Bush, in Iraq, Says Troop Reduction Is Possible
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/wo...ref=middleeast

I guess this can be taken as good for everyone but its hard to tell. I bet some people are freaking out that we will attack Iran now...

I heard that members of our Congress were visiting Iraq, and I wondered: what could they possibly "learn" from such a visit? Surely, they would be in a safe zone, surrounded by security, completely isolated from any kind of conflict. So the only information they receive would be provided via disconnected anecdotes, official briefings in conference rooms, or otherwise unverifiable sources. They could have had the same information simply e-mailed to them.

Are we supposed to believe that our congressmen are donning flak jackets and going out on patrol, to get a taste of the action on the ground?

Well, the Republican ones don a flak jacket, and wander around with a massive military escort, and come home and say how safe it was for them.

They get a dog and pony show, which if they are smart they compare to previous dog and pony shows.

So, they are surrounded by a private army, bristling at the perimeters, and waltzed through a completely harmless area that, in preparation for their visit, has been scoured of all possible danger. Afterwards, they sit in a conference room while somebody tells them "It's all like that."

I guess I'm saying: They could take any other indirect source and compare it to another, previous indirect source of the same type; the analysis doesn't require their physical presence, there's no good reason for them to be there, except for showmanship. They aren't going to "see" anything.

You're assuming the military takes a side, politically.

You're right, let me revise that scenario. They see nothing, because it wouldn't be safe for them to see anything, and afterwards somebody tells them something which, either way, they have no way to verify. In the end, my point remains: there is no reason for them to be there. They aren't going to see anything, and all they are going to hear are unverifiable stories about the situation which they could have had e-mailed to their office.

Still disagree. Being there would really help figure things out. It would replace abstract concepts in your head with real live experience, even if that experience is seeing how far it is from the Baghdad airport to the center of the city.

I heard Bush got face time with the Prime Minister. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall, for that.

Voice of America. It sounds like Sistani told him to buck up and do what needs to be done. But I don't see how he can without a functioning government, so maybe Sistani wants things to remain in flux.

If they don't think they can maintain the army at current numbers without bringing in the national guard or increasing the length of terms, how would they be able to start a whole nother war?

Starting wars is easy. Send a few bombers in.

And then, you can satisfy the "stay the course" contingency of the American populace by demonstrating that the soldiers are clearly needed elsewhere. It's not "cut and run," it's "cut and redeploy."

Me too. How do you say in upper class British "I'm not your bitch?".