The Lost Angeles Times, which backed the surge originally, has come to the conclusion, as have most Americans, that it is not working, and we cannot expect or brave soldiers to monitor Iraq's civil war. But Bush remains stubborn, even in light of his 28% approval rating and flaunts the will of the people who pay his salary. I wonder how the 08 Republican presidential candidates enjoy sinking into the mud because of their war mad leader.

Is this the same LA Times that ran this story of success in Iraq just today?

I guess this post would matter if the LA Times still mattered.

While I have no great love for the LA Times, myself, I am always amused by the way war supporters make the same statements over and over again. As soon as any publication or well known individual starts to criticize the Bush administration or the war in Iraq, they are declared as irrelevant. Isn't it possible for relevant people and organizations to have honest disagreements without having to disparage them?

Pop for the comment above, zasel.

Thank you arifsali, it's good to know there are some people who occasionally agree with my pov.