I am not going to argue with you on winning/losing since I was not there. But how could he decide we need all this addition troops and money, only immediately after the 2006 election? Rumsfield kept a big lie and GWB listened to no one else, not even FNC that was sympathetic to him?
But the public perception, and not just from NBC, but also FNC, was what I said. It is a totally rational conclusion. And it destroyed GWB and our party. Claiming PR does not matter means what we have now, Obama Pelosi.
Although I must admit this 900B bailout just before this election is definitely close. This guy really must hate republicans, or is a Dr Smith.
You (like many in the MSM) don't seem to understand the war in Iraq and what was and wasn't happening (and in what time frames). There were more troops in Iraq (numerous times) that equaled larger numbers than with what we put back in during the so called "surge" (prior to the surge). The surge came about because of the success we were having (fighting for, that is how you have to win aspects of wars) in 05/06.
SecDef Rumsfeld was key in allowing us to have the aggressive and non-stop Op tempos that we did throughout 05/06. Politics (and SecDef Rumsfeld and CinC GWB doing what was best for our men on the ground) is why after 06, he was replaced. No SecDef could be able to do his job if constantly before Congressional committees (as the DEM leadership promised, once they won in 06).
The reality is AQ went 'all in' in Iraq in 04. Zarqawi was one hell of a tactical commander. As AQs #1 in Iraq he brought chaos. But at the end of the day because of the leadership of GWB and Rumsfeld a dirty little secret came about, that being it was AQ who could not fight an effective multi-front war, not us. We most certainly could and did. Routing AQ out of Iraq (Zarqawi included) not too mention in a half dozen other places around the globe.