Is there any clearer indication of their hatred for us than that?
The Iraq Study Group rejected partitioning of Iraq as has W! Why-because that is what the Iraqis want and could be more readily accomplished than the undefined end state W is alluding to. His end state is dropping the Iraq atrocity on the next president's lap to ruin that person's term and therefore, at least hypothetically, improve how the world thinks of the incompetent W!
The article "The Bottom-Up Partition" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901248.html
states "The benchmark-centered reports on Iraq agree: The "surge" has failed to achieve its most fundamental objective, which is to catalyze a political reconciliation among Iraqis. Buried in the data, however, is plenty of evidence that Iraq is slowly moving toward a new political order. It's just not the one the Bush administration has in mind, and it's not happening on the timetable Congress wants...
What's really happening is that Iraqis are slowly moving toward the solution their politicians first outlined in their constitution two years ago despite stiff American resistance. This is a loose confederation of at least three self-governing regions, each with its own government, courts and security forces; and a weak federal government whose main function will be redistributing oil revenue so that each region gets a share based roughly on its proportion of the population.
This is not the best outcome from the American point of view. It's possible that one of the regional mini-states, in the oil-rich Shiite south, will become an Iranian client, while Sunnis in the West may be ruled by the same toxic Arab national socialism championed by Saddam Hussein. A look back at the past eight months nevertheless provides plenty of evidence of Iraqi "progress" toward that political settlement."
The article details the extensive recent history that details the thesis and states "All of this is good news for Sen. Joseph Biden and other Democrats who have been proposing a "soft partition" of Iraq for some time. But the problem with Biden's strategy is that it calls for the United States to join with an international coalition in essentially forcing the scheme on Iraqis. The events of the past year have demonstrated, again, that Iraqis won't respond to guidelines and timetables drawn up in Washington or at the United Nations.
Slowly and very painfully, they are moving toward a new political order. But they will do it-they have to do it-on their own time."
Doesn't bro 43 know that the surge isn't bringing the political reconciliation in the format W wants? It is hard to tell what W knows and what he's just forcing his subordinates to lie about or willingly does so himself.
Pertraeus interjected himself into the 2004 presidential campaign when he said that the Iraqi security forces were rapidly improving-which is a blatant lie.
Even the men on Petraeus' team say that the national Iraqi police force are sectarian and another of the reports, the Jones' Report, says it should be disbanded. Since Petraeus was in charge of bringing the Iraqi security forces up to speed back in 2004, he failed in that assignment, and lied about it, for GOP partisan gain!
He therefore possesses no credibility!
This is how the September 10th, 2007 Late Edition at
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/09/le.01.html
spoke about the local Iraqi police and how it should be disbanded.
Blitzer" Here's a conclusion. A very sad conclusion from an independent commission of retired U.S. military officers and police officers who spent the last three months studying the security situation in Iraq. Among their conclusions was this-this is the General James Jones report. "The Ministry of Interior in Iraq is a ministry in name only. It is widely regarded as being dysfunctional and sectarian, and suffers from ineffective leadership.
This is the ministry that's in charge of the national police force, which this report concludes should simply be disbanded because they are so infiltrated with various militias, specifically Shiite militias."
Back on July 19, 2007 the article "How much credence should Gen. Petraeus' reports be given?" at
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html
hit the nail on the head with "Gen. David Petraeus, who will descend down upon Washington in September and reveal once and for all whether we are winning in Iraq, gave a lengthy interview yesterday about the Great Progress we are making with the Surge. He chose as his interviewer the hard-hitting, non-partisan, and well-regarded war journalist, Hugh Hewitt, who wrote a book last year about how Republicans will dominate our government forever and one this year on the Towering Greatness of Mitt Romney.
The "interview" consisted of Hewitt making one adoring, pro-war statement after the next, masquerading as questions, with Petraeus eagerly agreeing and then "elaborating" with the standard White House talking points. There is obviously no need to "wait until September" to know what Gen. Petraeus is going to say...
I agree with the point made by Andrew Sullivan "If I were eager to maintain a semblance of military independence from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans, I wouldn't go on the Hugh Hewitt show, would you? . . . I think such a decision to cater to one party's propaganda outlet renders Petraeus' military independence moot. . . .
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
