What a weasel the shrub is. I suppose he must think know one is listening anyway.

err....no one? It's past my bed time =0P

so it's gonna take time for the recent progress we've seen in security to translate into political progress

He's got that completely backwards too - even if there has been "progress in security" it ain't gonna mean anything politically. The Iraqi parliament is going to start working somehow, and Arabs are going to stop joining the jihad just because car bombings are down 10%?

Does he still think they can win the war, just by winning battles, rounding up a few more insurgent leaders, and improving security in Baghdad?

"I don't recall ever committing to holding the Iraqi govt. responsible for achieving the benchmarks that you mention. I don't recall ever talking about benchmarks", said Mr. Bush.

"You are recorded, on tape, to have said it Mr. President, may we play it back to you?"

"I do not know who this Pre-see-dent that you keep referring to is. I don't recall who I am. Where am I? What is this place? What year is it?"

"Oh no, no Mister! You're not pulling that amnesia stunt on us!"

More flim flam. We laugh at him now; but wait till this degenerate bozo starts playing with "nukalar" weapons, that'll wake up the world....

I'd rather not hold the Iraqi parliament accountable to pass all the laws the US wants it to either...

Does Mr. Olbermann even know what law Bush is mainly referring to? It's a law to give up most of Iraq's oil fields to multinational corps (like Haliburton).

http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/

That Bush would want such a law passed is no suprise (nor is it a suprise that he is constrained at the moment from simply deposing a puppet government that won't pass it). What's the real scandal is that supposed "liberals" like Hillary Clinton and even Keith Olbermann think the US has the imperial right to tell Iraq to pass it.

This fuckin' country blows.

Well, as Goeorge pointed out in his earlier remarks "the American people would hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks... it would lose the support of the American people." George is at 29 per cent and falling. What are exactly the consequences of losing the support of the American people? I can't seem to find any.

Does he still think they can win the war, just by winning battles

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but that's pretty much the definition of winning a war.

It's ridiculous that people are so full of spite towards Bush that they are willing to question reality. There is no doubt that the surge worked. And, again, this is not because Bush is a great tactician - putting more troops in a troubled area generally leads to better security. That's why the generals have been asking for precisely such an action since we hit the ground.

First it was "the surge won't work", then it was "the surge isn't working" - trying to evaluate it within days of it being started. Now that it has been shown clearly that the surge did work, it's "the surge isn't enough". Of course it's not enough. But it is a start, and a positive sign; as are the metrics which show the Iraqi forces improving in their ability to hold and secure areas that we leave to them.

So the question really isn't "how do we win the war by winning battles", it's "how do we win a war with constant negativity, self-recrimination, doubt, and vitriol"?

This fuckin' country blows

No, your understanding of politics and logistics just sucks. I'm very curious to hear who would run and maintain these oil fields if those most qualified to do it were excluded simply because they are American or Allied corporations.

I don't think it's the case that privatizing oil fields would be good for the Iraqi people (you could do a case study if you want, compare the oil industry in Mexico, say, before and after Expropiacion Petrolera). But this is beyond the point.

It's not for the United States to decide what the Iraqis do with their oil fields. In this case, there is overwhelming and uncontroversial opposition to the bill the US is pushing. Whether it is justified or not, you can't have a democracy unless it is Iraq deciding the matter -- not Washington.

Oh, to answer your question, Iraq's oil has been nationalized for quite some time. This is one area in which there already exists considerable infrastructure and expertise. It's not the case that the oil would just sit there.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but that's pretty much the definition of winning a war.

Are you kidding? That hasn't been true since Waterloo. How many battles did the U.S. lose in Vietnam? Very few.

"how do we win a war with constant negativity, self-recrimination, doubt, and vitriol"?

Well, that's more like it, yep, you can't win a protracted war unless the people are behind it. And in a democracy, where you can't guarantee support for anything, that means the state should not embark on a military venture unless the people are likely to support it for the duration.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but that's pretty much the definition of winning a war.

Are you kidding? That hasn't been true since Waterloo. How many battles did the U.S. lose in Vietnam? Very few.

"how do we win a war with constant negativity, self-recrimination, doubt, and vitriol"?

Well, that's more like it, yep, you can't win a protracted war unless the people are behind it. And in a democracy, where you can't guarantee support for anything, that means the state should not embark on a military venture unless the people are likely to support it for the duration.

You win battles by killing the enemy.

You win wars by convincing the enemy that you can't be beaten. (Some people complete that thought with "... that you can't be beaten right now")

Just thought I'd point that out.