You got that right :o)


>Maybe that is editorial in tone but it's hard to disagree with much of it. The only part I disagree with is the bit about Churchillian speech. Bush's speeches are about as much like Churchill's as Borat was like Humphrey Bogart.
>
>
>>The war was born in the original sins of deceptive salesmanship, divisive politics, and wishful thinking about the aftermath. The bitterness of that history continues to undermine American interests in Iraq and the Middle East today. President Bush will have his victory at any cost, with one eye on his next Churchillian speech and the other on his place in history, leaving the implementation of his war policy to an Administration that works at cross purposes with itself, promising freedom and delivering rubble.
>>
>>This is what I am talking about. It turns it completely away from a research article into a completely editorial piece.
>>
>>
>>>Where you see attacks on the Bush administration I see fair criticism of their decisions and policies in Iraq. It isn't necessarily personal to disagree, or even disagree strongly, with the decisions of public servants.
>>>
>>>It's kind of a discouraging article, isn't it? I sure don't know what we should do.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Very interesting. If you take out the personal attacks and political leanings of the author, much (but not all) makes sense. It is difficult to read because it smacks of many postings here - too concerned with attacking Bush and the administration than with a good resolution for the Iraqi people. He certainly has his enemies as well:
>>>>http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2007/10/george-packer-is-phony.html
>>>>
>>>>>This is a long article but worth your time IMO. It looks at Iraq going forward -- where do we go from here? There don't seem to be many, if any, good options, but it's a good discussion of the options available. Recommended.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/17/070917fa_fact_packer