From: "Rich Gauszka" 



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOT
c=

 But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George
Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress
in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month
to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly
organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and
against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi
as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that
in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings,
explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to
speak, spontaneous.

.....

 General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in
the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask
then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a
president determined on a war he can't see an end to, attract the support
of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on
April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but
cautioned, "I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to
be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are
really just getting started with the new effort."

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications
of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are
grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this
dilemma.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5