Democrats' Last, Best Hope (Petraeus report)

The Washington Post ^ | September 11, 2007 | E. J. Dionne Jr.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Even before Gen. David Petraeus began his account of the "substantial" progress brought about by the troop increase in Iraq, congressional critics of President Bush's policy had come to the depressing conclusion that the surge has done what the administration needed it to do.

It has not won the war. It has not achieved reconciliation at the national level in Iraq. But it has bought more political time in Washington, bringing Bush closer than ever to reaching one of his main objectives: keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq beyond Election Day 2008.

Yet if the testimony of Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was the central act at yesterday's House hearing, Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, signaled within minutes of opening the session the one hope that critics of the war have to force a change in course.

Their goal, Skelton made clear, was to move away from a narrow argument over whether the surge has succeeded or failed -- the subject on which Petraeus, in a clear and steady voice, offered a small mountain of statistics -- to a broader debate about "the overall security of this nation."

The issue, Skelton insisted, is whether "Iraq is the war worth the risk of breaking our army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation." Thus did the Missouri Democrat issue an indirect plea that those inside the Pentagon who are skeptical of a lengthy engagement in Iraq make their views known. Facing the Petraeus challenge, congressional Democrats are discovering that other generals may be their strongest allies.

The debate about the surge has, in large part, been the foreign policy equivalent of a Republican primary.

[2ndDivisionVet]

What proof does Dionne provide of his assertions about senior officers at the Pentagon? None, of course!!

[roses of sharon]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1895556/posts

FYI, presser by the General today.

[rusureitflies?]

Now, that’s really clever... ain’t it?

[RobbyS]

There are always these types. You think Powell is the only ringer? Petraeus is a threat to those who only can make war in the conventional way, whose heyday was the Gulf War when they had the Germany army to sling into battle against a conventional Iraqi force. The years later, many of these types rolled into Iraq and performed poorly. It has taken the Army four years to learn some hard lessons, lessons they didn’t want to learn in the first place. Did anyone then not think with dread about that term “urban warfare?” Well, like cancer, it turns out to be problematical and survivable. IF you do the right things, and if you are Lucky. Especially the latter.

[rfp1234]

The issue, Skelton insisted, is whether "Iraq is the war worth the risk of breaking our army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation."

What would those risks be? If the "other risks" are greater than those currently posed by North Korea or Germany, then the U.S. troops stationed in those regions can be transfered to where they are needed.

If that's not enough, then the "other risks" would be large enough to require NATO's or others' involvement. Regardless, it's time for our 'allies' to take care of their own backyards.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I swear I think that the "get out of Iraq, make it go away" frenzy of the Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party) is due in part to the stark fear that Iraq's involvement in some of the attacks in the 1990s will be exposed -- and the Clinton Administration knew and lied!

It'll be the clink for the Clintons.

[djxu456]

the surge was starting to be discussed, as early
as the November election.

If there has been any political improvements
because of the surge, they are ‘behind the scenes’.

sonner or later, somebody has to deliver.

[ClaireSolt]

Translation. “I think our response to an unexpected threat would come at a devastating cost,” It really means that they want to get back to earmarking the defense budget for useless pork projects in their districts.

[WOSG]

“bringing Bush closer than ever to reaching one of his main objectives: keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq beyond Election Day 2008.”

Disgusting.

EJ is making a slander that has it backwards - it is the *Democrats* who are focussed on November 2008. They are desperate to get troops out by then so they can say “Bush failed.” If the troops are still there, then the next President (Hillary?) owns the problem.

Bush has one goal - Victory.

He fixed the strategy to better acheive it.

There is a ways to go. But the surge is working and we should go forward with the plan Patreus has.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Dims are like, “He hit me first... he did, he did, he did, the big bully.” Patraeus: “I didn’t hit anyone, except Al Qaeda..” Dims respond: “Oh you did, you did, you did hit me and I can prove it, because my mama has been filming it all.” Patreaus: “You’re talking to the wrong man.” Dims: “Wahhhh, see you did it again.... Stop tormenting me. I did nothing to you.”

[DakotaRed]

With liberals, proof is never needed, just the assertion.

Only conservatives must present endless proof that ends up being ignored or discredited.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats have signed on to defeat. Its not happening and they're being left high and dry. As they are, their anti-American extremism has burst loose. They look sore losers. Who likes a sore loser in America? So they can't pull themselves back from doing a Thelma and Louise off the political cliffs.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[jmaroneps37]

“Even before Gen. David Petraeus began his account of the “substantial” progress brought about by the troop increase in Iraq, congressional critics of President Bush’s policy had come to the depressing conclusion that the surge has done what the administration needed it to do.”

The disappointment in this single sentence tells us all we need to know about which side the ratmedia is on. This scumbag clearly wishes the surge failed and more Americans died. For that he should be ...........

[Grampa Dave]

Ever wonder how much EJ other left wing liars get paid by our enemies to stab us in the back?

[mimaw]

I use to watch on C-Span during the Clinton administration the military appropriation hearings. I never heard from any of them the cuts were hurting our military. I also don’t remember retired generals writing op-eds critical of Clinton even during Somalia disaster, and I certainly don’t remember leaks so does this mean there are a hell of a lot of lefties in our military command chain?