How about this: They most likely wanted to see a successful democratic government over there but believe that the admin running the show has botched it to the point of a hopeless impass. See? No WANT TO FAIL in the entire statement.

I found the info below to be an interesting take on some statements Bush made last nite. To me, its an example of how the media fails to report the important issues regarding the building of a government over there, and how precarious it is. To say nothing of the fact that we dont get this info from the admin.

_______________________

BUSH: "All I can report to you is what General Casey, in whom I have got a lot of confidence, tells me, and that is the Iraqis are becoming better and better fighters. And at some point in time, when he feels like the government is, you know, ready to take on more responsibility and the Iraqi forces are able to help them do so, he will get on the telephone with me and say, "Mr. President, I think we can do this with fewer troops."

"We've been up to 165,000 at one point. We're at about 135,000 now."

"Actually, he moved -- actually moved some additional troops from Kuwait into Baghdad. Conditions on the ground were such that we needed more support in Baghdad to secure Baghdad, so he informed me, through Donald Rumsfeld, that he wanted to move troops out of Kuwait into Baghdad. So these commanders, they need to have flexibility in order to achieve the objective."


Bush is admitting that things are so bad militarily in Iraq that US control of the capital itself is in doubt, so that reinforcements have had to be brought quickly from Kuwait. He is telling us this as a reason fro which he won't set a timetable. But what it reveals is how bad the situation in Baghdad really is. And he is saying that no timetable under these circumstances would be worth the paper it was printed on. After all, if the US troops started leaving Baghdad and the guerrillas started taking over even more of it than they already have, could Bush afford to just let the capital fall?


BUSH: "The prime minister met with key leaders of the new Iraqi government that represents the will of the Iraqi people and reflects their nation's diversity."


The Sunni Arabs are about 20 percent of the population, more or less. The three self-identified Sunni Arab parties-- the Iraqi Accord Front, the National Dialogue Council, and the small Reform and Reconciliation Party, together have 58 seats in parliament, nearly 21 percent. There are 37 cabinet posts. 4 went to the main Sunni parties in parliament. That is about 11 percent of cabinet posts. And even if the Defense minister ends up being ethnically Sunni Arab, he is likely to be an unrepresentative technocrat, and that still only brings the total up to 13.5 percent.

This new government was supposed to be an opportunity to reach out to the Sunni Arabs. But some Sunni Arabs are so upset about being stiffed in their proportion of cabinet posts that 15 walked out when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented his government to parliament. I saw Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi on Aljazeera this week insisting that the "Resistance" has a right to defend Iraq from foreign occupation or words to that effect, and urging that the US talk directly to the guerrilla leadership. Well, I guess that is a sign that the new Iraqi government is more representative. I'm not sure it is what Bush was going for.




>>My issue in this thread is not to argue whether we stay or go. My issue is the "Want the US to fail" charge. And we do disagree. You argue that lots of progress is being made, you say that people want the US to fail, and yet you say that no one is really actually saying that they want the US to fail. Instead, you infer it. Your charge discounts those people who see whats already happened, how its been managed, they see Abu Grape, they see whats going on now, and they see withdrawl as the best option. That doesnt mean "want to fail". That means best option to them.
>
>How about this:
>If they believe that the "best option" is an immediate withdrawl then they either want the US to fail or belive the US already has failed.
>
>>
>>>>I really dont. I would suspect that immediate pullout proponants got to that point because they see the number of troops killed and wounded, the number of iraqis killed and wounded, the apparent iran-friendly government being established... if lucky, the hemoraging of money, the unchanging admin talking points, and the opportunities lost. And they think that the situation is untenable. Not because they want the US to lose. Huge difference. Its a cheap charge.
>>>
>>>We disagree. I am certain that foreign interests as well as a few Americans want the US to be perceived as failing in this course of action. Just to be clear I'm referring to those who are asking for an immediate withdrawl. A gradual withdrawl of troops over the course of the next couple years (hopefully starting at the end of this year) is the current stated policy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought Rich had a good point:
>>>>
>>>>This is a logical fallacy. Accepting an outcome is NOT the same as wanting it. Wanting a pullout because one doesn't believe that achieving the goals is realistic (or not worth the cost), doesn't mean one WANTS America not to achieve its goals.
>>>
>>>In light of the progress in Iraq I do not believe this it is illogical to believe that those calling for an immediate withdrawl are wanting America to "fail". The current plan is to gradually remove troops (starting at the end of this year), as the Iraqi security forces are able to take over. This plan gets the US out, leaves the best chance for stability in Iraq and accomplishes the mission. To call for an early pullout is to put that in jeopardy. I stand by my assesment.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>...Do you think that there is no one who wants the US mission in Iraq to fail? You can continue to call it a strawman but the fact remains that many would be happy if the US pulled out without establishing a stable Iraq democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Take your "immediate pullout = WANT a US defeat" over to KOS and post it to start a discussion. I would be curious about the replies you get. Your cheap charge dismisses those who see it as the best option at this point. Arguable? sure. "Want to fail"? COMPLETE BS and disgusting. I suspect you'll get a few 'already failed' replies. But i also think you would be surprised about the discussion that entails. In fact, I'd be interested to see how many do advocate an "immediate pullout". I dont think its very popular a position. As far as i know, there's Murtha and maybe one or two other reps calling for an "accellerated" pullout. Not sure thats considered immediate. But tossing around "wanting to fail" sure makes a good strawman.