Two leading idiots from a congress who's approval rating AT HOME is 20% (+/- a few). Yeah, I can see where they have moral authority to judge other's political effectiveness. LOLOLOL

"Funny," the link you provide to the WaPo story appears to have only told half of the comments by Levin and Warner.

Wonder why they left these out:

"We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results -- in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents," the two said in a statement issued after leaving the country.

They go on to describe the Republicans that also made a recent trip to Iraq this way:

Republicans also are trying to use the congressional trips to their political advantage. The tours, carefully conducted by the Defense Department, generally include visits to the Green Zone for consultations with U.S. and Iraqi officials, trips to forward operating bases and joint security stations involved in Petraeus's new counterinsurgency program, and heavily guarded tours of open markets, often in Anbar province, where a U.S. alliance with Sunni sheiks has calmed the region.

I guess.

EVERYONE, except very G-Damn few, that enter Iraq in an official capacity are given "carefully conducted" tours.

Why do I suddenly recall all the whining and gnashing of teeth by some on the left when Sen. McCain made a visit and he was escorted under heavily armed guard?

Success in Iraq equals Dem defeat. What else is new.

Well, as you have seen the US has a 20 billion dollar arms package for Saudi Arabia to help secure Iraq and bring stability to the region.
Saudi Arabia basically sees Maliki as an extension of the Iranian state. Even George had to do away with the benchmarks as they were not attainable.

The reason for the surge was to bring enough security to the region so political policies would have a chance. The surge is pushing some violnec into outlying areas. Those Areas that have purged [sectarian battles] Sunnis or Shiite are stabilizing somewhat.

Success in Iraq equals Dem defeat. What else is new.

As I recall it was a freedom operation and the idea is to bring security to the region. I hear all this political talk of defeat and victory by the pundits and parrots. The objective is security. Levin seems to be following the Gates Iraq study group.

I call for the ouster of John Warner. He's beyond his useful shelf life.

So, they are against removing a violent murdering dictator, but they are for removing a leader selected by elected representatives? Do they even listen to themselves?

How dare the Dems presume...based only on the sustained failure of a Shia whose allegiance is to Iran...to call for him to step down...

Our Surge has given him time to unite Iraq...
Watch in September..when they reconvene ...this dynamic leader will make progress.....
Any fool can see we are again, only six months away...

Look, If Levin went to Jordan, Israel, and hes speaking of Malikis ouster. why?

8-20-07 DAMASCUS, Syria: Syria urged Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Monday to create a timetable for foreign troop withdrawal.

Bush doesn't want Syria interfering. Note that Lieberman was rattling his Saber at Syria. The US doesn't want Iran filling the vacuum.

Because nothing encourages a country to pull together like telling them their leader sucks...

Actually, I tend to agree: Maliki probably needs to go.

The fact that he's taking a vacation during the surge doesn't sit right with me.

The pics of him with Iran's lil' Hitler, even though I understand the regional issues, don't sit well with me, either.

I think it shitty of me to say, but completely rational considering the Iranian influence in the region, that a Shia with his hands on the reigns of Iraq may not be such a good idea.

Especially considering that Sadr is still running about and has to see a dentist.

Then again, I'm not sure US Congressmen need to be going to the public with this type of sentiment.

It's a mixed bag.

Still, in any sort of conflict such as this, you'll never get a political solution until the security can be assured. Trying to run the two in parallel is admirable, but kinda' stupid.

These Democrats are as anti-democratic as they come. That purple fingered magesty was an election of free people. What do you expect when 60% of the population is Shia?

Sistani, Allawi, and The Master of the Bazaar, Chalabi, will straighten it out, while the King of the Sauds and the Persian Mullahs agree not to savage each other instead of Israel.
=================================

There is an apt comparison between the nonfunctional Iraqi Congress and the nonfunctional United States Congress. Levin's solution to the Iraqi problem -- immediate removal of Maliki from office -- is a classic psychological manifestation. Levin's fantasy solution to the nonfunctional United States Congress would be the immediate removal of George Bush from office. Since he cannot act on this wish (thanks to the long-established US Constitution), he is visiting it upon the less well-established Iraqi government. In making this demand, he is merely stating his unfulfilled wish to attain control over America by removing Bush from office.

Levin and Warner are telling the actual truth as they see it. And they have a point.

Maliki's government is woefully ineffective. If we want to actually keep Iraq unified and not fall into chaos, and actually be able to pull our troops out with safety one day, much better governing is needed.

That's reality.

Is this from the same liberals who tell us we should respect the Democratically-elected government of Palestinian Territory and the wishes of the people who voted for Hamas?

I agree that dysfunctional leaders chosen by a corrupt legislative body that can't even pass the most elemental laws during a time of warfare should be replaced. The only question remaining: Who should replace Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Here's a news flash for you, the people of Iraq elected their leadership. Warner and Levin don't get to vote.

Is Bush thinking about "Ngo Dinh Diem'ing" al-Maliki?

A Last Chance for the Surge

Who should replace Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Depends on the alternatives. I believe the voters have spoken on the leadership of Frist and Lott.