President Bush announced that Al Qaeda is the biggest threat to stability in Iraq.
So we are there, now, to protect Iraq from Al Qaeda. Seriously, are we supposed to believe this because he says so? First off, too many other sources have discounted any connection to Al Qaeda before the invasion. Second, we have been told too many conflicting stories. Third, our "surge" was supposed to be in place to secure the country against sectarian violence. That would imply that sectarian violence was the biggest threat to stability in Iraq.
Why is the president pulling out Al Qaeda references the day after the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary? There's got to be some connection there.
I did not necessarily agree with the benchmarks. Perhaps it was "setting a date for defeat," but at this point, is that less acceptable than having an open-ended date for defeat? The president has yet to put any teeth into the push for a stable Iraq, and has even taken U.S. Soldiers off the training of the Iraqi soldiers and put them back on the line.
Here's the question I have: What, at this point, would constitute a scenario where we could withdraw from Iraq with our dignity no less damaged than it has been? And I mean more than"a stable Iraq," I mean explain how we achieve it, or can we?