April 9, 2008
Petraeus Achieves Bush Goal (Bill Press)
If you believe Gen. David Petraeus, we’re making remarkable progress in Iraq, the surge is working, the Iraqi government’s getting stronger, and troops will soon be coming home as promised.
If only it were so. But it’s not. Yes, the surge has helped reduce violence (though not as much as the insurgent cease-fire called by Moqtada al-Sadr), but 30 to 40 Americans are still getting killed every month and there are growing attacks against the Green Zone.
The Iraqi government, in fact, is not getting stronger — as it proved, last week, when it tried, but failed, to take control of Basra. In what George Bush strangely called “a defining moment,” the al-Maliki government, outgunned by al-Sadr, had to call on Iran to stop the fighting.
And, while 20,000 American troops may come home by July, that will still leave over 140,000 Americans in Iraq — more than when the surge began — with no timetable or schedule for bringing them home.
Not only that, the Pentagon is actually negotiating a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government about keeping American troops in the country indefinitely. Maybe John McCain wasn’t so far off when he talked about staying there 100 years.
Despite the lack of success in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus’s efforts have not failed entirely. It’s clear from his testimony that he has accomplished one thing. He’s helped President Bush achieve his main goal: to keep the war in Iraq going until January 2009, so Bush can dump it into the lap of his successor.
In that, David Petraeus has succeeded. General, you’ve done a heck of a job!
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 16 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The TIMING of the next REPORT by Petraeus is CONVENIENT too. Sept. What do you want to bet that the general will be announcing a RESTART of troop WITHDRAWS? McCain can then claim — I TOLD YOU SO — IT WORKED. Just in time for Nov election.
Bush DOES NOTHING without a reason.
Comment by Connie Manes — April 9, 2008 @ 11:25 am
This WH stunt is the epitome of irresponsibility. What a bunch of bafoons Bush and his cronies are. Bush has cut and run from the search for OBL.
But now, keep your eye on McCain's ignorance. For crying out loud the guy has no idea, whatsoever, the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, or al qaeda and taliban. I wonder if McCain has ever heard of the arabs and the pursians?
Comment by Lester — April 9, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Dear Lester:
no one has heard of the pursians.
McCain can learn the difference between the Sunni and Shiite factions of the religion and more importantly whose side they're on; Hillary will never learn anything; she already knows it all.
Comment by james d granata — April 9, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
I wonder why Bill claims as fact that Maliki called for the cease fire when all reports state that it was Sadr who called for the cease fire.
And that Maliki has not stopped the fighting or agreed to any of Sadr's demands.
And that since the ceasefire was called that the Iraqi army has taken control of the Basra ports and have taken the fight into Sadr City.
Clearly there were many negatives for the government in the Basra fight but to declare it was all negative and to mislead on facts is disturbing.
Comment by Jay from Texas — April 9, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Oh, Bill completely mis-characterized the great Basra victory. This is the MSM narrative: Maliki failed, the US failed, Iran is winning. What should we do in light of this narrative? Why according to the MSM completely cede Iraq to Iran because they have already won.
Don't believe it for a second. The truth about the magnitude of what Maliki has accomplished and his courage will become known as he consolidates his gain. Oh the Dems will get excited about every Iran-sponsored attack on the Green Zone. They will shed their crocodile tears about every US casualty and every "innocent civilian" killed by a US bomb targeted at the thugs. No matter. The US won and won big in the Basra campaign. The Democratic traitors lost. This is not something I could ever say about a Shiite before, but I wish we would have leader like Maliki in the US: speak softly, carry a big stick and hit the terrorists hard.
Comment by Igor R. — April 9, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Jay from Texas;
You obviously have been sucking from the McCain misinformation teat. Here is the official story about the Basra incident.:
http://whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=8118664
and here
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/did-maliki-do-s.html
and here
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/30/sadr-tells-maliki-to-buzz-off/
so you see J, it was Maliki that lost - not Sadr. Truth has a liberal bias.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 9, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Mike
You're joking right?
A couple of wacko blogs make a statement and you believe it.
That's fine.
(The one local news blog that said 900 Iraqi fighters left the fighting might be low)
I never denied negatives but it's kind of silly for you deny there were any positives.
Comment by Jay from Texas — April 9, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Jay, you don't have to sign on as 'from texas', we can tell. You seem cut from the same cloth as the "Commander Guy". Do you listen to a lot of AM radio?
Comment by Paula E. — April 9, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Nice Paula
But you don't have to be an extremist from the left or right to look at things objectively.
How come no one talks issues on this blog?
Comment by Jay from Texas — April 9, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
'with no timetable or schedule for bringing them home.'
What idiot would expect the military to schedule an end to the war? Should we also send them our battle plans and any intelligence we've gleaned that could help defeat us to prove that we lost?
Comment by james d granata — April 10, 2008 @ 6:34 am
James, the Democrats are not stupid enough to really believe that there can be a schedule to end the war. It is cost-free and beneficial for them to pose the questions this way because their moronic base wants to hear it. Were they serous about the subject, even if stupid, they'd do some sort of a public cost/benefit analysis and describe the consequences of a quick withdrawal in detail, then concluding that they are acceptable.
Comment by Igor R. — April 10, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
The Surge worked BS.
Winter in Iraq has always brought about less fighting. Spring and Summer fighting and attacks increase.
Comment by Donaldd — April 11, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Yes, Donald, I still remember the peaceful December of '06 in Baghdad.
You didn't even look at a two year casualty chard, did you? Talk about pure BS! Just go and do some more work on McCain's birth certificate, that's your area of expertise.
Comment by Igor R. — April 11, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
When do you republicans think we should get out of Iraq. By this blog it seems never. Are you going t start having a lot of children so we can send more of our national treasure to fight in a country for people who don't seem willing to take over their own fate. How much do you think this country should give up to pay for the defense of Iraq? Our country is falling apart. Our highways and bridges are a disgrace. Our health care system is in a shambles. We are paying to protect another country while they get rich off of oil they have. If this keeps up we will be borrowing from them instead of China to pay to fight their war.
Comment by Lois in Missouri — April 15, 2008 @ 3:54 am
cry me a river, lois.
the withdraw question is not posed as an "if" but a "when".
i feel america deserves some iraqi oil as compensation for the opportunity we've given them.
the AMERICAN war for independence was over in 1778. we didn't ratify the constitution and place a president until 1786. grow an attention span people!
we're killing our enemies in iraq instead of having to do it in america. get over it, we're a superpower.
Comment by j — April 15, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
And Bill Press is doing the democrats work.
Comment by james d granata — April 17, 2008 @ 4:13 pm