By bringing up Michael Ware, you were attempting to trivialize John McCain's correctness on the Surge while trying to make it seem that Obama's incompetence in failing to vote for and hesitation to acknowledge the Surge was irrelevant. Ware is basically saying the Surge did nothing and wasn't responsible for our victory in Iraq and therefore Obama wasn't a total fool, while McCain's courage was for naught.
Rewriting history on the part of CNN doesn't make Obama look any more presidential nor McCain any less courageous when in fact, the Surge had both components. General Casey had failed but would not acknowledge the failure of his strategy, so President Bush replaced him with a soldier who had a proven track record. General David Petraeus implemented the new strategy in both its parts, both of which were essential to the mission. Part of the mission of the additional troops was to protect the fledgling Awakening movement from al Qaeda retribution, so Ware was naive to believe that the Surge was merely sticking in a few more soldiers and nothing more.
Even Obama was finally forced to admit the Surge worked, even if Michael Ware said that it didn't matter. So who do you believe? Barack Obama or Michael Ware? If you believe Obama, then McCain is one of the ones responsible for winning the war. If you believe Ware, then Obama was still wrong in any case since he would have incorrectly identified the Surge as having worked.
It's funny that by believing Ware, you are giving full credit to President Bush for winning rather than sharing the credit between the president and John McCain. Glad to have you in conservative circles now that you're a President Bush supporter.
Regardless of whether you believe that report was impartial or not, do you agree that intelligence failures do not equal lying? The report clearly states that incorrect intelligence meant that there were hundreds of lies told. Since when did telling something you believe to be true but turned out to be incorrect mean that you lied? My dictionary doesn't say that. To me, any organization that redefines the word, lie, is not as impartial as you believe. A true impartial report would have stated that intelligence failures fooled Bush Administration officials into making incorrect statements. Rather this report tries to turn intelligence failures into deliberate falsehoods, i.e. lies.
The bias is clear as the report ends with Democratic Party talking points, the question: "What did they know and when did they know it?" An impartial report would not have put in incendiary rhetoric like that.
Again, its clear cut to people of your ideology, but not enough to get me and others on your boat. Otherwise I'd hear a wide diversity of people talking about it, not just the right.
This isn't quite true. People on the left suffer from what is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is such a hatred of Bush that they won't even consider anything that might be positive. That's why they don't talk about it because anything that supports Bush's viewpoint can't possibly be correct.
On the flipside, I will acknowledge the right suffered from Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
