The Prophetic Words of Dick Morris

I remember right after the November election that Dick Morris pointed out how difficult it was going to be for the Democratic Congress to govern. The problem, as he saw it, was the many competing factions that make up the Democratic party: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroots. While all of these groups fall under the Democratic umbrella, they all have competing and varying agendas. As Morris predicted, the Democrats' problem all along has been getting all of them on the same page. This is the underlying story in their continued fumbling of the Iraq issue. The agenda of the Blue Dogs (called Bush Dogs by the Nutroots) is divergent from that of the Soros wing. Without everyone on the same page, the Democratic majority no longer functions like any sort of a majority.

Some if it has come to a head this week as Democrats are pointing fingers at each other for their lack of any coherent agenda.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile
legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.

The real problem from the beginning is that much of the Democratic victory came in Republican districts and with many of the Democrats in those districts moving to the right of their counter parts. Their leadership, on the other hand, is almost exclusively made up of traditional Northeast or West Coast liberals. From Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, to Ted Kennedy, those are the leaders of the party. Their liberal traditional agenda is not something that will get the likes of the Blue Dog Democrats re elected.

On Iraq, this problem is most pronounced. There is a group of almost seventy Congressional Democrats that make up the Out of Iraq Caucus. They are almost exclusively Soros types. Therir goal is the immediate withdrawal of troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. This group willing to cut off funds if necessary, and they are so extreme in their views vis a vis Iraq that many times they are unwilling to support bills with a timeline if it isn't quick enough in their estimation.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum for the Democrats lie the Blue Dogs. This is a group of forty plus moderates who's position tends to match that of the Republicans. Here is how their position is described.

With Democrats in charge again, the Blue Dogs have played a key role in halting an emerging plan to place strict conditions on war funding. Their revolt helped beat back that proposal, by Pelosi ally John Murtha, D-Pa. Leaders are now considering a watered-down version.

Without unity from all these groups the Democrat's majority becomes a minority.

The Democrats face the same sort of problems on budget and tax issues. Whether it was Charlie Rangel's so called mother of all tax hikes, or any number of budget proposals from David Obey, the leadership has had difficulty getting the Blue Dogs on board with much of their liberal agenda. Where they have been able to get the Blue Dogs on board, they have then faced the threat of a veto from the President.

The Democrats have given nothing more than a token effort to any social issue besides federal funding of stem cell research. That's because on social issues the leadership's position is no more tennable.

Their ideas about marriage, abortion, and, to an extent, the death penalty, and
Gun Control are sometimes more compatible with the Republican way of thinking. This viewpoint is supported by the Pew Research Center and their study "Beyond Red Vs. Blue"

The Republicans, on the other hand, have become nearly unanimously united. They have almost entirely coalesced behind the surge strategy and have never wavered in their demand for so called clean spending bills.

On the budget, they haven't been quite as united however the President suddenly realized what a tool the veto is. As such, the Democrats haven't been able to get much of any budgetary agenda through. In the most recent battle over the budget, the Democrats have become so frustrated that they are now resorting to threats.

Instead, Obey said, he would rip up the compromise bill and devise a new one using the strict spending ceiling set by Mr. Bush - but would reach it by whacking GOP priorities and stripping the measure of billions of dollars in pet projects for lawmakers in both parties.

Obey's remarks to The Associated Press came two days after White House budget director Jim Nussle promised Mr. Bush would veto Democrats' omnibus spending bill for exceeding Mr. Bush's budget by $18 billion.

Nussle had accused Democrats of "trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending," but Obey said the opposite is true - that the White House was willing to relent just slightly on domestic spending in order to obtain up to $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the Democrats threaten, I am reminded of the last time a President took on Congress on the budget.

These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed...

I suspect another President will also win this particular budget showdown. All in all, those words uttered by Dick Morris are quite prophetic.

The World After the NIE Report

If anyone wants to know what a brave new world the internet and 24 cable news has created they only need to look at the dynamics created by the release of the National Intelligence Estimate in regards to Iran's nuclear program. Six or eight years ago I would venture to guess that many in government wouldn't know anything about any NIE report. Now, the NIE is subject to water cooler discussion and is being used as spin material by politicians as far away as Iran.



The problem with this brave new world is that most of the people in it know just enough to be dangerous. First, as Fred Thomspon rightly points out, we should have a healthy skepticism toward this report.

The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism. Our intelligence community has often underestimated the intentions of adversaries, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea. And are all of the CIA detractors now going to take intelligence pronouncements at face value? It's awfully convenient for a lot of people: the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago: and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary

Second, if the report is right, then the reaction is almost entirely spin and in no way relates to reality. There is a great deal of irony that most of the same people that are using this report to attack Bush for some sort of perceived misleading statements also attacked Bush for lying about Iraq. The final NIE report on Iraq painted a scary picture in which the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was seeking a plethora of WMD programs. Even though that particular report concurred with the picture the President gave, that didn't stop his opponents from claiming that he lied about Iraq's WMD's. Now, most of the exact same people that ignored a previous NIE report to claim he lied are using another NIE report to claim he is now lying. They simply can't have it both ways. Either the NIE is the gospel or it isn't.



Finally, if this report is accurate, then it in fact validates Bush's entire foreign policy strategy. The NIE report says that Iran halted their nuclear program in 2003. Unless you are a believer in strange coincidences that means Iran stopped their program because they noticed their neighbor to the West was getting bombarded because of his own WMD program. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did in fact put tyrants and despots on notice and it changed their behavior. Remember, Lybia also gave up its WMD program in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

Here is another view...

What did that pressure consist of? In the fall of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency had not yet referred the civil Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. That happened in 2006, and the Security Council finally agreed on (weak) sanctions later that year. In the fall of 2003, the European Union had barely swung into action with its negotiations--which have gone nowhere in four years. The quasi-urgency displayed by both the IAEA and the EU in late 2003 was a result of fear that unless they got engaged, the United States might act unilaterally and militarily. Why such fear?

Much as the U.S. intelligence community, the IAEA, and the EU might prefer to forget it, we did overthrow Saddam Hussein in April 2003. As Rosett puts it, that "was the year in which Saddam Hussein became Exhibit A of the post-Sept.-11 era for what could happen to terror-linked tyrants who ignored America's demands that they abjure weapons of mass murder."

Did anyone notice? Muammar Qaddafi did. Libya, in late 2003, gave up its nuclear weapons program (which was, incidentally, more advanced than the IAEA believed) and invited U.S. experts in to dismantle it.

Perhaps Iran's mullahs also noticed. Perhaps they noticed, too, a large U.S.-led military force just across their border.

Why then are some using this as bludgeon against Bush? Here is how Joe Biden put it...

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) Tuesday asserted that President Bush is not leveling with the country when he says that he did not know in mid-October that U.S. intelligence services believed at that time that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated
on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.

So, when accusing the sitting President of lying about matters of national security, Biden uses nothing but supposition. Of course, he isn't alone. Most of the entire MSM has claimed this.
Criticism was coming from nearly every single quarter.

The new National Intelligence Estimate — which says Iran had a nuclear weapons development program, but halted it in 2003 — made President Bush's week play out like a sad country song. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was smiling and called the report a victory. Rush Limbaugh blasted the report as a product of administration sabotage. And Democrats were accusing the president of being a flip-flopper.

The NIE drew fire from nearly all sides, including anti-war Democrats in Congress, foreign leaders the administration needs to hold the line against Iran, and conservatives usually supportive of the administration.

The root issue for many critics comes down to credibility: Credibility of the estimate, credibility of the intelligence community that developed it and the credibility of the administration for whom those agencies work. Bridging that credibility gap might prove difficult for an administration heading into its final months.

The most absurd criticism came from those that claimed this would slow down "Bush's rush to war". First, the only rush that Bush had to go to war with Iran was in the minds of the people that claimed he had it. For the last six years the only thing Bush has done is go back to the UN for an endless stream of useless sanctions. If anything Bush hasn't been tough enough, not too tough. Second, to claim that this proves that Iran isn't the threat that Bush claims is to ignore all reality. First here is how some of those think.

To be sure, the first reaction to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is simple relief — the Bush administration is less likely to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive military strike against a nuclear program that doesn’t exist.

But then there are the second and third reactions, which are nearly as important in providing context. Matt Yglesias, for example, reminds us that in 2003, Iran reached out to the U.S. in order to strike a sweeping peace deal, which would have led the country to give up on a nuclear program that they then-realized would be too hard to develop. Bush wasn’t interested.

For anyone to treat Iran as anything short of a sociopathic regime that needs to be isolated and confronted until they understand that confrontation will only lead to their destruction is to ignore reality. Let's review some of the things Iran has done in the last couple years.

One of their proxies started a war in Lebanon with Israel. Another proxy started a war in Palestine with Israel. It is Iran that is responsible for the much of the alphabet soup of explosive devices currently killing our soldiers in Iraq . Let's not forget that the Iranians crossed into international waters, took fifteen British sailors hostage, and then paraded them on television for propaganda purposes. To claim that Iran is not a menace because some government report claims they halted their nuclear program (though interestingly not their uranium enrichment) is to ignore Iran's actions over the last few years. Iran is a menace. If this report is accurate then it proves that the only way to deal with them is with a hammer.

What is frustrating to folks like me is how the White House is again bungling the media handling of this report. Even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency you aren't hearing much response to much of this absurd criticism.

There you have the brave new world of the MSM and the NIE report. It is complicated by nature as the NIE report is really not meant for layman. That said, most people are asking all the wrong questions and coming to all the wrong conclusions. It is nothing short of absurd to have the same Joe Biden accusing Bush of misleading on Iraq, all the while ignoring the NIE report, and misleading on Iran, all the while treating this NIE report as the gospel. It is shameful that the MSM has focused solely on perceived misleading statements without even a thought that this report actually confirms Bush's policies.

Finally, and to me most importantly, it is no less shameful that the Bush admin allows all of this to happen even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

Dems and Iraq: Rock Meet Hard Place

Here is the latest "good" news out of Iraq as reported by the New York Times yesterday.

As Iraqi refugees begin to stream back to Baghdad, American military officials say the Iraqi government has yet to develop a plan to absorb the influx and prevent it from setting off a new round of sectarian violence.

The Iraqi government lacks a mechanism to settle property disputes if former residents return to Baghdad only to find their homes occupied, the officials said. Nor has the Iraqi government come forward with a detailed plan to provide aid, shelter and other essential services to the thousands of Iraqis who might return. American commanders caution that if the return is not carefully managed, there is a risk of undermining the recent security gains.

“All these guys coming back are probably going to find somebody else living in their house,” said Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, speaking at a two-day military briefing on measuring military trends for a small group of American reporters in Baghdad...

But Mike, that isn't good news... Sure it is. This is, after all, the New York Times. If all they can find in the way of bad news is the government's troubles in dealing with refugees. Well, that frankly is good news. Our goals in Iraq were to remove Saddam, install a representative government, and turn Iraq from an enemy into an ally in the GWOT. None of that has anything to do with their refugee situation. That is, with all due respect, entirely the internal problem of the Iraqi government. If the government fails in such tasks as dealing with refugees, well then, the Iraqis will quickly grow as cynical toward their elected officials as we do here. So what. That has nothing to do with any of our goals in the country. The good news is that the New York Times can't actually find any real bad news.

On the same day, we also had vocal war opponent Jack Murtha say this.

Murtha said he saw signs of progress and continuing chaos during his one day in Iraq. A hospital he visited had been hit by a mortar attack the day before, but more parts of the country are peaceful than before, and Iraqi troops in the Al Anbar province are rooting out the remnants of al-Qaida in their area, he said…

Murtha said that “surge” of troops is working, but it only underscores how poor planning from the Bush administration has hamstrung the war effort. Other examples include the slow response to protecting troops from roadside bombs and a shortage...

Despite the expected caveats, Murtha couldn't deny reality. The surge is working. Violence is down. Iraqis: Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and all others are turning against the insurgency and are working with our side. Even the Daily Kos is starting to admit reality.

As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: "Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?"

Simply put, the answer is no. The surge is not working and George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan were not right. Despite what right-wing blogs are saying, and despite what conservative observers are noting, the plunge in violence is actually the result of an Iraqi political decision made by and implemented by Iraqis—and the drop has little to do with the "surge"—an infusion of 30,000 troops (which wouldn’t fill a Major League stadium) into Baghdad, a city of six million people...

It may in fact be desperately important for the Kossacks to prove to the world that the improved situation has nothing to do with the surge, however in reality, the arguement is silly, because it is not relevant. First, Bush's legacy will be set by history. Second, in the next election Bush won't be on the ticket.

Several anti war Democrats will be though. An entire Congress that tried to stop the surge before it got started will be. Let's take them one at a time...

Hillary Clinton

I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief...“In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view end up on the downside.’’

Barack Obama

I will not support funding for a failed policy. It is long past time for the Republicans to stop filibustering a responsible removal of our troops from Iraq, and for the President to stop threatening to veto anything that is not a blank check for his failed strategy.

"Our troops must not bear the burden for the failure of Iraq's leaders to reconcile, nor should they be kept in Iraq to counter Iran.

Harry Reid

I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week...

Nancy Pelosi

No statistic can capture the pain and loss endured by the families of the fallen in Iraq, particularly the children of parents who will not be returning home. Those who have lost loved ones, and those still serving in Iraq and around the world, are in our thoughts and prayers every day as we work to bring an end to the President’s disastrous war.

"While nothing compares to the loss of life in Iraq, the financial costs of the President’s policy are enormous and growing, with $10 billion being spent each and every month of the war. The total cost for the Bush Administration’s Iraq war could rise as high as $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

"With every passing day, the President’s Iraq policy leaves the United States more isolated at a time when we must reclaim our moral leadership and rally the world to fight against terrorism. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq."

So, every Democratic leader is now on record as believing that what is happening would NOT happen. They called a policy failed before they even had time to assess it. They are now stuck between the perverbial rock and perverbial hard place. They must now convince the country that what is real isn't actually real.

That's why they are all fixated on the benchmarks which haven't been met. The Dems are reaching for anything out of Iraq that looks like bad news. It is a very difficult arguement to make though. It is hard to convince the public the surge isn't working because the central government hasn't reached agreement on some pre determined goals. Second, this is becoming more and more General Petreaus' war. Thus, in order to prove failure when there is success, they will ultimately have to show the country more credibility on this matter than General Petreaus (who they incidentally voted unanimously to install less than a year ago).

I pointed out that the Republicans are not in a great position either because they are handcuffed to a war that will likely never be popular, however their perverbial "pickle" is much easier to navigate. Here is how they are currently navigating it.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidates have a simple position on the war in Iraq: They want victory, and they want to talk about something else.

With the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), they echo President Bush, and say the United States must remain in Iraq for an unspecified period until the country is stable, and that leaving before then would be a victory for al-Qaeda.

But they usually only say that when asked. The two leading candidates in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor MittRomney, occasionally give entire speeches without even using the word "Iraq."

Unlike the Democratic candidates, who have competed over who can offer the most precise plan for withdrawing troops as president, the GOP candidates have offered limited visions about how they see Iraq's future, choosing instead to focus on howthey would enlarge the U.S. military to fight the broader war on terrorism.

The Reps want to minimize Iraq as an issue as much as possible. That maybe the appropriate strategy now, however as the war continues to get better, and especially after Petreaus' next report in March, this issue may even turn into a benefit for the Reps. All those quotes will be damning if our casualties fall into the teens or even single digits by the next election after all. For the Reps, the trick is easy. Divorce yourself from the failed strategy that Bush employed (relatively easy since it was Bush's strategy after all, and Bush isn't the first President to start with a failed war strategy, see Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Washington, etc.) Continue to back the current strategy and contrast that with the defeatist strategy that the Democrats are now married to.

News and Views from Iraq

Here is Michael Yon's latest.

One of the controversies I intended to explore on my second embed with the British is the claim that EFPs are flowing into Iraq from Iran, just miles down the road. Iran’s support for international terrorist groups is well established; and here in Iraq, Iran is believed to have intimate contacts with terrorists groups providing them with “lethal aid.” EFPs fall within that category, because they can destroy any vehicle in Iraq, including America’s and Britain’s best tanks. Warriors are fine vehicles [although they do need real air conditioners for Iraq] but an EFP can slice through the Warrior’s armor like bullets through beer cans. Webb became known for personally inflicting heavy casualties among the enemy, but today it was his Warrior about to rumble over an EFP.

Here is the latest from Michael Totten reporting on the ground from Fallujah.

Nobody was shot last night in Fallujah. No American has been shot anywhere in Fallujah since the 3rd Battalion 5th Marine Regiment rotated into the city two months ago. There have been no rocket or mortar attacks since the summer. Not a single of the 3/5 Marines has even been wounded.

“The only shots we've fired since we got here are warning shots,” said Lieutenant J.C. Davis. Another officer didn't agree. “We haven't even fired warning shots,” he said. “It's too dangerous.”

It's dangerous because anti-American sentiment still exists in the city, even though it is mostly passive right now. It isn't entirely passive, however. Someone has been taking pot shots at Americans. A few days ago somebody threw a hand grenade at Marines. Two weeks ago an insurgent was caught by Iraqi Police officers while planting an IED near the main station. He freaked out, accidentally connected the wires, and blew himself up. “That's what he gets,” Private Gauniel said...

Here is Omar's latest.

This is a great find by any standards but the timing makes it all the more significant.The significance comes not only from the quantity of bombs, cars and other resources that al-Qaeda has been denied the ability to use. It comes from the amount of frustration they have to deal with right now that all these preparations and resources are lost.

What makes me think that this will indeed frustrate them is that al-Qaeda chose to mass this great number of VBIEDs instead of deploying them to the streets one, or a few, at a time fresh from the factory. Two possibilities arise here; they either couldn't find the means and safe routes to deploy the bombs and so they had to wait for more favorable circumstances, which is good news since it means their ability to conduct missions has really been reduced to a great extent.

Bill Roggio talks about the continued hunt for AQI.

"Despite the recent loss of numerous cells across Iraq, the media wing of al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) has produced a second video product, which the al Fajr Media Center posted Tuesday night on the main Jihadi message boards," Nick Grace of Threatswatch reported. "The one minute video, called 'Destruction Of An-American Hummer Vehicle,' is the latest in the ongoing ISI media series 'Roman and Apostate Hell in al-Rafedain Land' and, according to the accompanying Web statement, shows an IED attack on a hummer in the az-Zobayer bin al-Awaam region of Diyala Province." The first video released showed the brutal execution of nine Iraqis, purportedly Shia who served in the Interior Ministry’s police commando unit in Diyala province...

Here is one from a different perspective. The L.A. Times is very upset that Bush is trying to negotiate a deal for bases in Iraq.

Despite the show at Annapolis, this week's main diplomatic initiative has concerned Iraq, not Israel. Without any fanfare, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki announced that the United States and Iraq will begin negotiating a long-term agreement that will set the terms of Washington's Iraq policy for "coming generations."President Bush is again in legacy mode.

His White House "czar" on Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, explained that the administration intends to reach a final agreement between the two countries by July 31, 2008. In describing the negotiations, he made a remarkable suggestion: Only the Iraqi parliament, not the U.S. Congress, needs to formally approve the agreement.

Finally, the DOD has this story about a successful operation in Tajj.

Coalition forces captured a wanted individual during operations in Tarmiyah while targeting a foreign terrorist facilitator and associate of senior al Qaeda leaders. They also detained two other suspects without incident. --

Coalition forces captured a wanted individual north of Samarra during operations targeting foreign terrorist facilitators and senior terrorist leader associates. The wanted individual is believed to be an al Qaeda leader in the area. --

Coalition forces detained four suspects while targeting al Qaeda members responsible for assassination-style murders in Hawija. Coalition forces also targeted their associates in Mosul, detaining three suspects without incident.

To sum up, we remain cautiously optimistic about an ever improving though incredibly complicated situation. God bless our troops, stay safe, you are our best.

My Frat, The Dems, and War Funding

It was only a couple of weeks prior to graduation and given that Champaign, Illinois is cold throughout much of the school year, many of my fraternity mates went to the roof of the house to enjoy their alcohol. Alcohol did what it does, and soon enough, some of them started jawing with the members of the fraternity across the street. This jawing continued to escalate until one member of my fraternity through a bottle across the street onto their roof. They one upped us and used a sling shot to hurl a bottle across the street. This one didn't just fall harmlessly but rather crashed through the window in the back of the roof. This turned into a full confrontation, and it was a confrontation that my fraternity eventually backed off from. We allowed our window to get broken with absolutely no response.



It was the most I was ashamed of my fraternity brothers. I won't pretend that it had anything to do with the drinking or machismo. I was ashamed because clearly members of my fraternity started a confrontation that deep down they had no intention of finishing. I said as much to all the members in my senior speech. I said that if you are going to start a confrontation you d#$n well better be ready to finish it.



The reason that I bring up this peculiar story is because I believe that most of the Democratic leadership is acting much like the "tough guys" of my fraternity vis a vis Iraq war funding.



Stories are currently all over the place about the Democrats looking to tie war funding to some sort of a troop withdrawal date. Don't believe the hype. The Democrats are no different than any of the members of my fraternity. They are starting a confrontation they have no business finishing. I know this because they backed down in this same confrontation months ago.



Back in May, after passing funding only with troop withdrawal dates which the President promptly vetoed, the Democrats relented and passed a "clean funding bill". Maybe they didn't have the stomach to handle the political fallout of cutting off funds while troops were still in the field. Maybe, they weren't really sure the war was lost. Who knows?



Either way at the time, the war was written off by almost everyone. There were three digits of American military deaths monthly. Two to three thousand Iraqi civilian deaths monthly. Anbar was still in the beginning of its renaissance, and people were tired and angry about the war. Since then, our military deaths have dropped precipitously. Civilian deaths have fallen with them. The remarkable turnaround in Anbar has been chronicled by Michael Yon , Michael Totten , and many others. It has turned cities like Ramadi and Baquobah from some of the most violent anywhere into two of the safest in Iraq. The bottom line is that the situation has seen a remarkable improvement since the last time the Democrats have tried this.



The Democrats gave themselves away with this stunt when they began pushing it months before the military actually needs funds. They are clearly playing to their lunatic niche. It won't work with them and it won't work with the rest of the public. The far left won't accept the old college try, and no one else will accept cutting off funds especially now. The Democrats have started a confrontation they have no intention of finishing and they will end this one the way my fraternity ended ours, in shame.



Their base wants nothing short of all out withdrawal. They aren't going to deliver that. If they didn't deliver when the war was hopeless, what do they expect to do now that we are doing well. (for an excellent analysis of what is currently going on check out this piece by Christopher Hitchens) The rest of the country isn't going to be impressed with these shenanigans meant only to appease the fringe that everyone else frankly hates. There aren't going to be many moderates impressed with the Dems when they see them speak with a bunch of bluster only to back down, AGAIN. Our fraternity was the laughingstock of the Greek System (the largest in the country) in the immediate aftermath of that failed confrontation, and the Dems will look no less foolish once they back down from this ridiculous confrontation that they have started and have no plans of finishing.

More Asinine Politicking from Harry Reid

The hat tip goes to the Weekly Standard for pointing this out. Harry Reid ultimately caved and went down in a stunning defeat the last time he tried to play chicken with the President. In the spring he tried to stare down the President in a battle of wills over troop funding. We all now know that he and Nancy Pelosi ultimately caved in and gave the President a clean appropriations bill with no troop withdrawal. Well, here is what he is saying now.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin
bringing troops home.

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

This is a lot of posturing because as WS explains the Pentagon has funds to last several more months. Given the events on the ground, it is highly unlikely he will have the political power to actually accomplish this.

When I was a senior, my frat brothers got into a verbal joust with the fraternity across the street from ours. The joust led to more words and ultimately people started throwing things across the street. The incident came to a head when the other fraternity used a sling shot to throw a beer bottle across the street. That beer bottle broke one of our windows. Despite a lot of bluster, we ultimately backed down and did absolutely nothing about the beer bottle thrown through our window. It was the most I was ashamed of my fraternity.

I bring up the story because just like Harry Reid we started a fight we had no plans on finishing. The people that started the verbal joust had no intentions of seeing any confrontation through if it became physical. While they had no problem talking tough, they had no intention of backing up their words ultimately with actions. The same, I believe, goes for Harry Reid.

While he is trying to play up his far left credentials with tough talk, he has, in my opinion, no intention of seeing this through. While the war continues to be unpopular, it is far more popular now then it was then. Here is one poll that tracks opinion for the last ten months. It is beyond polls though. Combat deaths have gone from over ninety in August, just over sixty in September, and just over thirty in October. Civilian deaths have gone from just under two thousand in August, to nine hundred plus in September, to seven hundred plus in October. There is no doubt that things are getting better.

If Harry Reid couldn't pull off cutting off funds when it didn't look like we could win, what makes him think he can do it now? He is acting no different than the hooligans from my frat. They started a fight they had no intention of finishing, and so is he. I lost all respect for those guys and the same for Harry Reid.

Hillary's Grown Up Foreign Policy?

I have made it one of my missions as a blogger to find as many incidents of MSM bias and expose them. The most egregious example came with this hatchet job that masqueraded as political analysis of Rudy Giuliani from a Midland, Texas paper. The Washington Post shows its bias in many ways however burying good stories about Iraq while highlighting negative ones on the front page is one of their favorites. In fact, the bias can be so overwhelming that reporters will openly admit that when combat deaths fall in Iraq they don't consider it news but when they rise that is news.

Which brings me to this puff piece entitled Foreign Policy Grown Up about Hillary Clinton's supposed acumen in foreign policy. In reality, her acumen is measured against the rest of the Democratic field. There were a couple of questions that came to mind when I read this piece. The first is who is paying this guy's salary, and the second is who is paying that person's salary.

The thesis of the piece is that unlike her rivals Clinton bucked the far left and voted for sanctions against Iran.

Begin with the Iran debate. All the Democratic presidential hopefuls know that a nuclear Iran is scary. They know that the Europeans have been patiently negotiating with Iran to secure a freeze of its program and that the Iranians have been stalling. But Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who unequivocally embraces the obvious next step: Push hard for the sanctions that might change Iran's calculations. Unlike all her opponents, Clinton supported a pro-sanctions resolution in the Senate. Ever since that vote, Obama and the rest have attacked her mercilessly.

He then goes into a long winded explanation of the extreme pacifist philosophy of the far left. He also explains how sanctions do not mean a rush to war. Now, while I am happy that the Senator voted for sanction against Iran, it is hardly something that should be commended. In fact, by design or accident, Mallanby actually exposes the amazing power and radical agenda of the far left. I would say that slapping sanctions on Iran isn't courageous but rather obvious.

Let's go over what Iran has done just in the last year or so. They are responsible for the alphabet soup of explosive devices blowing up soldiers in Iraq. They started a proxy war in Lebanon with Israel. They went into international waters grabbed fifteen british sailors and held them hostage for propaganda purposes. They started another proxy war in the Palestinian territories. Wait, oh yeah, I haven't even talked about the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Now, Mr. Mallaby thinks we should be impressed because Hillary Clinton rounded up the sense and courage to actually vote for sanctions against this country.

I am reminded of the pinnacle scene in Quiz Show. Right after Van Doren confesses to his deeds the Senators one after another praise his candor, honesty and courage. Finally, one Senator brings things back some sanity.

I'm happy that you've made the statement. But I cannot agree with most of my colleagues. See, I don't think an adult of your intellegence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth.

The same way here I don't think Hillary Clinton should be commended for doing what anyone with any intelligence can see is the sensible and obvious thing to do. Like the Senator, I am happy that she voted for the sanctions, but slapping sanctions on a country that has committed dozens of acts of war all over the Middle East just in the last year isn't corageous or "grown up" but obvious.

Mallaby then goes on to laud Clinton's position on Iraq.

Clinton's rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don't trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein's regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer "in his box," to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Alone among the Democratic candidates, Clinton has the honesty to insist that the case for war was reasonable at the time -- even if, with the benefit of hindsight, the invasion has proved disastrous. In sticking to that politically difficult position, Clinton is saying that, despite its awful risks, war can sometimes be the least bad choice. She is not running away from military power, even in a political climate that makes running attractive.

To this, I am not even sure what he is impressed with and frankly I don't care. Mallaby is a Bush hater, and he says as much.

Bush's record is disastrous, and on an emotional level, Bush hatred is understandable. But what we need in the next president is a vision of the world that's not distorted by the bitterness of recent times: a vision that accepts the limits of military force but also acknowledges that Americans face real threats, that feckless foreign powers can sometimes make the ideal of multilateralism unattainable and that war can sometimes be the least bad option.

He appears to be impressed by Clinton because despite her hate she has enough sense to slap sanctions on Iran and see sense for war at times. Frankly, the article is derelict not only in what it says, but frankly what it doesn't say. For all of the grown up talk, Mallaby doesn't seem to mention the multiple and muddled positions Hillary has on both Iraq and Iran.

In July, Clinton called Obama naive for suggesting he would negotiate with Iran with no pre conditions, but by October she was herself saying she would also negotiate with Iran with no conditions. As Rudy Giuliani rightly pointed out, Clinton refused whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against Iran, and Clinton is not clear as to whether or not war is ultimately also an option for her own administration when dealing with Iran.

On Iraq her position is even more muddled, in the beginning of the year she was strenuously in favor of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible.As we've come to the second half of the year, she has suddenly taken the position that she can't promise all forces will be out of Iraq by 2013. This continues a long and tortured evolution for Clinton on Iraq. Hillary Clinton was enthusiastically behind the effort. As the war turned for the worse, and public opinion turned for the worse, she turned against the war as well. She's even claimed that her vote for the Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq wasn't an authorization for military force but rather more diplomacy.

None of these shifting and muddle positions is ever addressed by Mallaby when he calls Clinton a grown up. In Mallaby's world, changing your position as often as the weather changes is perfectly fine and still being a grown up as long as you can muster up the good sense to vote for sanctions against Iran.

Finally, I would like to draw a metaphor. In my fantasy football league, every year all the teams that don't make the playoffs play in their own pseudo playoffs that we call the toilet bowl. Now, no one is lauded for winning the toilet bowl, we just all love fantasy football and want everyone to play as long as possible. To say that Hillary Clinton is the "grown up" among the Democrats vis a vis foreign policy is really the equivalent of congratulating the toilet bowl winner in fantasy football.

Let me end my analysis of Mallaby's piece with one word. I will clean it up since this is a family show and simply say: bolderdash.

Michael Yon: Perception Versus Reality in Iraq

A special hat tip goes to a few places: Hot Air, Weekly Standard, and the Jawa Report. It seems that Michael Yon cannot believe the disconnect between what he sees on the ground. (Yon is one of only a handful of reporters that actually reports from deep inside Iraq). He is so befuddled by the disconnect that he is offering his reports for free. Here is how he saw the differences between what he saw on the ground and how the media portrayed the events.

All describe the bizarro-world contrast between what most Americans seem to think is happening in Iraq versus what is really happening in Iraq. Knowing this disconnect exists and experiencing it directly are two separate matters. It’s like the difference between holding the remote control during the telecast of a volcanic eruption on some distant island (and then flipping the channel), versus running for survival from a wretch of molten lava that just engulfed your car.

I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.

Here is how he described the reason for the misanalysis and what he intends to do about it.

No thinking person would look at last year's weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors.

...

Several upcoming dispatches will focus on how the situation in Southern Iraq has dramatically improved over past months. Ironically, the character of this improvement is distinguished by the lack of violence, as well as the increasing order and normality as Iraqi Security Forces step up to greater responsibility for security in the region.

Yon was the first reporter on the scene in the aftermath of the bloodbath that AQI created in Anbar. He was the first one to report on the horrors of AQI like cutting off the middle and index fingers of smokers, beating and raping women that put the wrong combination of vegetables in their baskets, and worst of all inviting families to dinner and literally serving their child's head on a platter. He was the first one to report on the amazing change in Ramadi, and he was the first one on the scene in Basra. I recommend that everyone read each of his dispatches to see what is really going on in Iraq.

He wants to get the truth out and so he is willing to by pass payment from the major newspapers so that authentic on the ground reporting finds its way in the the mainstream.

Here is where the folks come in. Hot Air picks it up.

in order to pay for all this, he figures he’ll need $100,000 in donations. WaPo is reporting this morning that Petraeus is planning to shift his focus soon from Al Qaeda in Iraq to the Shiite militias — including, somewhat ominously, an initiative towards
“political accommodation” — all of which will bear most heavily on Baghdad and Basra, where Yon’s been spending most of his time lately. If you’re willing and able to help keep him going, here’s his PayPal.

He needs $100K folks. He can get it $10 at a time. As I have already shown, the situation on the ground has improved markedly, however, I have also shown that the media largely chooses to ignore or hide the good news. Now, we have a chance to get the best on the ground reporter's stories into the mainstream. Please do what you can to help get the story out.

Don't Fret Reps...2008 is Our Year

I know what everyone has heard. Our fundraising is down. The base is sour on the Reps over spending, Katrina, illegal immigration, and Iraq. Republican Representatives and Senators are retiring and quitting left and right. The generic Congressional ballot has Dems up about twelve percent. Everyone is down and they need not be. Here is why



1)Iraq...This is the main reason for Republican's being sour and Democrats being energized and I believe by this time next year it will be the exact opposite. While the media refuses to report on the progress, it is there, it is measurable, and even though the MSM refuses to report on the progress the general public notices it more and more everyday.



Here is essentially what happened. About a year ago, the Sunni Sheiks sick of the unbelievably sadistic, evil, and heavy handed manner in which AQI treated their own citizens, turned on AQI and began working with the coalition. It is now commonly referred to as the Anbar Awakening and it has worked fabulously. The city of Ramadi has been completely transformed. It has gone from one of the most violent cities not only in Iraq, but frankly in the world, to one of the safest cities in Iraq. As AQI was defeated in Anbar they tried to regroup in other places like Diyalah. This time the coalition, using their new grassroots methods, followed AQI to Diyalah. As a result, AQI is on defense, and their ability to cause death and destruction is way down. This led directly to troop and civilian deaths being down dramatically in September. They are down even more so far in October. For instance, while there were just over 60 troops killed in Iraq in September and this was down almost 30% from August, the number of troops killed from September 15-October 15 was only 30. In fact, we are on pace for about 25 troop deaths in the month of October.



Now, as AQI, the Sunni militia, was being destroyed, this lead directly to the beginning of the destruction of the Shia militias. The Shia militias used to be the only effective method of protecting the citizenry against Sunni militias. With Sunni militias neutralized, the citizens feel a lot less need for protection. Now, they see the Shia militia members for the evil humans that they are.



So, where are we? We are at the beginning of the end of all the bad guys in Iraq. As I refer to it, this is the classic divide and conquer strategy. Thus, while the Dems continue with their defeatist attitude, the reality on the ground is the exact opposite. There is still plenty of work to do however we are winning, and by this time next year victory will be at hand. Thus, once the reportage catches up, and it will, the defeatism of the Democrats will paint them as the weak on defense party that they are.



2) George Soros. Anyone who has read my work knows that this radical is trying to buy the 2008 elections for the Democrats and then wants to use that victory to change America radically. His minions like Moveon.org and Media Matters have found their way into forefront of major stories recently. As a result, the cover which Soros used to enjoy is now being removed. Soros is a radical individual. He is essentially a Socialist though he refers to his economic philosophy as wanting a "mixed economy". He is a radical seculary progressive. He would like a radical gay agenda, drug legalization, abortion on demand, euthanasia, all removal of religion from the public square, as well as aggressive tolerant education. In fact, one only needs to look at San Francisco, and its own radical social agenda, to see what America would look like if Soros ever realized his vision. On foreign policy, he believes that the war on terror has been used by the Bush administration as a guise to expand its own empire and as an excuse to start wars. In fact, he doesn't even see the GWOT as a war, and believes the proper way to deal with our enemies is to negotiate with them. He thinks that Iran and Syria should both be negotiated with unconditionally.



Whether it is economic, social, or foreign policy, it is nothing short of uncanny how similar the Democrat's agenda is to Soros'. From universal health care, the rejection of even a ban on partial birth abortion, giving homosexuals the same civil rights as blacks, women, and older folks, to the promise of unconditional negotiations with Iran, the two agendas cross all spheres of political debate. This is no accident. Moveon.org and its ideological partner Daily Kos have each accounted for millions in the coffers of Democrats. Groups like Media Matters, Americans Coming Together, and Center for American Progress (all groups in one way or another linked to Soros money) are all run or linked to Democratic heavy weights. For instance, Harold Ickes, former White House staffer in the Clinton White House, runs ACT. John Podesta, another WH staffer under Clinton, runs CAP. Hillary Clinton once bragged this about Media Matters...

putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”

Wherever you look the link between the Democrats and Soros is everywhere.


3) Hillary Clinton. She is a polarizing figure and the Dems have no idea what they are about to get themselves into when they nominate her. Clinton continues to have unbelievably high unfavorability ratings. They already approach 50% and the Democratic field has treated her with relatively kid gloves. That won't happen in the general election. Rudy Giuliani has already made a pillar of his Republican primary platform to go after Clinton. That will only be ratched up. Furthermore, Clinton is saddled with many scandals that have been glossed over by the MSM. Some are more recent like Norman Hsu. Some are older like Peter Paul. Some are brand new like the scandal involving poor immigrants from China Town. They all, especially with the plethora of scandals she has already been involved in, goes to paint a picture of a corrupt individual who will sell themselves to anyone that will help her gain power and ultimately be beholden to the same individuals if she ever gets into office. Here is what she said vis a vis special interest groups at Yearly Kos,

Because you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do.

She has a quasi socialist economic policy. In fact, she was once famously quoted as saying this,

shared responsibility for shared prosperity

and this,

on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society,"

I firmly believe that once Hillary is exposed for the Socialist that she is most Americans will reject her vision.
Finally, on foreign policy, she has no firm position. She has gone from hawkishly behind the war to dovishly for pulling out and everything in between. She has already flip flopped on Iran. She went from being against unconditional talks to being for unconditional talks in only a matter of months. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, she has no principles and will do or say whatever she thinks the public wants to hear at any given time. While this maybe an effective strategy now, it won't work as well in the general election. As evidence, I want to reference this poll (now normally I hate polls, however given the current up trend this one is quite interesting) Here it is.

A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarised image".

The survey by the Democratic pollsters Lake Research indicated that both Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, second in the Democratic race, trailed Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, in 31 swing congressional districts.

Remember, this poll is taken while all the supposed trends are up for the Dems. I believe that will be much different in six and nine months. Hillary is not built to beat Rudy among moderates. He is socially liberal. He is more experienced, more charismatic, and he stands firm on the issues. While she has her admirers, those come mostly from the liberal end of the sphere. She won't be able to fool moderates into believing she is one of them. She has a thirty year plus record of being consistently way left.


4) My favorite Reagan quote...that is

the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'

This is the response to just about any Democratic economic policy initiative. Imagine in a debate, Hillary Clinton goes through, in detail, her plan for making sure that everyone is covered through some form of Universal Health Care, and her opponent says this,

You know listening to the Senator, I can't help but remember an old quote of Ronald Reagan's that I like, 'the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'. That is what I am thinking right now. The Senator thinks every personal problem can be solved by the government and frankly I get terrified when someone thinks like that.


That would not only be the line of the debate, but frankly put everything she wants, is, and is trying to accomplish in a whole new and very negative light.


5) The only polls that count. That is the election poll. So far, there have been two elections. One was won overwhelmingly by a Republican, and in another, the Republican did much better than anyone expected. In Louisiana, Bobby Jindal not only won, but got more than fifty percent in a multi person field and thus won the election out right even though most times the first election leads to a run off in Louisiana. In Massachusetts, Jim Ogonowski lost on 51-45 to Nikki Tsongas despite Tsongas not only having name recognition but being in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.



For these five reasons, I believe that we need not fret Reps...2008 is our year.

The Situation in Iraq Continues to Improve

According to the Washington Times, the situation on the ground in Iraq continues to improve.

Extremist attacks on U.S. troops have dropped from 256 in August to 153 in September and 36 so far this month, according to the Defense Department.

Even war-torn Fallujah has improved.

"Municipal governments are starting to stand up. Fallujah now has a city council, has a mayor, has a city council chairman who are all very responsive to the needs of their constituency," Stephen Falkan, the team leader of the provincial reconstruction team in the Anbar province, said at a press conference in Fallujah this week.

This is the same Fallujah that was AQI's capitol and the site of the most gruesome display of of the war. After the brutal killing of the four contract workers, the city was the site of the most bloody battle of the insurgency between our troops and AQI. Of course, times have changed and in the more recent history, It is all part of the Anbar Awakening. Fallujah along with Ramadi used to be not only the most dangerous cities in Iraq but maybe in the world. Now, Ramadi is one of the safest cities in Iraq and so safe that many coalitions report being bored. Of course, according to the Times article, Ramadi is also on its way to joining Ramadi as a city that is the beacon of coalition success.

Civil services are also returning to Iraq. According to Amy Proctor, Iraqis now get an average of 15 hours of electricity per day. This is in comparison to only six hours of electricity a day under Saddam.

None of this news should surprise any of my readers. I have already pointed out that our counter insurgency strategy has directly lead to what I refer to as divide and counter with many of the insurgents turning on each other. The crumbling of AQI in Anbar has lead directly to the crumbling of Shia militias in Baghdad. The militias used to be the only force to protect the common citizens against AQI but with them no longer a threat, the common citizen now sees the Shia militias for the evil psychopaths that they are. In fact, the violence is down so much that most grave diggers are now looking for different employment.

All this good news is not lost on Americans. The new Harris Poll shows the favorability for the war going up in every way.

The number of those who say things are getting better for U.S. troops has increased from 13 percent in March and 20 percent in August to 25 percent now.

Negativity has lessened: Those who say things are getting worse for troops fell from 55 percent in January and 51 percent in March to 32 percent now.

With all of this good news, we will soon have to willfully suspend disbelief in order to believe the anti war's tired story that the strategy isn't working.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.

Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political
opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.

The Classic Bad News/Good News Story from Iraq

Those that know me know that I like very few things more than I like to argue. Since I majored in Finance in college and currently work in the mortgage industry, I invariably find my way toward arguements about the economy with many of liberal friends and colleagues. At this point, it is, in my mind, beyond discussion that the tax cuts served as a stimulant for the economic recovery and boon that followed. I find the tortured logic of any counter arguement to be amusing. For instance, many of my liberal friends point out the fact that the manufacturing sector has struggled since the recovery. This is of course a bogus arguement since it isn't the President's job to prop up one sector. He is there to provide stimulus to the economy as a whole and what happens from there is beyond anyone's control. Economies like everything else evolve. For instance, we don't have any blacksmith's any longer. Were there similar types screaming at the top of their lungs at the end of the eighteen hundreds that the President wasn't doing enough to protect their industry. There may have been and they would have been no less wrong.

Well, it turns out that the Iraqi economy is going through its own revolution, and as a result, one of their industries is unfortunately struggling. Of course, everyone in the industry is struggling along with it. That is the bad news. The good news is what industry it is that is struggling

At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq.

"I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead," said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. "People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don't talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more."

No doubt there are a few anti war types that will blame the surge strategy for destroying the ditch digging industry. I am of course reminded of the classic Caddy Shack line now,
well the world needs ditch diggers too

True, however, in Iraq, it needs significantly less of them. It is this sort of scientific evidence that should convince everyone that things have turned. I know that most of our MSM is ignoring it and many politicians continue to parrot the same tired line about finding a new strategy however we have found a new strategy and its working, and if you want evidence of how well its working, just look at the struggling ditch digging industry in Iraq.

Incidentally, you can count Barack Obama among those politicians that hasn't seen the light yet. I emailed him for comment about the Betray Us ad controversy and here is his response.

Thank you for contacting me to voice your opposition to the MoveOn.org advertisement referring to Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us." I appreciate hearing from you and share your distaste for such attacks on our military leaders.

General Petraeus is a distinguished, highly capable military leader doing the best that he can in an extraordinarily difficult situation. And though there are different views of the war in Congress, there is no disagreement about the tremendous sacrifice being made by the men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have performed valiantly under exceedingly challenging circumstances. They have done everything that has been asked of them.

For this reason alone, our troops deserve better than partisan squabbling over a newspaper ad. I am focused on addressing the serious challenge we face in Iraq. Today, nearly four thousand brave young Americans are dead, and tens of thousands more have been wounded as our troops have become targets of the exploding sectarian violence in Iraq. Our military has been strained to the limits, and the cost to American taxpayers has already reached hundreds of billions of dollars.

As I have said repeatedly, the Administration's decision to invade Iraq and its disastrous handling of the war have left us without good options for dealing with Iraq. With full recognition of this reality, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless in the decision to invade Iraq. In the coming months, I will continue to push for a new course in Iraq that immediately begins a safe and orderly withdrawal of our combat troops, that changes our military mission to focus on training and counter-terrorism, that puts real pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their grievances, and that focuses our military efforts on the real threats facing our country. I hope you will stay in touch in the days ahead.Thank you again for writing. Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

Well, Senator, as I have shown in these pages, we don't need a new strategy. The current counter insurgency strategy has lead to the classic war strategy of divide and conquer. Violence is down, and we only need to look at the ditch digging industry for evidence.

Events are fluid in Iraq

There is plenty of good news. First, on Saturday, less people died in Iraq than in most major U.S. cities.

The civilian death toll in Iraq fell to its lowest level in recent memory Saturday, with only four people killed or found dead nationwide, according to reports from police, morgue officials and credible witnesses.

Saturday marked the beginning of the Eid al-Fitr feast for Shiites, the three-day capstone closing out the Ramadan month of fasting. Sunnis began celebrating the holiday on Sunday.

The daily number of civilians killed, not including those on days when there were massive casualties from car bombs, had climbed above 100 at the end of last year and the beginning of 2007.

The Washington Post (no doubt begrudgingly and on Page B06) reported this...

A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.

During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say -- so far, with stunningly little success.

In fact, if you dare to look, you will find that the Shiite militias are crumbling all over much like those of Al Qaeda and its allies.

In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

The hardening Shiite feeling in Baghdad opens an opportunity for the American military, which has long struggled against the Mahdi Army, as American commanders rely increasingly on tribes and local leaders in their prosecution of the war.

The sectarian landscape has shifted, with Sunni extremists largely defeated in many Shiite neighborhoods, and the war in those places has sunk into a criminality that is often blind to sect. In interviews, 10 Shiites from four neighborhoods in eastern and western Baghdad described a pattern in which militia members, looking for new sources of income, turned on Shiites.

In fact, the news is so good that central command was bold that is has lead some Generals to consider declaring victory in Iraq.

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

While I have myself have pointed out that this is the classic Sun Tzu divide and conquer strategy at its finest, I am also reminded of the classic Reservoir Dogs line (I will clean it up for the masses)

Let's not go s%^king each other's d%&ks just yet.

Still, there is even more good news on the political front from Iraq. Shiite politicians are reaching out to Sunnis in an effort to achieve the all important reconciliation.

In a major reconciliatory gesture, a leader from Iraq's largest Shiite party paid a rare visit Sunday to the Sunni Anbar province, where he delivered a message of unity to tribal sheiks who have staged a U.S.-backed revolt against Al Qaeda militants in their region.

The visit by Ammar al-Hakim, son and heir apparent of Iraq's top Shiite politician, provided the latest evidence that key Iraqi politicians may be working toward national reconciliation independently from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, which has faced criticism for doing little to iron out differences between the country's Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis.

Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi visited Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, last month at the holy city of Najaf south of Baghdad. The visit amounted to an unprecedented Sunni Arab endorsement of al-Sistani's role as the nation's guardian.

We have definitively turned around the momentum and those that called this a failure before it had a chance to succeed will have to answer for their judgement (I am looking at you Senator Obama) in due time, however the news is not all good. On the Kurdistan/Turkey border and tensions are quite high.

Turkish warplanes bombed positions of suspected Kurdish rebels Wednesday, and the prime minister said preparations for parliamentary approval of a military mission against separatist fighters in Iraq were under way.A cross-border operation could hurt Turkey's relationship with the United States, which opposes Turkish intervention in northern Iraq, a region that has escaped the violence afflicting much of the rest of the country.U.S. officials are already preoccupied with efforts to stabilize areas of Iraq outside the predominantly Kurdish northern region.

The fragile momentum that the coalition has established is being threatened by the tension between Turkey and Kurdistan. Turkey is being threatened by Kurdish terrorist from a terrorist group called PKK. They are currently debating in Parliament whether or not to authorize troops to move across the border in what is called "hot pursuit". It is this diarist's belief that Turkey's bark is much worse than their bite and they are most likely saber rattling. If they cross the border they could turn the entire Kurdish population, including within their own border, against them. That is a situation they cannot contain and I firmly believe that unlike most of the Middle East Turkey still practices the philosophy of self preservation, and turning the entire Kurdish population against it doesn't serve that philosophy.

Still tensions are high, and the stakes are huge for the U.S. A war between Turkey and Kurdistan is of course something not in the interest of the U.S. Furthermore, the U.S. uses Turkey for supply routes and fly over, and those would also be jeopardized. Obviously, getting in the middle of two allies, Turkey and Kurdistan, is not something that would have a happy outcome no matter how you slice it.

That is why it is mind boggling that at the same time, the Democratic leadership is floating a non binding resolution that condemns an event almost a hundred years old.

To understand the situation we need to travel back to 1915-1923 when what is now Turkey was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. During that time period tends of thousands of people were dislocated and murdered, including Armenians.

Since then, of course, the Ottoman Empire is no more and Turkey is a member of NATO and a close American ally. From what I understand, many of our supplies and fuel to our troops go through Turkish ports and air space.

Enter the resolution passed out of the House Conference Committee. France passed a similar resolution last year. As a result, no French planes have flown through Turkey air space since.

According to Fox News this morning the Democrats are determined to get this non binding resolution through the House. While the Ottoman Empire no longer exists, the Turks consider themselves the descendants and they are not happy with this resolution to say the least. It cannot be stressed enough that this resolution holds absolutely no practical worth. It is non binding and thus its power is strictly ceremonial. The Turks are not happy with this resolution and they have already recalled the Ambassador to the U.S. and given the tensions currently going on on the border, this resolution only adds fuel to the perverbial fire. It is time to act again. I have called on everyone to write their Representative and tell them this resolution is down right reckless. Please go here find your Representative and let them know that this is not the time to pass meaningless resolutions that threaten our geopolitical standing. After you do that, please cut and paste what you have written so everyone can see.