Conason writes, "First there is the matter of that shift by the Sunni insurgents, which had nothing to do with the escalation." in a paragraph that ends with the statement that Petraeus makes "limited claims" that the surge DID have some affect on the awakening. Conason does not provide those claims, perhaps to spare Petraeus the embarrassment.

Then there is this from Foreign Affairs piece Conason cites...

"It was also critical, however, that U.S. forces did not leave immediately. According to Allen, the continued U.S. presence allowed U.S. commanders to argue that their troops would be the Sunnis' "shock absorbers" during the transition. In other words, the surge and the threat of withdrawal interacted synergistically: the threat of withdrawal made clear that the U.S. commitment was not open-ended, and the surge made clear that U.S. forces would be around for a while. Together they provided a strong incentive for the Anbaris to cooperate with the United States and turn on AQI."

Hey Joe, what does synergy mean?

Interesting discussion but some serious disconnects for me. ie. "The media is in the tank for McCain"? Really? You mean like the NYT? MSNBC? Or were you talking about that reporter that showed up the last time McCain went to NH?

Or when is Obama going to go after McCain? Like stating that McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years? Or trotting Wes Clark out for a quick hatchet job? Or accusing McCain of being Bush the clown? What could be worse that being just the same as Bush? Unless of course it's being a racist.

You guys really thing this campaign is uglier than the Clinton - Obama campaign?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Normally one has to turn to the comments on dailykos to find the kind of thinking that conason provides here.

Oh and Joe, good to know that inactivity by a Senate Chairman is fair game. So, if a major candidate chaired a Senate committee with oversight of "the real front in the war on terror" and never had a hearing on it...I mean, you'd write about that too, Joe. Wouldn't you?

It's fair to say that Obama is more qualified to be president than Maher is to be a comedian.

"What Obama needs to explain, over and over again, is that Democratic economic programs have succeeded in promoting growth precisely because they distribute national wealth more widely than the Republican tradition of trickle-down." Yeah. Sure thing Joe. Let's start with Fannie and Freddie shall we? Then we can cover protectionism, unions, raising taxes in a recession and banning offshore drilling (which does such a great job of distributing our national wealth to the Middle East). Oh and don't forget open borders where we distribute our jobs and keep domestic wages artificially lower.