I disagree with the title.

What it ultimately will come down to, is the credibility of George W. Bush. Not the credibility of Petraeus. And George's has been tanking for over two years now. So, the question is, "how, exactly, will George win over the moderates and independents by painting a rosy picture of Iraq"?

Answer: "he won't"

It's simple really... if the neocons stopped their lying and obstruction of the truth, the American people and especially politicians of all stripes would see the fiasco and obliteration of Iraq the same way the rest of the world sees it... for what it is. Corrupt occupation of another country by one pretending to be doing it for all the "right" reasons. Disgusting... and war crimes abound.

If you can't be honest about your mistakes and failures, you can't possibly field the best force in the world.

I don't know if we've simply bought into the 'we've never been defeated, therefore we cannot be defeated' fallacy, or something else. And I find it dismaying that there seems no end to the sycophantic arse-kisses in the military who must know that their stubborn clinging to this skewed reality is getting more of their men killed.

Juan Cole has the real facts at his site each day, today included. I trust him more than anyone else. He also today has some facts about the conditions in Iraq compared to before the US invaded and destroyed that country.

What it comes down to is the ability to push a unified message, even if false, to the masses. We know that the Republicans have it over the Dems in this regard and understand that saying something false over and over again in a coordinated attack gives it the appearance of being true. ("The Surge Is Working"!)

Last Night HBO had a documentary on named "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq".
About The Film
Three-time Emmy® winner James Gandolfini returns to HBO with the documentary special ALIVE DAY MEMORIES: HOME FROM IRAQ. The documentary about wounded soldiers surveys the physical and emotional cost of war through memories of their "alive day," the day they narrowly escaped death in Iraq.
They (HBO) have made it available on line.

http://www.hbo.com/aliveday/thefilm/index.html
If you've got 57 mins, everone should watch it.

The problem is that the "debate" should have never come to statistics. When was the last time anyone has brought up the legality of the aggressive war against Iraq? Or the fact that it really wasn't a war in so far as Congress never declared war. Or the fact that the administration lied to the American people about the "intelligence"? Most everyone has gotten caught in the trap of "debating" this occupation within the parameters that the neocons have set. Honestly, I could care less if the surge were "working", it doesn't bring back dead people killed for oil and lies and it doesn't take back the fact that our foreign policy now accepts preemptive (aggressive) war as the status quo on how to deal with countries that have our resources. The debate should have never moved from these fundamental moral and legal problems. If you get away with murder, does that make murder ok? If Bush's little occupation "works", does that make aggressive war and systematic torture and killing ok?

THIS was my comment:
An awesome show. ALL of the Neocon bushit artists should be forced to watch this powerful documentary!!

BaScOmBe @ 16:

Lies! Damned Lies! Statistics - when the actual lives of the troops and the state of the nation are not important enough to be taken into account.

What about the actual lives of the Iraqis?

Fools on the Hill @ 18:

The decider has decided. We are staying and Bush's failures will be left for the next President to fix.

The decider has decided. We are staying and Bush's failures will be left for the next President to continue.

This General needs to help Bush keep this war going. I mean how much golf and reviewing of the troops can a man stand?

See The Big Picture @ 22:

navyswan @ 13:

The problem is that the "debate" should have never come to statistics. When was the last time anyone has brought up the legality of the aggressive war against Iraq? Or the fact that it really wasn't a war in so far as Congress never declared war. Or the fact that the administration lied to the American people about the "intelligence"?

Shortly before everyone realized that it was fmecking pointless. The fact is, we can stamp our feet and shout "you lied to us, Mr. Bush!" and "this is an illegal war!" all we want, but nothing will change: as Fools on the Hill (18) said, "the decider has decided."

The problem with zealotry (and that's what this has become: a military invasion led by a zealot) is that the zealot is so convinced that "history will show him as the hero he always was" that any naysayers are brushed aside as inconsequential. The fact that 64% of the nation (as of the latest polls) actively disapproves of his job performance just means that "he alone can see the truth."

Bush believes he has a destiny, and he has dragged us along with him. The Democrats in Congress (the ones who, unlike Bush, face re-election in anywhere from 1 to 5 years) are so worried about keeping their jobs that they are forgetting to do their jobs.

I've had a feeling for years that the bush wants his legacy to be the first President to authorize th use of nuclear weapons since WWII.

If he starts WWIII. He will solidify his place in history. His legacy will be debated for hundreds of years. Imagine how such thoughts might excite his vast ego.

I would love to see a bar fight between a couple of staticians.

All the nasal whining, noses that bleed without being hit, and asthma inhalers.

See The Big Picture @ 22:

navyswan @ 13:

The problem is that the "debate" should have never come to statistics. When was the last time anyone has brought up the legality of the aggressive war against Iraq? Or the fact that it really wasn't a war in so far as Congress never declared war. Or the fact that the administration lied to the American people about the "intelligence"?

Shortly before everyone realized that it was fmecking pointless. The fact is, we can stamp our feet and shout "you lied to us, Mr. Bush!" and "this is an illegal war!" all we want, but nothing will change: as Fools on the Hill (18) said, "the decider has decided."

The problem with zealotry (and that's what this has become: a military invasion led by a zealot) is that the zealot is so convinced that "history will show him as the hero he always was" that any naysayers are brushed aside as inconsequential. The fact that 64% of the nation (as of the latest polls) actively disapproves of his job performance just means that "he alone can see the truth."

Bush believes he has a destiny, and he has dragged us along with him. The Democrats in Congress (the ones who, unlike Bush, face re-election in anywhere from 1 to 5 years) are so worried about keeping their jobs that they are forgetting to do their jobs.

But in your analysis, no matter what we do, it will be pointless. So, bickering over statistics won't change anything either. Why not then stick to some kind of principles and morals and call out the illegal occupation for what it is? 64% of the nation disapproves of his job performance, but lack any kind of compassion or sense of laws or morality. If he did a better job of killing innocents based on lies, that would not change the fact that he waged an illegal war. Our foreign policy of aggressive war is the problem, not the job performance of the people waging it.

How can you say that opposing the war on legal grounds is pointless when it has never been done? Yes, there have been people on the left that have made this point over and over, but there hasn't really been any major democrat or politician that has made this point and done something about it. Would it have been pointless if a large contingency of our politicians had actually made the case that the war was illegal and brought about hearings, etc? That never happened because the "problem" with the war, as far as the main stream is concerned, was never because it was illegal. The mainstream and the democratic position has always been that Bush is incompetent, not that he broke the law. By saying that, they are saying, "we would have done a better job at illegally occupying Iraq", not "we wouldn't break the law and wage an aggressive war because it is reprehensible to do so."

Navyswan @#27-

Very well said. My comments at #2 basically echo what you have written. The illegality of the occupation of a third world country that was never remotely considered to be a threat to anyone in this country is only matched by the immorality of this whole sordid enterprise undertaken by that [alleged] beacon of democracy, the United States of America.

YS;

Well, lets hope so... otherwise all that fighting with Pluto, or was it Brutus... (that whole thing is kinda like a cartoon version of the two Darrens to me)... seems like a waste of time... Unless there's a hidden message to all that wrestleing they did that requires gaydar to fully understand..... Maybe the question should be, were Popeye and Pluto/Brutus palm olive oyling each other???... Hmmmmm Popeye was a sailor... And you know what they say about being 'in the navy' bro.....heheheheh JD

Nonsense.

Germany subdued France during WWII, are you suggesting that Germany's invasion of France was therefore justified due to the absence of violence?

THE ISSUE is the war itself. Bush, as the decider, decided to interfere in the internal structure and operation of a sovereign nation - started a war and invaded. This war was and is an international crime. Subduing the population by force does not justify the crime.

The question that should be asked is when will the criminals involved be brought to justice.