Did Durbin concede that the Surge Is working today?

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.nysun.com/article/60135?page_no=1

[Mind_your_head]

1. uh-oh......Did someone make Mr. Durbin "an offer he couldn't refuse"?

Complete article referred to in OP (it's only 4 paragraphs total):

<snip>
The no. 2 Democrat in the Senate — the assistant majority leader, Richard Durbin of Illinois — is conceding that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq.

His comments make him the second Democratic leader in 10 days to make comments that could open the door for the majority party in Congress to pivot away from its insistence on a deadline for an American retreat.

Speaking to CNN yesterday while visiting Baghdad, Mr. Durbin said, "We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda."

Those words are a long way from a statement Mr. Durbin made on the floor of the Senate on May 16. Then, just before voting for an amendment to set a hard deadline for the withdrawal of troops, he said there was no hope for Iraq: "This morning, the White House announced that the president has finally found a general who will accept the responsibility for the execution of this war. Why did four generals before him refuse this assignment? Because those four generals know, the American people know, and this Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed."
<end snip>

Read:

Then I stepped closer, reached my right hand into the other pocket, bent down next to his face, and whispered, “In here I got a gun and a bullet with your name on it – in case you decide to keep your campaign promises.” I stepped back, sat down, and recited a little list for him, of presidents who were assassinated or overthrown because they defied their Uncle Sam

Much, much more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1519473
(don't forget to read the comments too!....many things to consider.....)

[liberaldemocrat7]

5. As I see it, Al Qaeda looks like a very small part of the civil war in Iraq.

Bush only mentions Al Qaeda to distract from the Civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Iraq appears a huge distraction from the economic justice that we need in America.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Seriously. Durbin must have made a stop in Afghanistan first ... for a little "joy popping"

A lot of credible people are talking about some measurable military gains in Iraq. With roughly 35% more boots on the ground, one would expect some measurable gains.

But al Qaeda? Batshit crazy.

[regnaD kciN]

2. I'd trust the New York Sun...

...about as much as I'd trust Faux News. (They were both set up to provide alleged "balance" to The Big Bad Liberal Media. :eyes: )

It appears that Durbin was observing that it is only now, after five years, that U.S. forces are actually concerning themselves with al-Qaeda. In other words, he was criticizing our military leadership (including the C-in-C) for ignoring the real terraists for almost half a decade. That seems a long way from saying "the surge is working," except in the fevered imagination of the Reich-Wing flacks.

[OHdem10]

3. Some of the Reporters over in Iraq say positive things

about the Military part of the surge. Areas are being pacified.

However the Political part---no. It seems Maliki(Shia Pres)
does not put forth the effort to try to bring the Sunis back
into the government. The sharing of oil agreement has to
be worked out before the Sunis will come back in.

What if GWB (after hearing Gen Patreus" Report) decides
to start a slow orderly draw down of troops. Let say 1st
group home by Christmas. Ending a war is very difficult.
People tend to go crazy shooting everything in sight. Both
parties have said there would have to be a phased withdrawal.
You have to have soldiers on the ground covering the backs
of those leaving.

My question is for those of you for which the War is Primary
and in some cases seems to be the only issue. How does
this sound??? What is your next issue???

[Buzz Clik]

20. Excellent post. Strong points illustrated!

Some of the Reporters over in Iraq say positive things about the Military part of the surge. Areas are being pacified. However the Political part---no.

Exactly. The military gains are worthwhile only if they directly lead to political gains, and there is no evidence of that.

What if GWB (after hearing Gen Patreus" Report) decides to start a slow orderly draw down of troops. Let say 1st group home by Christmas. Ending a war is very difficult. People tend to go crazy shooting everything in sight. Both parties have said there would have to be a phased withdrawal. You have to have soldiers on the ground covering the backs of those leaving.

And this is exactly why Bush has no plans to leave. He screwed up the occupation so horribly that he knows he couldn't possibly pull of a withdrawal. He'll leave that to the next poor bastard in the Oval Office.

[krispos42]

4. We're winning every battle... and losing the war

Oopsie.

[billyoc]

6. What was the surge supposed to do? Maybe it is working.

Maybe it was only supposed to get a couple of shitty NY dailies to say it was working. :rofl:

[B Calm]

7. It's 180 degrees in Iraq right now. Even the insurgents are smart enough

to take a break during the summer...

[madrchsod]

8. the surge is working....the problem is in the details

the us troops go in a clean an area out then the iraqi troops are supposed to "maintain" the area. now that`s the sticky part-the iraqi`s are not capable of doing so. the latest reality based estimates of the numbers of us troops it would take is well over 250,000 troops on the ground and in the neighborhoods.

was`t the general who said we needed 300,000 plus troops at the start of the war fired? i guess he was right after all.

[Progressive_In_NC]

9. I wouldn't have attempted it with less than 500,000 troops to start

We'd probably be doing a big draw down by now, if we'd adequately staffed the operations from the start. There is no way that 150K US troops had any chance of policing that much area.

[madrchsod]

10. i think that was the figure the reporter was talking about!

[mmonk]

11. Any surge is a temporary measure

as long as the plan is to occupy and control oil. There will always be conflict over those things.

[Cameron27]

12. No, I don't think Durbin's conceding anything,

it's just the Sun's typical spin.

[LSK]

13. go to page 2

"While Mr. Durbin and Senator Casey, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, have acknowledged recent military progress, they were more pessimistic about political progress. They told CNN that they saw little evidence that the Iraqi parliament would soon reach a political compact between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis."

http://www.nysun.com/article/60135?page_no=2

[BlooInBloo]

14. No, but it was close enough for the idiots across the country and on websites to think so.

[blogslut]

15. Perhaps you should read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1550948

[antiimperialist]

16. Even if violence is reduced to zero, the occupation is unjustified

Iraq posed no threat to the US.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. No. He didn't.

Mr. Durbin said, "We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda."

THAT is suppose to be conceding the surge is working? I don't think so. The surge is working because they could intercept Al Qaeda in that particular forward base area?

That concedes nothing. All that says is after 5 years of doing this they can now intercept Al Qaeda in ONE area. How does that show the surge is working? It doesn't.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Cherry Picked By A Right Wing Rag...

The New York Sun dukes it out with the Washington Moonie Times as a Repugnican mouthpiece.

[Buzz Clik]

21. If we all agree that the surge is working, can we bring them home?