First, I have identified where local and city government are making the progress. You rebut me by talking about the national government. The two are not the same.

Second, four years of Republican overspending is not a rebuttal to forty or fifty years of Democratic overspending. I have said here, often, that the recent vintage of Republicans spend too much. That does not excuse the Democrats, who have big government spending bred into their bones.

And what did we get out of Iraq? I'm afraid that you wouldn't appreciate any answer I'd give. Your regard for human rights seems way too limited to the borders of the United States. But, hey, it's okay. Who cares about those old brown people anyhow, right?

Jimmie, please provide some support for your statement. There have been zero compromise on all of the major benchmarks that Bush himself identified for the surge, so I'm not sure what political progress you are talking about.

Of course the Iraqi government officials are going to "say" they are making progress – they are benefitting from all of the funding and security we are providing them. Is that the new standard for measuring success – if the Iraqi government says the surge policy is working, then it is working?

By the way, you ought to take up your statement that it would be utter folly to stop the surge now that we are making progress with Bush and General Petraus. They have already announced that we will begin bringing home troops and will be back to pre-surge troop levels by Spring/Summer of 2008. You want to know why – because our military cannot sustain the surge troop level any longer.

Let's see, this will be at least the fifth time the Republicans have claimed victory in Iraq. First there was Mission Accomplished in 2003. Then we went after the insurgency and labeld them a bunch of dead-enders in 2004. Then the election was the cure-all in 2005. Then we declared the training of troops a success in 2006 before the wheels feel off with the bombing of the Shite mosque.

Oh yeah, and I'm an unpatriotic defeatist because I'm skeptical when Bush declares victory (again) after a few months of improvement on the security front and no improvement on the political front.

As for your comment on fiscal responsibility, you ought to educate yourself and look into government spending between 2002 and 2006 when the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. Record spending, record numbers of earmarks and a complete reversal of of the surplus that Bush was handed when he took office in 2000. As for the entitlement programs, at least Americans get a benefit from Medicare and Social Security. All we have gotten out of Iraq is dead and wounded soldiers and a group of bickering, ungrateful Iraqi pseudo government. So what is the new Republican mantra – we need to stop spending money on American education, health care, etc. so we can ship all of our hard earned tax dollars to the middle east! Hell, I think I'm going to vote Republican next time – more money for Islam, more money for Islam, more money for Islam!

As for the treasury, well, let's just call that an overblown bit of panic from folks who apparently have no problem watching the entitlements that really will bankrupt us climb and climb and climb without any real action to mitigate the problem. You can't possibly expect me to listen to a lecture on fiscal responsibility from a leftist. Not unless I get to laugh for a couple of days first.

And on that "illegal" bit, do look up what a cease-fire is. It might prove instructive.

Jimmie

Well, I would disagree. Bush would trumpet ANY type of agreement or compromise which would help sell his illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. For the last 3-4 months, no major (or even minor) announcements have come from Bagdad suggesting the surge facilitated any breakthroughs. The right side may have unlimited patience, but our treasury does not. We are in the process of bankrupting our nation, all for bush's folly.

The thing is, as I've contended here before, this is where edemocracies are built. We should be praising the Iraqis to high Heaven for the work they're doing and encourage them to do more. We should be willing to do whatever they need to keep that up and to spread it to other places. As has been reported frequently by folks like Michael Yon and Michael Totten, what the Iraqis consistently say is that the surge of troops there gave them the space they needed. Our surge and the strategy they're employing there is working. It would be utter folly to stop now.

If the sheer number of ‘potential’ victims is lower, it stands to reason the number of ‘actual’ victims will also be lower. This lowered casualty figure, in some small way, can be attributed to the surge, but more than likely it is based more on my initial points (exodus and ethnic cleansing).

And still, since the surge was supposed to provide ‘breathing room’ for the politicians, we still have to consider the dubious success based on this important benchmark.

If the surge doesn’t do what it was put in place to do: breathing room for political discussions and compromises, then one cannot call the surge a success no matter how low the killing statistic is.

The right side talking points generally try to elevate the success and downplay the failure, and I see that happening in this instance. If the surge does not improve the political reconciliation (it’s intended goal), then it is a failure.