McCain and the Bush administration say the surge worked. But did it?

Success is a word whose definition I was pretty confident I understood.

But the Bush administration and John McCain seem to have taken all of the meaning away from the word. What these videos show is not my definition of "success".

The news media and the Republicans have bought into this so fully that even the Democrats are afraid to point out fallacy of their statements. Somebody needs to tell the truth.

I must give a hat tip to my friends over at Crooks and Liars which is where I found these videos initially.

The major Sunni sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge, was killed. During the surge that was supposed to have protected him.

The major Sunni sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge and subsequently helped lead the Anbar Awakening, was actually assassinated by an al-Qaeda led group in midst of the surge.

On Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the surge, when in fact the surge began months afterward. Moreover, he said, if it weren't for the work of U.S. forces, the major Sunni figure leading that awakening wouldn't have had the protection he needed.

"Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks," said the Senator. "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda," said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Sadly, that murder took place even with the surge underway. In September 2007, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik widely credited with persuading Sunni leaders to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, died in a bomb attack in Anbar. His work, prior to then, was held as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

Okay so the Sheik who led the "Anbar Awakening" AFTER the surge was killed DURING the surge. WTF?

Is McCain insinuating that the surge was successful because it allowed people who could unite the Sunnis to die before they could accomplish that goal? Or are we to believe that our success in the region was due to the intervention of zombies!

Is McCain so desperate to make his point that he is willing to rewrite history, call Obama a traitor, and bring up the possibility of voodoo, rather then admit that it may have been a combination of the Sunni people coming together and the increase in troops which helped reduce the violence?

And lets not forget that a cetain Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr may have been an immense help to the military and Bush administration as well.

The so called "success" of the surge is about to unravel.

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr's Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr's followers that they'll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

The freeze on offensive activity by Sadr's Mahdi Army has been a major factor behind the recent drop in violence in Iraq, and there were fears that the confrontation that's erupted in Baghdad and Basra could end the lull in attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and bombings.

This is why our so-called surge has had any impact at all.

And what is not widely known is that the U.S. government is paying al Sadr and his people to keep a lid on the violence.

Think about it . We are paying these people not to kill each other, and we are paying them with money we are borrowing from China, which our children are going to have to payback in the decades to come. That is how the the Bush administration measures success.

Since the surge was temporarily able to reduce violence in Iraq and allow Americans to feel victorious why not try that same strategy in Afghanistan?

The conservative Washington think tank that devised the “surge” of US forces in Iraq has come up with a plan to send 12,000 more American troops into southern Afghanistan.

A panel of more than 20 experts convened by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has also urged the administration to get tough with Pakistan.

The US should threaten to attack Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters in lawless areas on the border with Afghanistan if the Pakistan military did not deal with them itself, the panel concluded.

We need a President who either knows what the hell he is doing or is better at picking “experts” to tell him.

These guys are a joke! The solution to every problem is to send more military, they apparently have no fall back position.

I guess this so called “think tank” is not thinking enough about the fact that we don’t have any more troops to send out to do an Afghanistan surge. The only soldiers available have already pulled three or four rotations in Iraq. Are we then gong to ask them to do the same service in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

I sometimes wonder if the goal of this administration is to defeat the enemy combatants or to defeat the American combatants! Do we just keep sending these young men and women until we have used them all up?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. In that case George Bush, John McCain, and perhaps the entirety of the Republican Party are certifiable.

Can we just have the election now please? Before we find ourselves fighting two or three more wars?

Clinton stumbles over Iraq surge question.

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.

Wrong answer lady!

The surge is not working because it is not keeping the violence down so that the government can get its work done. That was the plan. But just as this stupid surge thing started, the Iraq government took a vacation. So there is no new progress on that front. As a matter of fact a great number of the members have either quit or have been killed. Therefore, even if there is less violence in some places, the surge is a failure.

Besides how can something that only diminishes the violence in one area so that it can SURGE in another area be considered a success?

Clinton was talking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and it is clear that she was shaping her message to match their expectations. But what she seems to be forgetting is that she is constantly in front of a national audience. This is the era of YouTube and every damn thing she says is going to heard by all of us.

And this was certainly a "damn" thing.

As the country awaits the report from General Petraeus to see when the troops can start coming home, FOX News watchers already know.

US forces could be needed in Iraq for a decade to battle insurgents, the top coalition commander said Sunday while vowing a "forthright" review in September on whether a troop surge is working.

Speaking on Fox News, General David Petraeus said there was broad recognition in Washington that Iraq's daunting challenges would not be resolved "in a year or even two years."

"In fact, typically, I think historically, counter-insurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years," he said.

Everybody in the media acts as if there is this magic report coming about the surge in Iraq, that will finally reveal that we have failed and then our troops will start to come home. But those "journalists" are not paying attention, or they are White House propagandists who are just trying to keep the American people from discovering the truth about our plans until September when they will have a whole new line of bullshit to feed them.

We are not leaving as long as George Bush is in office. Period!

As long as there is oil in the ground of Iraq, our soldiers are going to remain there to help those private contractors get their hands on it. Essentially Bush has turned our military into indentured servants to the oil companies.

And let's not forget that Bush still believes that he is in charge of the Rapture. He has to soften the area for the return of Jesus.

Impeachment is how America gets its soldiers and integrity back, and that is the only way.

Pentagon weighs in to say the surge is a failure. Nobody can really be surprised by this.

Three months into the new U.S. military strategy that has sent tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq, overall levels of violence in the country have not decreased, as attacks have shifted away from Baghdad and Anbar, where American forces are concentrated, only to rise in most other provinces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday.

The report -- the first comprehensive statistical overview of the new U.S. military strategy in Iraq -- coincided with renewed fears of sectarian violence after the bombing yesterday of the same Shiite shrine north of Baghdad that was attacked in February 2006, unleashing a spiral of retaliatory bloodshed. Iraq's government imposed an immediate curfew in Baghdad yesterday to prevent an outbreak of revenge killings.

Yesterday's attack adds to tensions faced by U.S. troops, who are paying a mounting price in casualties as they push into Iraqi neighborhoods, seeking to quell violence that the report said remains fundamentally driven by sectarianism.

I have heard that General Petraeus is ready to report that the surge is working and ask for an extension. So the question is will the Republicans side with the President on this or with the Pentagon?

With the uptick in violence against Iraqis having moved to the suburbs outside of Baghdad, and with the increase in American deaths since the surge began, Petraeus is going to have to be a magician to convince anybody that this is all going according to plan.

Surely even the Republicans are not this easily duped.

Commanders say surge is a failure.

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

When I read information like this my first concern is how will the Bush administration twist these facts to make them tell a different story? I have no idea how they would massage facts that we have already seen reported in various news outlets. But I know from past experience that "facts" don't really matter to this administration.

I have heard a rumor that General Petraeus may just call this thing a victory and then suggest troop withdrawals.

Hell I don't care if he calls it a duck, just as long as he starts bringing our troops home.

White House continues to move the goal line.

The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

It has been clear for quite some time that this administration is simply trying to find some way to leave the failure of the Iraq war on the doorstep of somebody else. This is a criminal endeavor that is becoming even more desperate as the months go by.

They have tried, so far without success, to goad the Democrats into cutting the war funding so that they can then blame the failure in Iraq on the unpatriotic actions of the Democrats. But since the Democrats have failed to take the bait they are now trying to appear as if they are utilizing different tactics in Iraq which are simply diversions to hold the media's focus while they slowly move toward 2008 when they can leave this albatross around the neck of the next President.

But in the meanwhile they are not simply using up time, they are using up the lives of our fellow Americans. Essentially everybody in the world knows this thing is lost and George Bush's arrogance and inability to admit wrongdoing is costing children their parents and mothers their sons. How many more precious lives will be lost in this conflict?

If this is not the very definition of cowardice then I don't know what is.

Is the Bush surge plan in Iraq designed to kill more Americans?

Increasingly across Iraq, U.S. forces are leaving the comfort and safety of their fortified mega-bases and establishing small combat outposts and patrol bases like the one insurgents struck outside Baquba that left 20 soldiers wounded as well. Some patrol bases are well protected with blast walls and large numbers of troops. Others are little more than abandoned houses that a few platoons circle with Humvees while hunkering down inside. As a reporter frequently embedded with U.S. forces, I've visited many such patrol bases, and the sense of vulnerability at them is all too palpable. The paratroopers tasked with controlling the volatile territory on the outskirts of Baquba knew they would face attacks from insurgents in the area as they stepped up their presence by manning such patrol bases. But they saw little choice, since the ongoing surge strategy calls for U.S. forces to abandon the old notion of return-to-base patrols in favor of living full time in deadly areas.

I often wonder if Bush does not believe that the death of more American service men and women might anger the American people and make them want to kick some insurgent butt enough to support this war. If he does believe that then he is even more removed from reality then I could have possibly imagined.

You know the fact is that our troops main goal in Iraq is just to survive! It is as if they are being sent into a burning building and then congratulated for not getting burned right before they get back in line to try it again.

Nothing we are doing there right now is going to help the Iraqi people in the long run. We may be limiting the number of Iraqi deaths for the moment (though I am not completely convinced of this) but the end of this thing is a forgone conclusion. We are simply holding off the inevitable at the cost of our soldiers lives.

You know years ago when I studied the marital arts my instructor told me that with my skill I was honor bound to come to the aid of those who were unable to defend themselves against violence, but that if by doing so I would not be able to save them and would simply sacrifice myself needlessly then I was honor bound to focus on my own survival instead. To me that same criteria should be applied to our brave soldiers in Iraq.