No real news here, but at least the NY Times is noticing.
How many times has the President said: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. What he wouldn’t do...and rightly so...was to commit to a withdrawal date.
Same end result that the public wanted, but, unlike via the left’s approach we leave Iraq a better place and our own security enhanced.
The left has been very successful in making the public believe that the right and left want different outcomes when in fact it’s that they have different approaches to some of the same outcomes. For example, everyone wants to bring the troops home, but the right wanted to do it responsibilibly and victoriously. The left wanted to do it regardless of the consequences to appease the Soro$ crowd. Be it welfare reform or economic growth, the right’s approach ultimately gets us to the desired end result; however, without the unintended negative consequences the knee-jerk liberals would wrath upon us.
THE NEW YORK TIMES ENDORSES DUBYA!
Now, that's news...
The U.S. has *already* reduced our forces in Iraq by 25%.
By the end of this year, that will be a 50% reduction.
Yes, by the time that President Bush retires...more than half of our forces will have been drawn down from Iraq.
Victoriously. Leaving stability there. Leaving an ally there.
The NY Times can put that into their pipes and smoke it.
Now, I can say with all conviction that it is working.
We've got the Big Mo (momentum) going big-time now.
Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.s/b
Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006, which led to the successful troop surge.or better yet
Such a withdrawal is the direct result of the successful troop surge.Thanks neverdem.