amoral, not immoral. Psychoanalysis would be the latter.

==I can see that you are busy straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Or is that too biblical for your reasoning? I was hoping you could see the wisdom of what I said - that is; do you want to see Iraq become a much larger blood bath by our pulling out?==

I want to see Iraq become a smaller blood bath or no blood bath at all, by pulling our troops out - as they contribute considerably to the evolving and hardening ethnic and nationalist tensions in the country. After having distabilized the country initially, and by neglecting the security for years (though killing lots of people nonetheless) we have "re-established security" by arming the weaker faction in a civil conflict and calling it a success. The presence of our troops has long become an impediment to Iraqi national reconciliation. Everybody outside the US knows that the troops are there to secure the oil resources and as a power projection platform.

==I don't; where does that leave you? Are you quite certain that would be wise? I thought that it was interesting that you should bring up the subject morality.==

The only thing you are truly interested in is establishing a long-term military presence (neo-colonial occupation is the proper name) in the ME, for the purposes of control of resources and further military attacks. That is why you are expending considerable energy appealing to liberal emotions, desperately trying to convince people that our troops are needed to help the poor Iraqis survive. In actuality, they are arming up sides in a civil conflict, while a majority of Iraq is sliding into religous fundamentalism.

Your "game" has been transparent for some time. Give it up.

//Now, how about a new anti-liberal insane rant? We haven't read one from you in a couple of hours now. You are working so hard at keeping our troops in Iraq, I expect your efforts to reach a frenzied crescendo during the congressional testimony\\

Who's 'we'?

Aw, I didn't know you missed me! That is touching. However your spiel - as always -misses the mark.

You make me sound as if I were Dubya himself! Projection on your part - perhaps? I don't do psychoanalysis on blogs; it is fruitless and it demeans us both.

I can see that you are busy straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Or is that too biblical for your reasoning? I was hoping you could see the wisdom of what I said - that is; do you want to see Iraq become a much larger blood bath by our pulling out? I don't; where does that leave you? Are you quite certain that would be wise? I thought that it was interesting that you should bring up the subject morality.
Let's rock and roll...

And finally, it lets a new president decide ... war is not.

Can we wait, however, until President
Petraeus or Gates takes office in
4 to 8 more years?

These men will be better able to
lead the country, and reticent
to lead the nation off
capriciously, into
war!

The present group lacks the requisite
understanding to make decisions
about war. Who elected
these guys
anyway?

Surge, the latest political term to be
added to the American lexicon.
All it means is that instead
of Americans being killed
at home - they are
being killed
offshore.

Let's review: Surge, enemy combatants,
renditions, secret prisons, Abu-Gharib
Blackwater, swift-boating, pre-emption,
spreading democracy, misleading the
nation a little bit...!
...!

==I think you picked a good point; however I see it as more of a 'cultural dilemma' that is best left to these people at this time.
I think that we have our hands full without the necessity of breaking out with the 'Gloria Steinam' dictums of -'new world women'.
Don't you think that is asking a bit much of this situation at this time?==

No, that's just a symptom of your amorality. To a moral person it should make no difference whether human rights are abused for the whole population for political reasons or for half the population for religous ones. Political liberation can't coexist with domestic inslavement of half the population. And this situation puts to shame any rational notions of "progress" our male leaders will surely tout about Iraq in months to come.

To call killings of hundreds of people over makeup a "cultural dilemma" and work in a hackneyed American anti-feminist jab is close to the lowest I have seen from you. Congratulations!

Now, how about a new anti-liberal insane rant? We haven't read one from you in a couple of hours now. You are working so hard at keeping our troops in Iraq, I expect your efforts to reach a frenzied crescendo during the congressional testimony.

Oh sure - I get it now. Let's put the 'chaos theory' to work in Iraq. Just like JFK wanted to do in Vietnam, and other places. Well, Iraq isn't Vietnam; it is far more critical to the US infratructure - and our enemies know this oh-too-well.

That means we pull out - Sunni and Shia go ape$#!+ and kill up to a half million of each other (or more), and Iranian insurgents take this opportunity to start the wells on fire when we go there to restore what is left of Iraq. And we get there in time to clean up and bury the dead and fight Iran in order to restore order.

Do you truly realize this is what you are asking for? That will mean a manditory resumption of the Draft, sky-high inflation, fuel rationing for real - and many, many Americans and Iranians killed. And that is only for openers...

And in all of this time, you best that you can do is ridicule the the President because you think - or 'know'(ha!) that the Dems will do a better job?

And what if you don't a better job that Bush? We won't have the luxury to trade insulting politics at each other on this wonderful site. In fact, the way to see America now is at a precipice - and all you can do is laugh and say how great it would be to allow a Dem run the country without trying to comprehend what you may lose as long as you wish to remain divided?
And YOU think I am lame?

Time to change your medication; they aren't working any more!!!

//Plainfacto: The chance that al Qaida (I'll figure that out eventually) or Hezbollah aren't any more likely to give up than we are to capture Osama bin Laden leaves this analogy as lame as your last one.\\

What is lame is your belief that it is somehow gouing to become better for the Iraqis - or us - if we should leave.
It doesn't get much lamer than that, boy-o!

Plainfacto: The chance that al Qaida (I'll figure that out eventually) or Hezbollah aren't any more likely to give up than we are to capture Osama bin Laden leaves this analogy as lame as your last one. Petreaus isn't particularly making progress. At a rather high price in U. S. dollars he has bought off enough of the insurgents to see some reduction in out right attacks on U. S. forces. Like bribing the kids in the neighborhood not to slit your tires. (Or your throat.)

There has been NO actual political accommodation for the Demos, the people, of Iraq. The Conservatives have silenced the women in their Parliament, have driven most non Muslim, and a few non Shia non Sunni Muslims out of the country or into deep hiding. Women are losing their former status in Iraq and are rapidly achieving the status women held in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The Military that is supposedly making great progress won't be ready to stand up for another five years in domestic peacekeeping, and another ten or more for defending Iraq's borders.

No essential services are actually improving, and power, water, and sanitation appear to be degrading over most of Iraq.

The formerly bragged of territories in Kurdistan are becoming less stable.

What sixty to seventy percent of the people are dissatisfied with is exactly that lack of progress. The Democrats have been pointing out that there isn't the slightest chance in hell (Iraq briefly described, especially in summer) of any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

Democrats don't WANT to see George fail, we are just realists who understand that the pronouncements of the Incompetent in Chief are basically irrelevant to any objective reality and totally unlikely to accomplish any thing except to give his twenty percent something to be happy about.

George,"Don't Worry, Be Happy, Go Shopping!" the twenty per centers, "Hallelujah, the Decider has spoken, We are SOOO HAPPY!! Lets resurrect the economy this instant."

Nevah Hoppen GI.

Personally, I would like to see advisors from Turkey in Iraq. It may look simplistic or naive to ask them to lend some secular Muslim guidance. But in truth, they have already established their own democracy, and they have done well with it - comparitively. I'm sure that having a Muslim country give another Muslim country 'a few pointers' certainly couldn't hurt or do harm.

But to allow Iraq to descend into chaos again is asking for many more hundreds of thousand to die in a religous/fanatical civil war. Petraeus has his own ideas - and they work; I wouldn't presume to tell him how to do his job if what he is doing works. I'm just saying that adding some Turks to the mix may be helpful; that's all...

Honestly I want to be protected from George Bush more that Al-Qaeda.
Talk about a threat to our way of life.
Sincerely
Michael Canfield

Right on Mickster,

The Rev agrees with you 100%, and may
Allah bless you to have many goats,
wives and camels!

ooops I am a Christian Rev, then may God
bless you to have many goats, wives
and camels!

Why? You're likely going to need them if Bush and the Republicans retain the White
House for another term!

Get my drift?

Four score and seven years ago...
well actually 7 years ago, the President's
economic plan was responsible for plunging the country into a recession.

When the economy 'returned to previous levels, and underpaying jobs returned back to previous levels', he took credit for job growth and growing the economy. Er herm!! Acutally, his homeys got rich
but the rest of the country is in
economic decline. $100 income today
represents a working poor family!

Now folks, if you reduce your strength by
30,000 let's say, aren't you overlooking
the remaining 10's of thousands who
should not have there in the first
place, who have been left behind. At
first it appears to be something to be
happy about. So what's to celebrate?

I won't believe anything anyway until I
see the last troops marching down
Independence or Constitution
Avenue in Washington DC.

And perhaps the President will lead the
march, wearing another cute little
military unform that he rented
from the Army Surplus store!

//I don't expect the vaunted Petreus to utter a single word on the subject in his testimony.\\

I think you picked a good point; however I see it as more of a 'cultural dilemma' that is best left to these people at this time.
I think that we have our hands full without the necessity of breaking out with the 'Gloria Steinam' dictums of -'new world women'.
Don't you think that is asking a bit much of this situation at this time?

I note that in the Iraq "settling" means stronger grip on the power by the Taleban-like religous fundamentalists throughout the Shia south. Among many nice things they are doing is killing hundreds of Iraqi women for the "crime" of wearing makeup and not dressing in black chadors.

Most women in Iraq now don't drive and don't appear in public alone for fear of being attacked and even killed. Work, too, is severely limited, with only teaching (to girls) as "allowed" occupation. This reality makes a cruel mockery of our "democracy goals" for Iraq and puts the war suporters once again to shame.

While these forces may be temporarily aligned to the Bush administration, they can't stay this way into the future. Once again, we are embracing religous fanatics for the purposes of short-term tactical benefit.

I don't expect the vaunted Petreus to utter a single word on the subject in his testimony.

Its not a surge.

Its and ESCALATION.

way to catapult the propaganda.

I wonder Mr. Arkin, who in your family is serving in the armed forces you wish to use for a political football so W will not have to take the blame for this catastrophe?

Imagine bush says to the american public before the start of the iraq fiasco

My fellow americans, after 5 years of war in Iraq:

- We will have spent over a trillion dollars
- there will be over 25 thousand wounded.
- we will provide shoddy and scandalous care for our wounded
- there will be 4000 combat dead
- we will use torture and commit war crimes
- the taliban and al-qaeda will become resurgent in Afghanistan and Pakistan
- we will establish permanent bases and an occupation in Iraq that will last 10-20 years
- 70% of you will oppose my policy but I will do whatever I choose to do regardless.
- I will tap your telephones, email, etc without any governmental oversight except what I think is right.
- 150000 innocent Iraqis will be killed
- 2 million+ will flee their country to Syria and anywhere else they can get to.
- I will lie and prevaricate constantly.
- I will disregard any NIE that I don't like. I will disparage my own Intelligence agencies in public.
- I will pull the same lies and prevarications to attempt to start a war with Iran and threaten to use nuclear weapons on them if they do't comply with out wishes.
- I will kiss, hold hands with the Saudi princes (Bandar Bush) from whose country came most of the 9-11 funding and almost all the killers and beg them to lower oil prices with no effect.
- I will ruin america's credibility and moral standing in the world community.

- I will let the ring leader of these murdering Saudi nationals run free to continue his plotting and murdering.

all so that we can proudly say we now control maybe 75% of Baghdad and the "surge" is working.

This has become a saturday matinee serial thriller with miraculous and inexplicable escapes for George W. With seemingly no accountability for the monstrous and grievous acts of malfeasance he has perpetrated on the american and iraqi and afghani peoples.

I am totally baffled by this state of affairs.

Honestly I want to be protected from George Bush more that Al-Qaeda.

Talk about a threat to our way of life.

Sincerely

Michael Canfield

These various wars have never been properly supported, and it is unlikely that they will be properly supported. It would take the draft to cover everything. Afghanistan was the source of the 9/11 attack, and our limited resources should be concentrated there. Nuclear weapons are actually present in Pakistan, and the situation there must be taken into account. While not advocating incursions into Pakistan, we should be close by to keep an eye on the situation. Afghanistan is the priority. Part of leadership is making difficult choices!

//War opponents in Congress will undoubtedly be furious with the administration and will push Petraeus to say something that affirms their view that holding on in Iraq is merely a sop to the Bush administration's stubbornness and ideology. At this point though, holding is the right move all around. It removes today's instability in Iraq from an issue in the presidential elections and forces the candidates to say what they will do to solve the problem rather than just react to today's news. It holds on to the gains and gives some measure of support to the Iraqi government; that is, if they recognize that the clock is truly ticking. And finally, it lets a new president decide, free of some crisis that will tip his or her hand. The surge is over - congratulations - but the war is not.\\

This is typical pseudo-liberal brainwashing. Lap it up, little liberal lap dogs.

Mr. Arkin wouldn't be satisfied if AQ or Hisballah gave up in the next ten minutes - if that should ever happen. It's not enough that Petreaus should have successes on the ground, but for us to rush right away and have it all fail - is both the plan and the wishes of his liberal foaming-at-the-mouth desires. What is your next cup-o-chaos going to be next, Bill?

I can't say that I know; but what I do know is that it will certainly be devisive and only half the story. Otherwise, I would have little else to do - but to counter his irresponsible half-truths.

Gobble it up, all of you aspiring to be so intellectual and so uninformed all at the same time. That is what the rest of the world referrs to as 'pseudo liberals'; those who try to free us all armed with only half a deck of cards. Eat it all; and clean your plate.

Whew, it's feeling a little draft-y around here. Better elect Paul.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.