I can kind of see what President Bush is saying. The number of bombings is not the only metric of progress but is the only metric that most people see. Personally I think the withdrawal of Moqtada Sadr's people from the government is the really bad sign as well as the building of the wall in Baghdad. These are signs of factions becoming more entrenched instead of buying into the political process. I haven't heard anything about Maliki's government gaining strength and getting control of the security situation.

I think Bush would do better to articulate a picture of what victory is. What specifically is the goal that we are trying to achieve? Instead he defends the war by saying that not supporting the war is unpatriotic. How can he expect people to look past the bombings if he can't provide a vision of what people should be looking for as signs of progress?

Personally, I think we need to put troop withdrawal on the table in negotiating with the Sunni insurgency and the Sadr camp to bring the factions into the political process. Then as benchmarks are met, we can withdraw in a negotiated process rather than in defeat.

The number of bombings is not the only metric of progress but is the only metric that most people see.

The military has known since Vietnam that this is how wars are judged back home in the media age. Bush did a pretty good job of shutting down the journalism for a couple years, but that's long past.

There's no way this war is winnable. Not just because of the circumstances but because Bush's administration is so utterly incompetent.

Somewhat relatedly:

How the media helped send us to war.

Bill Moyers’ new documentary, Buying the War, airs tonight on PBS at 9pm. The Washington Post’s Tom Shales calls it “one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year, but it’s as disheartening as it is compelling.”

Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes use alarming evidence and an array of respected journalists to make the case that, in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead.

Exhibit A — the first event recalled in this report — is a news conference by President Bush on March 6, 2003, which Moyers says is two weeks before Bush “will order America to war.” The press conference was a sham, with Bush calling only on “friendly” reporters who’d ask friendly questions. The corker was this scorching investigative query: “Mr. President, how is your faith guiding you?”

[link]

I don't do microminis, and besides, I'm already clad in trousers and at work!

I think me and skirts is weather driven. It's getting nice enough, though still coolish, I can wear the skirts with boots and not have to hassle with stupid tights or stockings or any ilk (I really fight with them) nor overheat. Eventually, it will be summer and I can wear them with sandals to beat the heat.

t if you are typing coolish and you typo it, it comes out coolisah which is funny! And true! She is cool!

Personally I think the withdrawal of Moqtada Sadr's people from the government is the really bad sign as well as the building of the wall in Baghdad. These are signs of factions becoming more entrenched instead of buying into the political process. I haven't heard anything about Maliki's government gaining strength and getting control of the security situation.

That's the thing, though. If any of those things were showing positive progress, then it might be unfair, or at least incomplete, to focus on the bombings. That's far from the case.

So, what? It's unfair to judge him on the bombings when there are other things so much more substantively wrong? That's quite a defense there.

(That second para is directed at Bush, not you, Gud.)

I almost understand the rationale that if specific goals are mapped out under which we will leave, that forces might ensure those goals are met so that we leave and then they take action again. Almost. But what's the alternative, aside from "we have always been at war with Iraqistahn"?

Either there are conditions under which this adminstration will withdraw troops, but they aren't telling them to the public, or they have never planned on withdrawing. Why do I suspect it's the latter (probably because Bush basically said as much) and that they are trying to so deeply entrench us in this that no matter who's in charge in '08 we can't pull out? Or are they banking on a Democrat winning in '08 so that any withdrawl makes it look like they "cut and ran"?

So, what? It's unfair to judge him on the bombings when there are other things so much more substantively wrong? That's quite a defense there.

To me, it's just another example of Bush (and other rightwingers) saying, "If you point out any of the bad things happening (i.e.: reality), you're helping the enemy."

Just like it's "near treasonous" to say the war is not winnable, even if it's true.

Hee:

Oh, Snap!

Harry Reid on Dick Cheney:

"I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

"I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

Ha! Harry's got a little bitch in him.

if you are typing coolish and you typo it, it comes out coolisah which is funny! And true! She is cool!

new fave typo!!! and nice to hear today because i'm feeling very lumpy and blergh.

I'm wearing sandals today for the first time this season (my favorite white hush puppies w/ silver buckle from last summer). Which is pretty daring for me considering my toes have not yet been pedicured (that will happen Sunday).