Tom Ricks writes in his article "An Old School Senator Takes Petraeus to Task" about how he's going to miss Senator Warner. He then writes:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/iraq-debate/2007/09/an_old_school_senator_takes_p\
e.html
"Noting that Petraeus recently said in a letter to his troops that
political reconciliation hadn't worked out this summer in Iraq as he
had hoped, Warner asked, "on what facts did you predicate that hope
that you had?""
"Petraeus blamed his predecessors. As to why he stated it, Petraeus
explained, "'I needed to level with our troops.'"
-----------------------------------------
But he doesn't need to level with the American people -- because he's
under orders from the President to "stay the course."
Four long years after we entered Iraq with too few troops to stabilize
the country and do a proper hand off. Petraeus and McCain are finally
getting what they wanted -- enough troops to do at least part of their
original mission. They can't stop civil war with the military -- just
delay it and suppress it long enough for civilians to do so. Petreus
knows that without civilian reconciliation there can be no peace.
They know that the country will have to be, at the very least,
Federalized -- and at the worst partitioned -- or else the violence
will continue at least another 8 years with or without surges (and may
not end without a brutal Saddam type dictator once again in control). Yet when McCain asked Ambassador Crocker he said
"http://blog.washingtonpost.com/iraq-debate/2007/09/partition_not_viable_outcome.html "Partition, in my view, is not a viable outcome." This is depressing stuff. My only consolation is that when I re-read it I realized that McCain didn't say this. God I hope they elect a decent democrat, barring that I prefer McCain to most of the other idiotRepugs. But as Tom notes, if partition is not a viable option, and Centralized Democracy means civil war, what is???
But I guess what really frosts me is the willingness of the press and other otherwise intelligent people to go along with the Taz Cartoon style spinning and outright lying.... This stuff makes me sick, and every few months it gets more surreal....
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/iraq-debate/2007/09/warners_big_question.html
"Warner's Big Question"
"Sen. John Warner, in his courtly Virginian manner, cut to a key
question: "Are you able to say at this time, if we continue . . . that
that is making America safer?"
"Petraeus responded, in a low-key manner, "I believe that this is the
best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.""
"Does that make America safer?" Warner persisted.
"Sir, I don't know actually," Petraeus said. He explained that he has
been thinking about the mission in Iraq. "I have not stepped back" to
look at the global picture.
And of course, the other question, is the military surge really working, is something that Petraeus seems under orders to parse. The Huffington post notes that our media seems ready to let them get away with it. As Ariana Huffington notes:
"Case in point: Sunday's AP story about how Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker wouldn't be meeting with "Mr. Bush or their immediate bosses" in order to protect the "independence and the integrity of their testimony." This is a claim that is beneath contempt. It is hard to fathom how a journalistic operation could write something so blatantly untrue when there have been numerous stories about how the Petraeus report has already been discussed and thoroughly vetted by the White House and how Ed Gillespie has set up a war room between the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House to coordinate the Petraeus PR campaign."
Meanwhile the administration, draws out the war to the benefit of a few contractors, and draws out the fear card linking 9/11 with Iraq, opposition to the war with treachery, and opposition to his idiot non-strategy to opposition to democracy.
He leaves Osama on a long leash in much the way that the President Papa Monzano not only kept Bokonin safe, but was secretly a believer in his religion.
Bush says he believes in God, we don't hear the word "Jesus" much from him. Could he be a Crypto Muslim? He certainly seems to be working for Bin Laden and the other Saudi's who engineered 9/11. I don't know who else he could be working for. In Argentina, it seems Carlos Menem was going that route. He was formally a Catholic, but he attended a mosque and during his Presidency Buenos Aires built a giant expensive one with money from the Saudis -- after the AMIA bombing. It's actually pretty pretty. Perhaps it is no coincidence that they had a 9/11 style event there when the Jewish Embassy and the AMIA were blown up during his administration. Who knows? Who could know? No, the Cats Cradle model is more appropriate. Secret religions, religious warfare, and fear of terrorists and revolutionaries always works to prop up dictators and demagogues.
(missing some information but close enough) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_Bombing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/denying-the-truth-petrae_b_63799.html
Further reading.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/iraq-debate/2007/09/warners_big_question.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/iraq-debate/2007/09/an_old_school_senator_takes_p\
e.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091001303.\
html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/