I believe the WP pretty much has been a lapdog of GWB, especially on the Iraq war since the beginning. As Atrios likes to say, meanwhile, over there....

Thanks to Randy for taking this thread off the front page. I guess some topics about Democratic candidates are off limits. I thought the idea was to have discussion and debate.

The idea is that this is a liberal website and not the place to bash Democrats. There are plenty of other websites and venues in East Tennessee to do that. Your post is still published on your personal blog, and still shows up in "discussions", it's just not on the front page.

As to whether the "surge" is working, as I said to the Mrs. the other day, let's say that you have a city in total anarchy because the mayor, city council, police, and firefighters all resigned or ran away en masse.

People are in the streets smashing windows, stealing stuff, setting buildings on fire, killing people, etc. etc., and some of them are even former police and firefighters.

You send in the National Guard to restore order, and the smashing, stealing, burning, and killings taper off. What else would you expect?

But, there's still no mayor, city council, police, or firefighters. They are all in exile or sitting in their basements cleaning their guns and waiting for the National Guard to leave.

So exactly how did the military/police presence solve the political problem, or as Bush tries to frame it, how exactly did the "surge" "work"?

A surge of more Lies

This from one of the few voices in Congress demanding impeachment.

Wearybottom Associates

Randy, my post didn't 'bash' Democrats. Geez, how sensitive are you?

It does seem that a person who wants to be the leader of our country could at least acknowledge the accomplishments of our military, if not Bush. You'll note the Post indicated a response which doesn't praise the President, but does acknowledge the reality that something good is happening. Shouldn't we expect the truth from all candidates?

What this editorial shows is partisanship and politics rule. If that's not a fair discussion, well, I don't know what is. By censoring even the faintist criticism you lower yourself to the level of, well, local folks who run blogs and prohibit any discussion which disagrees with their personal point of view. I think you know who those are. I thought you were better. Maybe I was wrong.

It says, "Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections -- a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence."

I don't think it is so far-fetched. If voters in 2006 had continued supporting Bush and the Republican intention to stay forever in Iraq (John McCain this week suggested 100 years wasn't out of the question)without expecting any cooperation from the Sunnis, this probably never would have happened.