These are great comments thus far! Special shout-out to RichEmery for drawing the NCLB parallel.

The thing is, you can mount a reasonable defense of Bush’s statement, “Iraq as a whole is moving forward.” Saddam Hussein, a dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people no longer leads Iraq. Iraq now has a democratically elected government. Desertion among Iraqi Security Forces is slowing. With the “surge” overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen in seven of the past nine weeks. The movement of Al Qaida in Iraq has been restricted in some areas.

That’s progress since 2003.

But that progress has coincided with severe setbacks: sectarian violence, suicide bombers, the rise of Al Qaida in Iraq, the emboldening of Iran, 4,000 U.S. dead and a minimum of 75,000 dead Iraqis.

So does this progress exceed the damage done? Is this the sort of progress we should have made since 2003, or does it only look significant à la Katrina—“hard for people to see progress when you live in a community all the time” ? Does Iraq only look good if you only look at it occasionally? Do you have to step back to appreciate it, like a Monet?

Was it worth it? Because if it wasn’t, that’s not progress.

"Here's what I'm telling you -- the international community increasingly understands the importance of a free Iraq. They understand a free Iraq is important for world peace."

World peace?! Dude, Bush totally pulled out a beauty pageant response in his address to the American Legion!

Further picking at Bush's comments to the American Legion:

• "I join the Legion in calling on the United States Congress to make protection of the flag the law of our land."--Let's stifle free speech and work on passing an amendment banning flag-burning!
• "On September the 11th, 2001, we learned that there's another region of the world that directly threatens the security of the American people -- and that is the Middle East."--Some of us were aware there was a Middle East before 9/11, thank you very much.
• "In Iraq, Sunni extremists, led by al Qaeda, are staging sensational attacks"--Not the first or last time Bush tries to blend Sunnis & Al Qaeda together. Echoes of blending 9/11 & Iraq anyone?
• "I wouldn't have asked the young men and women of our military to go in harm's way if I didn't think success in Iraq was necessary for the security of the United States of America."--Ugh. I bet.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070828-2.html

Perino: “A bar was set so high, that it was almost not to be able to be met.” •Translation: The test was too hard. There’s no way we could have passed.

Johndroe: “It would not surprise me that the GAO would make this assessment given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow.” •Translation: Congress has it out for us and is a big ole meanie-pants.

Perino: “One of the things it does not take into account, which is not on the benchmark list, is the cooperation of the Sunni tribes, who have decided to fight back against al-Qaida.” •Translation: Don’t we get points for extra credit?

Internal White House Memorandum as reported by the AP: “The criteria lawmakers set for the report allow no room to report progress, only absolute success or failure.” •Translation: Can’t we get an A for effort?

Morrell: “We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from `not met' to `met.” •Translation: We’re holding their families and their pets hostage.

-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AndS.ap181hJo1mqJoyAWmas0NUE

Craig pleaded guilty.

Libby maintained his innocence but was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Both are guilty in the eyes of the law, which should be all that matters to a man sworn to uphold the Constitution. But Libby can't be a "disappointment" unless he admits guilt. Sort of like how we can't fail in Iraq unless we leave.

Larry Craig says he isn't gay. Who are we to officially claim he is gay? He could be:

1. Gay and lying to all of us

2. Gay and lying to himself

3. Bi-sexual

4. Just a plain ole freak

My bet is on "Option Two," though.

-

And please don't make any "Option Two" jokes.

jcbarr, when you wrote, "Wrong f/u question," I thought of a different "FU." And it was George W. Bush who was giving an "FU" answer.

As for there not being an appropriate follow-up question, maybe it just wasn't needed. Afterall, people on the other side of the Atlantic already think that Bush is maniacally stupid and we never should have gone into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. It only seems to be people in The States that still buy into the Administration's Iraq-9/11 connection.

Look, September is being billed as the Mother of All Assessments(TM). Bush would be negligent not to visit Iraq before Petraeus "gives his report."

My greater annoyance is with the touting of our successes in Al Anbar:

The strategy we put into place earlier this year was designed to help the Iraqis improve their security so that political and economic progress could follow. And that is exactly the effect it is having in places like Anbar.

Al Anbar isn't a U.S. surge success. It's an Iraqi success. Iraqis turned on Al Qaida there for their own interests. We had to arm the Sunnis to make this happen (which could be trouble down the road). And the "Anbar Awakening" began months before the surge and there was virtually zero surge in Anbar!

So there is a PR stunt afoot, but it isn't necessarily Bush going to Iraq. It's Bush going to Al Anbar Province in particular. Al Anbar has nothing to do with the U.S. troop surge. Can't we give the Iraqis credit where credit is due?