Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Petraeus and the Surge Myth
 By Robert Parry


If there is one overriding consensus among Washington opinion leaders today, it is that Gen. David Petraeus
is the perfect choice to turn around the failing war in Afghanistan because he supposedly already achieved
such a feat in Iraq. But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong?

What if Petraeus’s takeover in Iraq in 2007 and President George W. Bush’s much-touted Iraq “surge”
had little to do with the eventual reduction of violence in Iraq, that these were more coincidental than causal?

The Iraq War has been a classic example of how false assumptions can lead to disastrous policies. That was surely
the case before the invasion when nearly everyone of importance was onboard with the bogus intelligence about
WMD and Saddam Hussein’s links to al-Qaeda terrorists.

That was followed by the premature victory celebrations, from MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews declaring
“we’re all neocons now” to President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech.

When all these assumptions proved wrong – and the war in Iraq turned very ugly – there was almost
no accountability for either the journalists or the politicians who had clambered onto the invasion bandwagon.

Excellent point made by Parry.

You know what would fix this?  Gambling.

The pundits who make these wild-ass predictions should be made to
go back over them and pay a penalty for the times they got things wrong.

Remember Steve Brill's Content Magazine?

He held them accountable, but the people wouldn't buy his magazine and it went out of business.

Note that Chippy the Chimp was right more often than the lying Rethugs.

And that's why you have to watch your mouth at a poker table.
If you say, "More soldiers died under Clinton that Bush,"
someone is going to say, "I have $1,000 that says that's not true."

Gambling would make the sons of bitches more honest,
but they tell us "Gambling is wrong" so we have the shit we have.


  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart

Privacy Policy
. .