The thought of the AP downplaying improvements in Iraq isn’t news. It’s noteworthy, though, to see how they report the good news from Iraq. Here’s how Anne Flaherty described the progress:

No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates. Iraq’s political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it’s done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory”, almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks, enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues—are unsatisfactory.

I’d love to ask Ms. Flaherty a few questions. Here’s a few right off the top of my head: (continue reading post »)

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Trudy Rubin says that Iraqis feel a ray of hope about their future. I don’t doubt that they’re feeling more optimistic but saying that it’s only a ray of hope seems understated. Rubin says that whenever she wants to know how things are really going, he calls his friend Abbas. Here’s how she describes their latest conversation:

Yet, in three recent phone conversations, he sounded more hopeful about Iraq’s future than I’d heard him in a long time. Why hopeful? Because he finally sees some order returning to Baghdad. The Mahdi Army, the militia of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has been expelled from his neighborhood. “The Iraqi people are waking up from the Mahdi Army,” he told me. “Iraqis know now that they are criminals.”

I’m glad that Ms. Rubin recognizes the improvement in Iraq. According to Ms. Rubin’s bio, she’s travelled extensively to the Middle East, including 9 times to Iraq. This isn’t, as near as I can tell, some wet-behind-the-ears leftist ideologue. It sounds like she’s serious about her work.

My difficulties start when I try reconciling Ms. Rubin’s account with Col. Peters’ account, which I wrote about here: (continue reading post »)

I just read the stunning statement that Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) made with regard to John McCain’s qualifications as commander-in-chief. Here’s a transcript of Gen. Clark’s idiotic statement:

Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk, it’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, `I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?’

After a moment of stunned silence, here’s how Bob Schieffer responded:

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean…

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really? (continue reading post »)

According to Peter Brown, the director of Quinippiac’s polling, history shows that Democrats have long had trouble with white voters. He makes his case in this WSJ op-ed.

For those voters, especially ones without college degrees, the fact that Sen. Obama is black may not be as much a disqualifier as his background as a Democrat from the Frost Belt with no national security or executive experience and a voting record judged by the nonpartisan National Journal as the Senate’s most liberal during 2007.

Yet, the focus on Sen. Obama’s relative weakness among the white working class has become the hot topic among many who say racial bias explains it. Of course it would be naive to believe that race is not a factor in America today. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Mr. Obama’s relative weakness among white voters is solely, or even mainly, due to the fact that he is black and that three quarters of voters this year will be white.

Why would anyone think that policies matter? Obama’s troubles with white working class voters has far more to do with the fact that he’s the most underqualified major party candidate in my voting lifetime. OLet’s not forget that white working class voters haven’t forgotten (or forgiven) Obama for his SF fundraising speech, either. (continue reading post »)

This Boston Globe article says everything that needs to be known about how serious Democrats are about winning in Iraq. That is, they aren’t the least bit serious. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on:

Three Massachusetts congressmen called for a United Nations security force to replace American troops in Iraq as part of a phased plan for withdrawing US soldiers after a new president takes office in January.

Yesterday’s proposal, sponsored by Representatives James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt, calls for an end to ongoing talks between the United States and Iraq on a long-term security agreement. Instead, according to the proposal, US authorities should immediately start negotiations with the UN on a mandate to govern the “internationalization of responsibility for aid and support to Iraq.”

Reps. Tierney, McGovern and Delahunt are idiots for proposing such a plan. The U.N. can’t focus on killing al-Qa’ida like our troops are currently doing. The U.N. won’t take sides like U.S. troops are taking sides against anyone plotting against the sovereign Iraqi government. They can’t involve themselves in demolishing malicious militias like those funded by Iran.

While it’s true that Iraqi security forces now control every major citiy in Iraq, it’s equally true that the U.S. military is still needed to wipe out the last of al-Qa’ida’s terrorists and the last of Sadr’s militias.

Here’s what Rep. McGovern sees happening:

The current UN mandate, under which American forces legally operate in the country, expires on Dec. 31. The US and Iraqi governments have no plans to seek its renewal and are drawing up a bilateral agreement that could keep US forces in the country indefinitely. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, I posted about Ralph Peters’ column in which he debunks the whoppers thats Democrats have told about Iraq. Gateway Pundit just posted the YouTube of Col. Peters’ appearance on last night’s Geraldo At-Large. It’s simply the best anti-Reid/Pelosi refutation known to mankind. Here’s a partial transcript of Peters:

I think it’s easy to get wrapped up with details but this isn’t one or two little things going right. for the last eighteen months, the positive trendlines have been overwhelmingly positive. The Iraqi military has been doing a remarkably good job. Even last year, the Iraqi parliament passed more pieces of major legislation than the U.S. Congress. Our troops can now focus on killing the remnants of al-Qaeda, killing the key Shia militia leaders and Iranian special groups. Every major city in Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqi security forces, backed by the U.S. forces. And on top of all this, Geraldo, al-Qaeda suffered a collosal strategic defeat by declaring Iraq their central front, then having Sunni Arabs turn on them by the millions. al-Qaeda is a broken organization, not defanged entirely, but broken. (continue reading post »)

That’s essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column. Based the evidence, it’s clear that we’re safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here’s the first proof Col. Peters offers:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.

Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one’s called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations shouldn’t be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what’s happening in Col. Peters’ column.

Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. (continue reading post »)

This post on popmatters.com is one of the most laughable things I’ve ever read.

Bill O’Reilly recently focused his ire on Minneapolis, where more than 3,000 people gathered last weekend for the National Conference for Media Reform, a group the Fox News personality called “real nuts.”

Real angry is more like it.

The convention, which drew such luminaries as Arianna Huffington, Dan Rather and Phil Donahue, should have been an exchange of thoughts on how to upgrade journalism in all shapes and sizes. And while those conversations did occur, they were too often drowned out by voices dead set on overturning Rupert Murdoch, George Bush and anyone else who wears a suit to work.

Arianna Huffington, Dan Rather and Phil Donahue are luminaries who should help upgrade journalism? That trio wouldn’t know good journalism if it bit their backsides.

Dan Rather got run out of journalism because he let his hatred of President Bush affect his judgment on the Rathergate (remember fake but accurate?). Arianna Huffington’s blog is a vile hate site that’s posted that Tony Snow should die in response to the news that Tony’s cancer had reared its ugly head again. Phil Donahue isn’t a journalist. He’s a former whiny talk show host who hasn’t done real news in the last 3 decades. (continue reading post »)

I’ve long thought that Michael Barone is one of the most intelligent political analysts in the business. RealClearPolitics links to his most recent analysis. The bad news for Democrats is that it contains alot of good news for Republicans, namely Barone’s listing of how the facts have changed the direction of this race. Here’s how Mr. Barone starts with Iraq:

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn’t work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress, all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.

Facts matter except with Democratic activists. Once you enter the Democratic activists’ world, though, anything that highlights inaccuracies in Democratic stump speeches is ignored and frequently chastized.

The bad news for Democrats is that the presidential race won’t be won by Democrat activists. It will be decided by people that are open to hearing about improvements in Iraq.

Here’s another of Michael Barone’s observations: (continue reading post »)

Yesterday afternoon, the military filed its appeal of Col. Steven Folsom’s ruling that charges be dropped against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani. The specific charges being refiled against Col. Chessani are violation of a lawful general order and dereliction of duty. This morning, the Thomas More Law Center issued a statement critical of the military’s decision. Here’s what it says:

Late yesterday afternoon, military prosecutors filed an official notice that they are appealing the June 17th decision of Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, which dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. Prosecutors have 20 days in which to file their appeal brief to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), which is located in Washington, D.C.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted with outrage, “This case has turned into the persecution of one of the Marine’s finest combat commanders. LtCol Chessani devoted his life to the Corps and his Nation. He served three tours of duty in Iraq, away from his wife and children in defense of us all. In their attempt ‘to get’ Chessani, prosecutors granted immunity to seventeen Marines, including one they had charged with murder. Still they failed. Sadly, in the process they have destroyed the career of an outstanding officer. Enough is enough.” (continue reading post »)