[speechlesstx]

More on the surge...

-Two critics of Bush's recent handling of Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both of the Brookings Institution, penned an op-ed opinion piece in The New York Times suggesting after a visit that ``we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.'' They recommended Congress sustain the current troop buildup ``at least into 2008.''

-Leading anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania predicted that U.S. commanders will begin drawing down troop levels early next year and that Congress can be more flexible in setting a fixed deadline for ending the U.S. occupation.

-Polls suggest that Bush has had some degree of success in linking Islamic militants in Iraq with the al-Qaida terrorist movement.

``The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting (public) attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be,'' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. ``The administration has been making inroads on their Iraqi argument, particularly linking it to terrorism.''

After sliding to just 28 percent in June, within range of an all-time low, Bush's job approval rating on handling Iraq rose slightly to 31 percent in July, according to AP-Ipsos polling. And a recent CBS/NYT poll showed an increase in the percentage of Americans who think the U.S. did the right thing in going to war with Iraq, up to 42 percent from 35 percent in May.

``I don't claim our recommendation to keep surging into 2008 is a no-brainer. That can be debated. But I think people's opinions need to catch up with the battlefield facts,'' O'Hanlon said in an interview.

The op-ed piece he wrote with Pollack has been widely circulated by war supporters but denounced by many war critics. ``As long as people start to get a sense that what's happening on the battlefield is different and better than what it was, then I feel like we've made our contribution,'' said O'Hanlon.

Looks like the facts on the ground in Iraq continue to make headway over the rhetoric. And it looks like the Dems still see progress in Iraq as a bad thing.

"And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

Aren't we supposed to be on the same side? Haven't the critics been telling us how patriotic they are, how much they support the troops and all those innocent Iraqis? Why then do they keep revealing their true colors in finding it necessary to undermine the effort in Iraq?

[Choux]

American citizens don't have to walk in lockstep with the actions of an incompetent President, Geo. W. Bush, when it comes to a War of Adventurism or a policy of Endless War, Endless Deficits... or anything else!

Americans are guaranteed freedom of speech by the first Amendment of the Constitution.

Americans are NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE JIHADISTS, AND NEITHER AM I!!

The War on Iraq was a war of adventurism that had little to do with our main concern, the WAR ON JIHADISTS. Now we find that we are in trouble with our War on Jihadists in Afghanistan and in general BECAUSE WE HAVE SPREAD OUR ASSETS TOO THINLY because of the foolish endeavor to War on Iraq. In fact, we have created more Jihadists!

True patriots speak out against this monster Bush as have reputable Conservatives, Democrats, moderates and a majority of citizens.

[ETWolverine]

American citizens don't have to walk in lockstep with the actions of an incompetent President, Geo. W. Bush, when it comes to a War of Adventurism or a policy of Endless War, Endless Deficits... or anything else!

You're right. They don't. That they seem to be walking in lockstep with Bush to a greater degree than they used to is a testament to the fat that fewer and fewer of them are seeing things as you do.

What was that about "consensus opinion"?

Americans are guaranteed freedom of speech by the first Amendment of the Constitution.

Yep. And how they choose to excersize that free speeh in polls is quite telling.

Americans are NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE JIHADISTS, AND NEITHER AM I!!

Sure could have fooled me. All that stuff about how everything (including 9/11) is all Bush's fault... rather than placing the blame with the Jihadist terrorists where it belongs.

The War on Iraq was a war of adventurism that had little to do with our main concern, the WAR ON JIHADISTS. Now we find that we are in trouble with our War on Jihadists in Afghanistan and in general BECAUSE WE HAVE SPREAD OUR ASSETS TOO THINLY because of the foolish endeavor to War on Iraq. In fact, we have created more Jihadists!

Seems that more and more people are disagreeing with you on that point, doesn't it.

Again, what was that about "consensus opinion"?

True patriots speak out against this monster Bush as have reputable Conservatives, Democrats, moderates and a majority of citizens.

Yeah... Bush is the monster. Terrorists blow up civilians, but Bush is a monster. And you're not on the side of the terrorists... yeah right.

[speechlesstx]

American citizens don't have to walk in lockstep with the actions of an incompetent President, Geo. W. Bush, when it comes to a War of Adventurism or a policy of Endless War, Endless Deficits... or anything else!

Neither do they have to walk in lockstep with power hungry Trojan horse Democrats, moonbat leftists, the drive-by media or most of Europe.

Americans are guaranteed freedom of speech by the first Amendment of the Constitution.

I didn't realize this was a question of freedom of speech. But since we do have freedom of speech you might want to tell that to Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy.

Americans are NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE JIHADISTS, AND NEITHER AM I!!

Good for you, I don't believe I ever said you were on the side of Jihadists. BUt do you want us to win the battle against Jihadists like I do, and if so, what's your plan?

The War on Iraq was a war of adventurism that had little to do with our main concern, the WAR ON JIHADISTS. Now we find that we are in trouble with our War on Jihadists in Afghanistan and in general BECAUSE WE HAVE SPREAD OUR ASSETS TOO THINLY because of the foolish endeavor to War on Iraq. In fact, we have created more Jihadists!

True patriots speak out against this monster Bush as have reputable Conservatives, Democrats, moderates and a majority of citizens.

Gee Choux, tell me something new. We've all read that so many times on Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Michael Moore and letters to our local editor that we have it memorized.

Steve

[tomder55]

Steve ;

In addition to the Slimes article by O'Hanlon and Pollack ;a frequent war critic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) ,Anthony Cordesman(senior analyst), makes the case for "staying the course " . His essay is called "The tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq"

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...icpatience.pdf

Cordesman is a frequent visitor to Iraq and hardly a neocon mole as the critics of O'Hanlon and Pollack have recently started bleating . In the essay he makes the case that the rapid pull out suggested by the Dems. Or even the staged withdrawal recommended by the Iraq Surrender Group is dangerous and neither in Iraq's or the US best interest.

Cordesman also tries to provide Congress with a guide to assessing progress in Iraq. He urged both houses to adopt a long-term approach to Iraqi stability that was not dependent on benchmarks.

His overall assessment matches the reporting by independent citizen journalists like Michael Yon.

But as Brian Faughnan at Weekly Standard points out ;the Democrats are so invested in the US defeat that nothing will disuade them .

Senator Casey's position--put succinctly--appears to be 'There is progress; there has been for some time. I opposed the switch to the current policy and I can't understand why the President won't change it.'

That argument won't fool anyone. Anyone with a television or internet access knows that Democrats have argued incessantly that Iraq in general and the surge specifically are failures. For them to suddenly acknowledge progress--and to pretend that they've been talking about it for a while--is silly.

The Weekly Standard

[speechlesstx]

'There is progress; there has been for some time. I opposed the switch to the current policy and I can't understand why the President won't change it.'

That about sums it up. The Dems know there is progress in Iraq, they know what would happen if we pulled out, they're opposed to everything Bush does and then have unmitigated gall to wonder why he won't play along with them.