I also disagree with Lieberman. He commits the same mistake (?) Bush makes, conflating Sunni insurgents with AQ and calling them all “terrorists.”

When we pulled back, the insurgents moved in. But most of them were not Al-Qaeda.

Jimmy: I did not listen to all of Petraeus’ testimony…I’m not aware of a hard consensus about what the consequences of failure would be.”

Gen. Petraeus said in January: “I think that sectarian groups would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing … There is the possibility, certainly, of an
international terrorist organization truly getting a grip on some substantial piece of Iraq.”

I ignore the opinion of the Iraqi military and Maliki. For one, they both have an incentive to play up the direness of a U.S. withdrawal.

You mean that they might be destroyed? If so then I agree that they have an incentive. If its not so dire, then they have nothing to worry about.

The claim that Iraq will become a terrorist haven if we leave has never been heavily anchored in reality.

I disagree with you here. I defer to Senator Lieberman:
“Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contraryâ€â€?in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.”

I ignore the opinion of the Iraqi military and Maliki. For one, they both have an incentive to play up the direness of a U.S. withdrawal. For another, Maliki often says one thing while doing another — and his actions tend to undermine things like the surge in favor of protecting armed Shiite groups or hammering at Sunnis.

I don’t know why people make a big deal of Democrats confirming Petraeus, as if that means they must agree with him. Everyone agrees that if anyone can pull this off, Petraeus can. And as Bush’s choice, he deserved some deference from Congress. That does not mean they have to believe the surge will work or take Petraeus’ word as gospel truth.

Dos: Yeah, but isn’t that what speechwriters are for? This was a prepared statement, for Pete’s sake.

In fact, General Petraeus echoed these very sentinments during his senate confirmation hearing, and the Democrats still voted for to confirm him nearly unanimously.