Why Bush Will Be A Winner (Kristol, Washington Post)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709.html

File this one under the "What have you been smoking, Kristol" department:

Why Bush Will Be A Winner

By William Kristol
Sunday, July 15, 2007; B01

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

...

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

...

[e-mail]

William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.

(more madness at the link)

[Demeter]

1. Maybe Under the Bush Definitions of Success

but by any sane measure, he is a miserable failure.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I just looked up his name. He's a right winger. My question is, why....

.. why is he in the employ of the Washington Post? I mean, like all right wingers, the man is frikkin' mental.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. I don't think he's a regular columnist at the Post, he's got his own rag. This was a

guest column written for the Washington Post's "Outlook" section which is a special op/ed section on Sundays.

[ncteechur]

4. He is employed by the American Standard. The Post piece was an op-ed.

He is the goof that said that saying the factions in Iraq wouldn't get along (duh) was nothing more than pop psychology. He is one of the original PNACers and a staunch neo-con. And an ass.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Oh lordy so he's a full-fledged right winger who will sell us into a war for 5 cents. nt

I don't mean to show a bad attitude, but I really, really despise right wingers.

[TrogL]

5. Could I have some of what he's smoking?

Dubya is fighting the wrong war, using the wrong strategies and the wrong people in the wrong place.

He should be helping Canada in Afghanistan, where the real problems are.

[Xipe Totec]

6. That's a typo - Why Bush Will Be A Weiner is the right headline nt

[ChazII]

7. Kristol is smoking something. n/t

[razors edge]

8. This man's loyalty is not

to the people of the United States.

He would be required to register as the lobbyist of a foreign nation if it weren't for a certain exclusion.

[Harry Monroe]

10. William Kristol is a well known neocon

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Harry Monroe]

11. Mr. Kristol, what color is the sky in your world??

[vixengrl]

12. If I put chips on 36 black,

and I don't win at first, that's cool, because there is always more money, and eventually, someday, it is entirely statistically probable, that 36 black will come up, because that is simply statistics. So if there is money, it's going on the one I went with to begin with, and which very probably(in an infinite universe) could win.

(I am not a roulette player, having at one point actually figured out a break-even strategy called "keeping my money in my pocket". I save my money for bars and buffets, and occasionally do slots--as a token. I could see the point of blackjack--but I play better when no cash is involved.)

I'm not sure to what degree we are concentrating on training Iraqi troops. I do not know what Kristol's measure of progress is--and how loverly it is to be him seeing this progress beyond his wildest...I see in the last three-four months an increase in troop losses, but supposing we have an increase in insurgent loss--we've quite probably lost a bit of good will besides with any collateral damage. The idea of a "draw-down" in his world is dumb, though-here's why:

We're going to have to confront a potentially nuclear Iran: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/585tdlqf.asp

(We cannot withdraw from a near-neighbor no matter what happens, needing a staging area, and only the Bush admin would go with this plan, obviously, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html).

This happy-talk on Iraq and the zero-sum--"we have to win" deal is so past what what actually seems to be happening there. And even past what the administration is planning. We are building a gimormous embassy building there

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

and planning, I say, *planning*, to stay there a really long time.

And what the hell is a "real, though messy victory"? Really, though messily, taking out the Saudi and Egyptian, and by the way, Sudanese folks there, whilst stirring up the Shiite Iranians and Syrians and mostly accusing them whilst stating the Sunni Al-Qaeda is our real problem because they're the ones who attacked us on 9/11? (even though the Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is like, just a franchise started *after* 9/11) and putting down every Iraqi insurgent there is--is it happening? Is a real victory a viable, democratic Iraq government we don't have to hand-hold? When do we know we have that? (Hint--a government of, for, and by the people isn't going to be imposed from the outside. Democracy is a popular movement, I reckon.) And how "messy" do we think we can stomach? Torture? Camps? Partial genocide? The whole neo-con argument of "What do you think will happen when we leave?" is not so comfortably answered by this: The same thing we have now only without our bloody hands in it.

Kristol is an ass.

[Skittles]

13. Why Kristol is a Bush Whore

:puke:

[Felix Mala]

14. Declare victory and bring the troops home say around the third

week of October 2008... Yeah that'll work fine... Once again, the elction calendar dictates Republican war policy.

[VanPelt4IndSenate]

15. Kristol is a crazy man

And a idiot. He would crap his $1,000 shorts if he had to fight the war himself. Chicken SHit.