Don't be foolish. If it's not the Bible she won't read it.

It does seem that they did get much better at locating the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I was always under the impression that our organizing and paying the Sunni militias was the biggest factor in reducing violence. I think that we can also thank Al Qaeda in Iraq for turning the Sunnis over to our side and making this switch possible in the first place. It was pretty obvious that merely returning the level of troops there closer to what the original amounts after the initial invasion were didn't account for the stabilization of Iraq.

http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/09/surge.html

Will the MSM spend the next sixty days publishing every last word uttered by Sarah Barracuda? Why? Is her every thought golden, her mere ability to utter nasty unsubstantiated sentances a miracle to behold?

It seems that the media has fallen prey to the bigoted awe expressed in that famous remark by Samuel Johnson:

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Obama, has agreed that the surge has worked beyond anyones wildest dreams, (he said this on O'Reilly the other night) but that the central issue was never the surge, but time lines.

Like Ms. Palin herself Obama's statements against the surge weren't that it wouldn't work, but that with out a time line to pressure the Iraq government the surge would be a temporary success which would result in no long lasting gains once it ended.

Even now, the bush administration is scalling back the rate at which troops can be drawn down, because the Iraqi government is still broken, and refuses to work with the awakening counsel.

Ms. Palin in her statements at the time, like Mr. Obama, stated that what was most important was developing a strategy to bring our troops home. Unlike Mr. Obama, however, Ms. Palin has no problem changing her views when they become politically expedient to do so.

Whether it is the bridge to nowhere she demanded Alaska build inorder to gain the support of voters who favored the project, or the saftey of her own son, who she now sends off to a limitless tour in Iraq with no strategy to bring him home, Ms. Palin is just another politico looking to pad her resume at the expense of her country and her own ideals.

They're getting pretty tired. Condescending, school-marm tone and delivery -and still- nothing of substance is being said.

Okay, we get it, Sarah Palin is good at throwing put downs. Bravo. So what's her plan to fix our economy? Or health care? What does she suggest we do about the war in Iraq?

Her big speech wasn't even three days ago and I'm already tired of her "pit bull" shtick.

Holy Cow! Did she really say that?

More than 60% of the country now thinks that John McCain was wrong about a vital national security issue - starting this disastrous war in Iraq in the first place. And, yes, he has pretended for years that everyone else was wrong too (that everyone thought Saddam had WMDs and was a grave threat to the United States). Indeed, he STILL pretends that was the case (at least the grave threat part.)

I hope the Dems pick up on this.

The surge also "worked" because all the Sunnis in mixed districts were either pushed out of the city or into Sunni-only enclaves. Four million Iraqis are now refugees, most of them fleeing during the time of the surge. I was very disappointed that Obama didn't mention this on O'Reilly.

Also, it would be nice if Obama and others stopped calling this a "war" and started naming it properly. It's an "occupation," and it can't be won or lost (who is "the enemy" exactly?) but only be ended or continued.

Why does McCain get to take credit for the surge? He may haave supported it but last I checked he is still campaigning and not actually commander-in-chief and as much as he adores waving around his bloody shirt he is no longer in the military and never made it to the level of that sort of decision making anyway.

that many of the insurgents we were fighting against are now on the Pentagon payroll. I would imagine that had to help.

Less violence only means people have decided to not be as violent. There is no indication that anyone in Iraq has been defeated. There has been no surrender, no laying down of arms (real laying down anyway), and no retreat in any conventional sense. When they want to be violent again, there is nothing that prevents them. More of them might get killed, because there is a bigger force on the other side, but if they wanted to be violent, they could. So the surge has not "worked." Politicians can't say that or they would get accused on saying our soldiers failed.

The point that the surge has not resulted in the Iraqi government stepping up is the true and only valid measure of its failure. The Democrats need to be more forceful on that point, and I must say, Obama blew it on O'Reilly. He came across as hesitant. He should have said it in one line, "Our soldiers have succeeded, the surge has failed." Then the conversation could have continued on Obama's terms instead of O'Reilly's.

Yes, but ...

I always thought we'd 'win' in Iraq if we paid everyone enough to shut the hell up. It works in the U.S. Working, temporarily for the Sunnis and Maliki right now...

Is there anyone in the press with access willing to press McCain or the Pitbull on what exactly victory in Iraq means? On one hand they say the surge worked splendidly on the other we can't come home until there is victory. What do they mean by victory? What do they mean when they say obama is willing to lose? What would that look like?

Of course the press forgives his inconsistencies. And who doesn't like the sound of victory? Just wish they would say what that means. Left to my own devices I get a little nervous about what their vision of victory would mean.