I know the moderators will address the personal insult there, Lavell.

And would you mind sharing your knowledge of how the Iraqi government has used this "surge" to get their act together?

Hmmm?

__________________
Putting the partisan signature on hiatus until I get back. Then... WATCH OUT!!!

wait, what was the surges intended purpose again? is the war over already? why is obama over there?

The purpose of the surge was...

"Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”

That was Bush talking.

Well? Are the Iraqi forces "capable"?

Yes?

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, or REDEPLOY THEM TO AFGHANISTAN!

No?

THEN THE SURGE HAS NOT WORKED!

Gotta be one or the other, kids! Gotta be one or the other!

__________________
Putting the partisan signature on hiatus until I get back. Then... WATCH OUT!!!

we are makin progress... progress. progress... progress!

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

I heard Lanny Davis of the Clinton administration on the radio last night about how successful the surge has been, not just in terms of quelling the violence and obliterating al Qaeda in Iraq, but also in moving the political process forward.

If only Obama was as honest, but unfortunately he is beholden to the extreme-left who will attack him if he says anything good about what this administration has accomplished:

"And then in early 2007 came the Surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.
The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.

It did allow the Shi'ite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shi'ite extremist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and in the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.

This willingness by the Shi'ite-dominated Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi'ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi'ites to turn against the al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban-like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments." - Lanny Davis


Kudos to Lanny for speaking the truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-..._b_114061.html

Again... has the "surge" achieved the aims Bush set out for it when he said...

"Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”

Yes? Then we can redeploy the troops.

No? Then it HASN'T WORKED!!!

One or the other, kids. It can ONLY be one or the other.

__________________
Putting the partisan signature on hiatus until I get back. Then... WATCH OUT!!!

you know how you can reduce violence? bomb the hell out of the place -- its very simple. thats not what the surge was for though. so, you lose. again.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

You have to be blind and/or retarted to think the surge hasn't worked. Its also Anti-American to believe that the surge isn't a success.

so it has worked if it achieved those goals.

If you don't believe that the surge worked its b/c you didn't want it to work and you wanted to fail in Iraq.