If you answer this question as a "no", you have no integrity.

Has the surge been a success?

Of course it has. Even Democrat leaders have gone on record saying it has. While there may be a small number of rabid kook liberals holding out, it doesn't change reality.

Thank God we didn't listen to the likes of Barack Hussein Obama on the matter.

My definition of someone having no integrity?

A guy who suggests you'll have no integrity unless you agree with him.

By Bushie's definition.. no. The objective in reducing violence was to allow their "democracy" to succeed. That will never happen in a tribal country and we were fools to think it might.

And if it's over and it's a success.. why are there 18,000 more troops there now than when it started, and why can't we come up with 2-3 brigades for Afghanistan?

stinker12:

My definition of someone having no integrity?

A guy who suggests you'll have no integrity unless you agree with him.

By Bushie's definition.. no. The objective in reducing violence was to allow their "democracy" to succeed. That will never happen in a tribal country and we were fools to think it might.

And if it's over and it's a success.. why are there 18,000 more troops there now than when it started, and why can't we come up with 2-3 brigades for Afghanistan?

Oops! You should spend more time reading and less time pontification:

Sunni bloc gets spots in Iraqi government Parliament approves the faction's return, a breakthrough that the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front says will enhance national reconciliation. By Raheem Salman and Alexandra Zavis
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

4:48 AM PDT, July 19, 2008

BAGHDAD — After months of wrangling, parliament today approved the return of Iraq's main Sunni Arab political bloc to the Shiite Muslim-led government, a breakthrough in efforts to mend relations between the country's main religious communities.

The Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front was given five ministerial positions and a deputy prime minister's slot in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Cabinet, which is dominated by Shiites and Kurds.

Parliament also approved the appointment of four independent candidates to fill positions vacated by followers of populist Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, lawmakers said.

"What has happened today is going to enhance national reconciliation," the Accordance Front said in a statement read to journalists by its spokesman, Salim Jabouri. "This puts an end to all those who attempted to divide the front and to foil the national unity government."

You can easily answer that question "no" and have integrity. I realize it isn't fashionable to answer that the surge is not a success, but fashionable isn't necessarily true.

There is no REAL change due to the surge. Do you really pretend that the Mehdi militia is gone? Do you pretend that Sunni and Shi'ite are not just as ready to kill one another? Do you pretend the Constitution in Iraq has been fixed? Do you pretend that the Turks are not still anxious to go after the Kurds?

The supposed "success" of the "surge" is not real or lasting. It is a fragile state with no solid foundation. When it breaks down, anyone who told the truth and said it was fragile and not real will probably be said by you to have willed its failure. That is utter bullshit, but then so is your top post.

So what then, Bo? Your Democrat leaders are wrong about the surge being a success, but the left wing fringe is right?

stinker12:

My definition of someone having no integrity?

A guy who suggests you'll have no integrity unless you agree with him.

By Bushie's definition.. no. The objective in reducing violence was to allow their "democracy" to succeed. That will never happen in a tribal country and we were fools to think it might.

And if it's over and it's a success.. why are there 18,000 more troops there now than when it started, and why can't we come up with 2-3 brigades for Afghanistan?

15 of 18 benchmarks eh? Perhaps by Bushie's definition but not by the definition of others including generals who were fired because they refused to kiss Bush's ass.

It's very fragile and there are many reasons for reduced violence in addition to the surge in troop numbers.

Invading tribal countries for oil was always a bad idea. Too bad Bushie had a conversation with God instead of his own father and Colin Powell isn't it?

Democracy could easily thrive in any country. The problem Bush has is that he doesn't know what representative democracy is or how it has to be structured in order to survive the test of time as ours has. He didn't insist on a Constitution that makes all Iraqis equal under the law. He let them divide it and make it this mess we now see. The mess will have to be changed by rewriting the Constitution if Iraq is to be a real democratic republic and some rules established about the foundation of "political parties" that keep them from being based on something besides politics like religion, sect, tribe or ethnicity. If the parties are based on political philosophy (liberal or conservative....) there are actual political things being decided. Otherwise, it is just power grabbing by ethnic, religious, tribal or ethnic groups.

If the conditions for "success" have been met, then something is a success.........and from what I am hearing.......those conditions are being met.

This is why the Democrats cannot really use Iraq as a selling point for votes for them........ the "cut and run" tactic would be and would have been exactly the wrong one.

Dems need to find something they are right about........and it seems it's neither Iraq nor taxation.

for once why don't you post what the goals were and how they've been met, rather than posting a bunch of non-specific, generalized BS?

You can't have integrity & ask a question the way YOU Jeff asked that one.

"Too bad Bushie had a conversation with God instead of his own father and Colin Powell isn't it?"

Yes it is. But he did and now we have to get out without giving the bad guys bragging rights for driving us out (like Obama wanted to do before he flip flopped and started taking credit for winning the war when the surge he was against succeeded)...

We won't even get into the fact that the "conditions" for allowing this thing to be called a success were so vague and useless that it means nothing.

You just wrote that success comes when the conditions have been met. Then you wrote that they are being met. That means success hasn't come yet. The fact you are pretending it has already been achieved while stating it hasn't is noted.

Bush's "goals" were ever-changing and stupid ones. And it was wrong to take down Iraq and have any goals to begin with. I'll give you that.

But the bottom line goal always has been to take down Saddam and stand Iraq back up. The taking down Saddam goal was accomplishes quickly as you know.

It appears that Iraq is just about ready to "stand up" on its own. That would be the final goal accomplished.

Is that specific enough for you? I doubt is since you just come here wanting to criticize and carp.

Never expect integrity from Jen.. ever.