While the casualty figures are mixed at best, and the army is a smokescreen for the militias, these facts are not exclusive of the idea that progress is being made on the military aspects of the 18 benchmarks,

Bullshit.

The idea that someone can go to Iraq for 48 hours, spend the whole time meeting with the military, and learn anything meaningful about the state of the war is simply stupid.

I love the fact that you gave this poser of a poster a long and well substantiated answer, Glenn. The world would stop turning on it's axis if people like you weren't around to explain things in detail that the rest of us can wrap our minds around. I am constantly and repeatedly ever so impressed by how well you articulate. But I must say, that particular quote I've used of yours for this post is a long winded way of saying exactly what I said to that person in just one word. "Bullshit".

I'm pleased that you agree with me.

Second point (progress in the surge), addressed to Kitt

Kitt:

I would like to reiterate some of the benchmarks that malcontent so helpfully highlighted for us. Of course they're entirely made of wiggle room and vague generalities, but look at some of the ones dealing with military issues:

Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

...and so on.

According to who, you fucking idiot?

The stakes are too high for this foolishness. People are dying by the day and the U.S. is becoming dung in the eyes of the world. George Bush has failed. The Congress has failed. And now Levin has failed. Whether or not the "surge" is succeeding is beside the point.

One more thing. You write very well.

-- Michael Harold

Agree with every thing except for the last sentence. I saw through his or her lies after the first sentence. That kind of transparency does not fit into my idea of someone that I would compliment with the sentence, "You write very well".

In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men's safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.

Recent weeks have seen a first step in this direction, when Baathist fighters cooperated with Iraqi government forces in hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the volatile Diyala province and in several districts of the capital, Baghadad.

-- nabalzbbfr

This peanut brain shitwad is trying to act like it speaks English.

A state is meaningless without sovereignty, such that a government-controlled military and police are nearly a necessity in the formation and maintenance of a state. From that, I conclude that the arming of Iraq's military and the increase of its police power are probably crucial to Iraq's survival. At the same time, however, there are disturbing trends, suggesting that these institutions will become weapons against minority groups when the USA departs, without more concrete power-sharing agreements to control and oversee ministerial activities.

It hasn't occurred to you that we can't even get our own gubmint under control? Who the fuck do you think you are pretending that we have any right, much less any ability, to control the gubmint of Iraq? Stupid beyond words. Take your concern troll bull someplace where it might not be mistaken for anything but what it is.

I don't expect all of the pundits and editorial journalists to be Hecht's or Mencken's but, come on, thinking and researching and listening to counter-arguments isn't that difficult, is it?

-- Dierk Haasis

A case in point by The Daily Howler about Kornblut:

KORNBLUT: Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane historian, said that a campaign that's about Iraq plus national security would tend to favor the more seasoned Clinton, or perhaps another candidate who is advocating a careful, responsible withdrawal rather than an immediate departure. "It's like what Nixon faced in 1968: peace with honor," Brinkley said. "I don't think the country's mood is as antiwar as you think. It's more, 'We've done what we were supposed to do; it's time to come home.' "

Meanwhile, the Republicans are banking on the election's being about national security (traditionally one of the party's electoral strengths), firmly intertwined with the war in Iraq. That's a formula that worked for Bush in 2004 but failed his party miserably in the 2006 midterm elections, in which the Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate to a Democratic Party galvanized by the war.

Did we read that correctly? Brinkley thinks that Clinton would be helped by a campaign that's “about Iraq plus national security.” Meanwhile, Republicans think that they would be helped if the campaign is about national security plus Iraq! Kornblut seems to think she’s presenting a contrast—but, in fact, she has only changed the order of the two topics. Let’s summarize:

Clinton: Will be helped if the campaign is about Iraq and national security.

Republicans: Will be helped if the campaign is about national security and Iraq.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081707.shtml

Simple explanation

Let me explain in simple words even mentally-challenged liberals should be able to comprehend.

You'd better hurry up and tell the "mentally challenged" Republicans in Iowa all of the good news about Iraq. Because the "mentally challenged" Iowa Republicans want to "cut and run".

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)

Yes 51%

No 39%

Undecided 10%

http://tinyurl.com/38a63o

But what is extraordinary is Zelikow's deceitful pretense that he is a neutral Iraq commentator -- both while testifying before Congress and pontificating on our network news programs. That really is just outright fraud.--GG

I know you know this, Glenn, but this outright fraud is so obvious that I see no way not to call those in the media who are allowing it, and those in Congress who are allowing it, and those in the Administration who are allowing it, as perpetrators of same fraud.