From Politico

President Bush felt good going into last night’s Oval Office address, aides said, since he finally had some fresh facts on his side and was able to describe a partial drawdown of troops as a “return on success” after years of setbacks and frustrations.

“Hopefully, the numbers are only going down from here,” said one administration official. A White House official talked about a “plan for success” and insisted that the speech outlined “a mission change based on success and progress on the ground and not a timetable for a hasty withdrawal.”

READ MORE

conservativation writes:

OMG

Lets look logically at some basic facts. First though, as I listened to the president tick off all the accomplishements, he kept refering to how bad it was a year ago.

Well weren’t all the conservatives (I am one) panting about how a year ago things were better and just not reported? Its a broken friggin record.

So, if we stay we lose more troops right
But we are told that by staying we are averting a terror attack here (somehow) so we have a net gain.
We are told we are containing Iran by being there.

But wait, we hear all the time that an attack here is not IF but WHEN…so I would strike that benefit off the list of reasons to stay. A net zero gain, they will attack here again no matter what…who cares if they organize it in Baghdad or Chicago.

If we leave, we save some soldiers lives…agreed if stated that simple?

That would be a net gain.

As to Iran, our troops preoccupied passing out candy and taking IEDs up the wazoo would seem less able to contain Iran than a ready and rested force nearby sitting in a base.

Honestly the arguments for keeping the Iraqi’s from killing one another just don’t work anymore…which really means they never did.

Spouting patriotic slogans is cold comfort, and not intellectually honest. But call me a flip flopper…I can take it.

The Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, in an editorial: “For years, extreme right-wing groups exacerbated divisions in Congress by applying political pressure to the Republican majority. Now that Democrats are in control, the extreme left is flexing its muscle. If this keeps Congress from a realistic approach to the war in Iraq, the results could be devastating. … There are no quick fixes, no easy ways to help the Iraqis overcome their own divisions and establish independent self-rule. That effort will need time and a huge continued investment of human and financial resources. But to pull out now would result in a chaos and struggle that ‘will mean massive human suffering — well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq’s border,’ Crocker said. Those two realities must be the foundation for any future Iraq policy.”

The Charlotte Observer, in an editorial: “Six years ago today, the civilized world watched in horror as the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon burned. … The anniversary of that harrowing day (came) as Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker (testified) before Congress about Iraq. … A new American strategy is needed that takes a larger and more pragmatic view. These would be among its priorities. Involve Iraq’s neighbors and the international community in building a new Iraq. Prevent a sectarian slaughter and a regional war. Make sure Iraq does not become a terrorist haven. Counter the influence of Iran. Assure continued flow of oil. Reduce U.S. troop presence over time to 50,000 or so, and greatly increase U.S. efforts to train Iraqis. Achieving these goals won’t be easy, but working to do so would help restore U.S. credibility in the region and the world. It also would help the next president, who will be dealing with Iraq long after George W. Bush is back in Texas.”

Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal, in an editorial: “The timing of Gen. Petraeus’ appearance on Capitol Hill proved revealing in one way. His testimony … came on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the ghastly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The hearing reinforced the distraction the war in Iraq has become, diverting time and resources from the larger effort of combating al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. President Bush often describes the conflict in Iraq as the central front in the war against terrorists. To a substantial extent, he has made it so. The American presence works as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. Iraq serves as the emblem of the White House overreaction in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.”

The Union Leader, Manchester, N.H., in an editorial: “It is clear that by President Bush’s most important measure of success, the surge so far has not succeeded. It has not given the Iraqi government the ‘breathing room’ needed to work out political solutions to what Petraeus calls Iraq’s ‘ethnosectarian conflicts.’ The question at this point is whether there is sufficient evidence that the surge might produce the desired result if it is continued. … That is the dilemma America now faces. Do we choose honor via a limited victory, or certain defeat via an early withdrawal? … The evidence thus far, while depressing, does not prove that a worthwhile victory in Iraq is impossible. We owe it to our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for this cause, to the Iraqi people and to our country to continue pushing toward victory. There may come a time when cutting our losses and withdrawing is the best option. Now is not that time.”

Bangor (Maine) Daily News, in an editorial: “Over two days this week, Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker spelled out clearly what achieving security and transition goals in Iraq would mean: many more years of occupation, many more American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and no guarantee of success. Whatever action the United States takes in Iraq, including rapid withdrawal, it will remain engaged there, and that should push Congress to find an alternative to the endless mission chosen by President Bush. … It can decide to leave Iraq and watch it deteriorate before it sees improvement, however long that may take, or stay the course and check in with Gen. Petraeus again in six months to learn that, again, more progress is being made and more time is needed. Or it can and should choose a mission similar to the one outlined in the Baker-Hamilton report, which encourages the Iraqi military to play a more central role and pulls U.S. troops back to focusing on this nation’s strategic interests without abandoning the millions of civilians this nation has put at risk through inadequate planning.”

READ MORE

In for the long term? Maybe. But not with a blank check.

When President Bush brought down the curtain on a week of extraordinary political stagecraft Thursday night, the audience was left to contemplate the course of the Iraq war in a new way: one stripped of benchmarks, and one that would commit some undefined number of U.S. forces to Iraq for many years to come.

READ MORE