Iraq spins around again

<p>From today’s LA TIMES, synopsis: US generals running the war in Iraq testified to Congress said that the presence of US troops was fueling the insurgency.</p>

<p>Crap, I didn’t go to West Point and I could have told them that before they went in. The moment they started defining the Green Zone was the moment it began to look like an occupation, not a liberation, playing right into the hands of AQ and other Islamists, not to mention hordes of garden variety nationalists. The notion put forth of the insurgency being “a few dead enders” was a pernicious lie. You can’t achieve success until you have defined expectations rooted in reality, not propaganda.</p>

<p>This testimony reflects what I’ve gotten from on-the-ground sources: an increasing proportion of U.S. military activity is force protection. In other words, the mission of our troops over there is to protect the troops that are over there. Uh…Roger that.</p>

<p>I saw part of the interview. Does anyone think that Bush should address this issue?</p>

<p>So his own army is finally speaking up…jeesh…took long enough…</p>

<p>whats he going to say…you see Rumsfield- I think it was him…anyway, when asked how many garrisons or whatever were ready, he said 1, when it was 3 awhile back…some progress</p>

<p>Nevermind ideologies. Next presdiential election will be about management skills. </p>

<p>So says me.</p>

<p>What can GWB say that wouldn’t make him look more ignorant? He best say nothing and try to focus attention to domestic issues. </p>

<p>What can GWB say that wouldn’t make him look more ignorant? He best say nothing and try to focus attention to foreign issues. </p>

<p>What can GWB say that wouldn’t make him look more ignorant? He best say nothing and try to focus attention to democrats.</p>

<p>What can GWB say that wouldn’t make him look more ignorant? He best say nothing and try to focus attention to g<em>d and the dev</em>l.</p>

<p>…</p>