Thinkin’bout Stuff

This is exactly the type of behavior that, if we are not careful, might help to bring this country back together. 

The hate on the far left and right has acted like a pair of giant polar magnets ripping us apart for more than a decade.  After 9/11, most believed the attack from without would help to heal the self-inflicted wounds from within. 

Sadly left-wing loons, led by the likes of MoveOn, picked at the freshly healed scars, diving in like a persistent staph infection to deepen the wound and leave an everlasting festering sore upon our great nation in a desperate attempt to remold the basic foundation of our society to suite their warped view of the world.

Enter Lanny Davis, not someone who typically comes to mind when I am thinking “reconciliation”.  In an opinion piece published July 21 in The Washington Times, he says:

I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.

I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that he was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off - and the U.S. safer - with him dead.

However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in, and we had Saddam surrounded - thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.

<snip>

But … then came my first moment of doubt.

I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!

And then there was that indelible image - an older woman shrouded in a carpetlike cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.

Smiling! In the middle of war! At U.S. troops standing nearby!

Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?

Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?

Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Even a great thing?

Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?

<snip>

And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the antiwar left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.

It did allow the Shi’ite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shi’ite extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and from the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.

This willingness by the Shi’ite-dominated al-Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi’ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi’ites to turn against the al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban-like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments.

<snip>

I just know I can’t get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out - how and when - is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can someday live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terrorism.

I clipped the paragraphs I found most compelling, but encourage you to read the whole article by visiting the link above.  I do not agree with some of what Mr. Davis says in this article, but I do appreciate the character he displays by admitting he was wrong… something we can all learn from.

There is no shame in making a mistake or being wrong; the shame comes from not admitting it in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Hmmm…  you mean like discussing troop withdrawal time tables with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki?  Or negotiating with France and Germany for additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan?

…directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States…

Seems pretty clear… but doubt it will be enforced in this case since it was not enforced on previous occasions as pointed out here and here and here and here .

Tried something a bit new (for me at least)… comments embedded in a video.

Some additional thoughts since it is hard to squeeze everything into that little window in the video.

Sure seems like, contrary to Obama’s insistence that he will factor in the counsel of General Petraeus, he has already made up his mind that the troops will be pulled out of Iraq. 

Obama also seems to think that, as president, he would have the power to move money that has been allocated to our efforts in Iraq to wherever he wants to move it. 

In fact, he appears to believe he can spend some of the money twice:

• Once in Afghanistan as we shift the focus to where he believes our real strategic interests lie (is it just me or do liberals only think we have strategic interests in areas that do not provide us any strategic value)
• Then again, as he points out in this video, that money would be used domestically to improve our economy

At about 1:45 of the video, although Obama has repeatedly said he will not get into hypotheticals in response to queries about his opposition to the “surge”, Obama discusses a hypothetical disagreement with General Petraeus where he essentially says that Petraeus will not have the freedom to make decisions on the utilization of funds designated to the rebuilding effort in Iraq… Obama will reserve the right to take those funds back and use them elsewhere.  I wonder if the Dem controlled Congress would even object to this power grab? Why bother even having appropriations bills.. just have one big slush fund and let Obama, with all his experience as an executive, decide how to spend our money.

Speaking of the surge… Obama can not even admit the obvious… he was wrong:

Again… searching for words, stumbling over the answer, resorting to cliches (hindsight is 20/20) … but not admitting he was wrong.  If the country had followed his advice:

• America would have essentially surrendered
• The situation in Afghanistan would be worse because our enemy would believe, rightfully so, that America will run from a bloody nose, just like in Somalia
• Our strategic foothold on the border of Iran would have vanished (and still might if Obama is elected)

Speaking of Somalia, reading some old articles, I got a sense of Deja Vu:

WSJ 2002 - President Bush the Elder sent U.S. forces into Somalia in December 1992 to aid the United Nations in relieving a massive famine. In May of 1993, four months into his term, President Clinton declared that mission accomplished and pulled out most of the U.S. force. In a speech on the South Lawn to associate himself with the effort, he extolled the decision to intervene: “If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now.” It was a “successful mission,” he said, and “proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action.”

But back in Somalia, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia’s warlords began fighting again. After a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, Mr. Clinton launched a new mission: In August 1993, he sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order.

That force asked for heavy armor–in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles–as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down; in the ensuing urban gun battle, 18 American soldiers were killed and another 73 injured.

Sounds familiar.  Obama wants to pull out of Iraq with the option to go back in if violence erupts.  (Didn’t he want to pull out before because there WAS violence in Iraq?)  But right now we have a solid presence; if we pull out and then have to rush back in, we will be at a tactical and operational disadvantage and American troops will die.  And for what?  So that Obama can keep his promise to the loons on the left?

Many are starting to think an Obama presidency is a foregone conclusion, including the candidate himself apparently:

From Politico via Yahoo - A dozen top foreign policy advisers are either traveling with Obama or doing ground work ahead of his arrival in each country. This group is supplemented by his usual contingent of almost a dozen traveling aides, including chief campaign strategist David Axelrod and communications director Robert Gibbs, and too many advance staff to count.

Even as his closest aides insist that the trip is a fact-finding and relationship building mission, Obama’s every step is being intricately managed to maximize political advantage.

From the saturated media coverage to the one-on-one meetings with heads of state, the trip already had a White House feel. The scope of the traveling staff simply adds to an aura of a president-in-waiting. On Tuesday, aides attempted to invoke White House rules and traditions by requiring reporters to withhold the names of senior advisers who brief the press. But they were reminded twice by reporters that they were not in the White House and Obama was not president.

If his lack of experience, apparent ignorance that requires him to travel with dozens of advisers so he can appear to know what he is talking about, refusal to let facts get in the way of his view of the world (eg: refusal to reverse his view of the surge, refusal to view our presence in Iraq as a strategic advantage, willingness to raise capital gains taxes in the interest of “fairness” even though he acknowledges the economy would be damaged)… if all these things are not enough to convince you this man should not be president, maybe you should consider the fact that he is (again) being selected, not elected, with the help of the far-left elements of the media… and he is believing his own press.  

Oh sure.. we’ll have an election.  But the constant drone of the media is painting the picture we are all supposed to see when we pull the lever to vote: Obama is presidential, McCain is irrelevant.  Strange when you consider the comparison of accomplishments of these two men.

This is bordering on scary. 

If Obama is elected president, he will have accomplished more in this election than in his entire post-academic life prior to today… he will have attained the highest office in America without having accomplished anything of note, without having a core set of beliefs he feels comfortable sharing with the American people, after having reneged on campaign promises before even taking office, and with the sense that he has a blank check to rule as he deems fit.. almost to the level of a dictator… and that scares the hell out of me.

Using Senator Obama’s website, thought we could take a look at some of his accomplishments that have prepared him for the presidency and at some of his plans and solutions to give us hope and change.

Direct from Obama’s website (with some thoughts as we journey down this path):

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Is that really a good idea?  Do we want to leave a handful of troops in Iraq?  One of the reasons Obama wants to pull our troops out is to get them out of harm’s way; wouldn’t this leave the remaining troops extremely vulnerable to attack?  What does he mean when he says he will keep troops in Iraq if al Qaeda builds a base in Iraq?  If we leave and they build a base, are we going right back?  What if, being the tricky terrorists they are, al Qaeda doesn’t bother to build a “base” and just takes control of a major city, do we go back in then?  How many troops is sufficient to protect our embassy and diplomats?

Assuming this is actually a good idea, to remove troops on an accelerated, non-condition based timetable, can it be done?  What do the military folks have to say on the subject (h/t to Freedom’s Lighthouse):

Hmmm.. doesn’t sound like a promise Obama will be able to keep.  Too bad he didn’t actually research the topic before reading the script in front of an audience.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obamawill engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government - to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

So we, the United States, whose congress can not agree on anything, with the help of the United Nations, who can’t agree on anything, will play a central role in forcing Iraqis to agree on everything.  Is this before or after our troops leave? If they don’t agree do we leave faster, slower or stay until they agree? How does this work? Are they not a soveriegn nation now? Are they not a fledgling democracy? Is Obama suggesting that Iraq must do his bidding?

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors - including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Ya, just what we need, Syria and Iran having input into Iraq’s reconstruction.  What does he plan to give Syria and Iran to stop them from “meddling inside Iraq”?  

Humanitarian Initiative
Obamabelieves that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis - two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obamawill form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Where does he get these numbers from? 4 million displaced/refugee Iraqi’s? What does displaced mean? They are not living where they were living 5 years ago?  On the one hand Obama complains we are spending too much on Iraq, on the other he wants to hand AT LEAST $2 billion to neighboring countries to take care of Iraqi refugees, and on the other hand (three hands? no wonder all our pockets get emptied so quickly when Dems are in office), he wants neighboring countries to have a say in Iraq’s reconstruction… does he expect the neighboring companies to chip in a few bucks?  Or will we be picking up the whole tab and give them an additional $2 billion PLUS bonus to cover the cost of all those Iraqi refugees.  Oh, and some of the money goes to ensuring Iraqis inside their own country can find safe haven… ummm.. how do we do that if all our troops are leaving?

Barack Obama’s Record
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.” In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.

Ah yes, his record… those accomplishments that prepared him to be president.  Starting with his “courage” to speak out against the war while a member of the Illinois state senate…  oooo… how very, very brave.   In a country where free speech is protected by our Constitution?  To speak out while a state senator and say he thinks the war is a bad idea?  Risky stuff.   Oh… he forgot to mention he said the surge, driven by John McCain, was a tragic mistake.  From his 1/5/07 podcast:

“I have to say that it is a chilling prospect, the notion that we would send tens of thousands of additional American young men and women to compound the tragic mistake that has already been made over the last four years.

“… In the face of this quagmire, the notion that we would put tens of thousands more young Americans in harm’s way without changing our fundamental strategy, a strategy that’s failed by almost every imaginable count , makes absolutely no sense. In escalating the war with a so-called surge of troops, the president would be overriding the express concerns of Generals on the ground, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people.”

Obama was wrong on every point then, and he is still wrong now.  But let’s assume the “record” documented on his website is a positive one…  what record? What did he do? Speak out against the war? That’s what he accomplished? Not exactly the type of experience we should be looking for to prep someone to be our next president.

The only other listing on the Iraq section of the website under the heading of “Barack Obama’s Record”:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutionalconvention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

So this is listed as both a plan AND an accomplishment.  Kinda like padding a term paper by repeating paragraphs.  Sorry, -10 points, this is not an accomplishment; it barely qualifies as a plan and, as discussed earlier, is not even a viable plan.

So there you have it, our look at Obama’s accomplishments and plans in the area of Iraq policy.  His plans are not well thought out and his accomplishments amount to saying he opposed the war when he was a state senator.  Impressive indeed.

News Flash: Obama would keep troops in Iraq… although he doesn’t realize it just yet. 

Here’s my thinking on this:

From Reuters:

Obama said during the debate with Clinton that once he withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq, if al Qaeda were to form a base there, “then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”

“I have some news,” McCain said. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base, they’d be taking a country and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

…  Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who told U.S. lawmakers Wednesday that Al Qaeda in Iraq had suffered major setbacks last year and although still “capable of mounting lethal attacks,” the group had suffered hundreds of members killed or captured.

<snip>

“I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq,” he said to cheers.

So let’s boil this down:   

1. As president, Obama would send troops into Iraq to fight al Qaeda
2. Obama concedes al Qaeda is in Iraq (although he blames Bush for their existence… which seems somewhat moot at the moment)
3. Therefore… Obama would need to keep troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda

By the way, why is it bad that we have a place to fight al Qaeda that is not on US soil? Although I do not buy into the theory that al Qaeda was not in Iraq until the war, let’s assume that is true… isn’t that a good thing that our enemy was willing come to the place where we already had our troops in place to fight… seems like it’s working out pretty well. First choice should always be to not have a war, but if we are in a war, seems like it’s better to fight it over there instead of over here… even better than fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Soccer season is over. Work is calming down a bit. I find myself Thinkin’bout Stuff again.

Interesting how little has changed since my last post. For example, I found this snippet that I never got around to completing and posting from May 2007:

Anyone else getting tired of the Democrats wasting time and money on this investigation into why federal prosecutors were fired? Besides a political witch hunt, what is the goal here? What critical national need are they filling? What major crises are they solving? Assuming Gonzales were forced to resign, how will that make life better for you and me? Who really cares why they were fired when they can be fired without a reason anyway.. just as has happened in every other administration prior to this one?

The focus of this session of Congress seems to be revenge for having lost past elections. It’s all about playing gotcha and gimmee. What have they accomplished beyond empty political statements, like sending bills to the president they know will be vetoed effectively delaying the funding of the troops so that they can make a point. Who cares about your damn point! Stop making points! We get your point! Now go do your damn job!

You want to fire someone? Fire Reid, Pelosi and all of these renegade committee chairs who believe it is the role of Congress to spend hours grilling administration officials even when the evidence clearly indicates no wrong doing; who believe that anyone who the president believes is qualified for any position in the administration is, by definition, not qualified, and that reading and passing legislation is more of a hobby to be done in whatever spare time that is available after the inquisitions have ended for the day.

You want to talk about “worst” lists… so far this Congress is on a path to be the worst in history.  Don’t agree? What have they accomplished? Any bills out there to reduce dependency of foreign oil? Anything to encourage an increase in refinery capacity? Any real legislation to secure our borders? Any action to protect the tax cuts that will expire so that the economy can continue to grow? Let’s make the question open ended… what have they accomplished?

That was May 2007…  

Well, since then, the approval rating for this Congress plunged to a tie for the all time low of 18% in August (compare that to 45% in February 2005) and currently polls in the low to mid 20’s.   Interesting side note… in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, the majority of those polled believe Congress has not accomplished anything and only 25% blame the Democrats…  they do realize the Dems control both Houses, right? (It has to be bugging Reid and Pelosi that President Bush has been polling better than the Dem controlled Congress).

So here we are, 6 months later and this Congress has still accomplished virtually nothing of note.  We are still having ridiculous hearings, arguing over whether the President has the right to fire federal prosecutors.  Congress is still crying that they aren’t being treated as the “co-equal” branch of the government that they are, simply because the President has exercised his veto authority.  And now they came this close ((  )) to blocking the confirmation of a new Attorney General who was hand picked for nomination by Senator Charles Schumer, who apparently has decided to hold his nose and vote for his own candidate for the job.

And why is there so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in the hallowed halls of Congress these days? Nominee Mukasey has refused to declare waterboarding to be a form of torture without having the opportunity to review classified documentation that will not be available to him until he is confirmed. 

Leaky Leahy and Diver Dan Kennedy are incensed since they have already declared that waterboarding is torture and is illegal.  Unfortunately for them, the lawmaking body which views them as <cough> leaders and who actually could make waterboarding illegal, have politely declined to do so,  preferring to carp about Mukasey instead of acting upon there own supposed consciences.

But the fun continues.  Senator Obama chides Senator Clinton for backing a resolution labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, presumably opening the door for President Bush to attack Iran.  Senator Clinton fires back that the resolution does not give the president the authority to attack Iran and if Senator Obama felt this was so important, wonders why he didn’t bother to show up and vote against it.  Senator Obama counters with his own resolution to tell the President he can not attack Iran without going to Congress first (which, by the way, is not true), Senator Clinton says the resolution is a waste of time because the first resolution did not give the President authority to attack, but then sends a letter (with 28 other senators… drafted by Senator Pistol Packin’ Jim Webb) to the President to let him know he doesn’t have authority to attack, but Obama does not sign the letter….  following all of this?  I’m not…

If Iran is providing terrorists with weapons to attack our troops in Iraq, and if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, and if we are in a war against Islamic terrorism….  why would we not want to have the option to…  um…  I don’t know…  attack the terrorists?

Oh.. by the way.  None of these resolutions or letters does a damn thing, they are non-binding… kind of like a letter to the editor… gets them on the record, let’s them get it off their chest, but doesn’t really change anything.    And Congress still hasn’t approved any of the annual spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, but they have time for all of this stuff.

Speaking of Senators Obama and Clinton, when last we left Senator Obama, he was considering the option of invading Pakistan.  Today we learned that, unlike the proposed resolution to our differences with Pakistan, Senator Obama would solve the minor differences we have with Iran by offering them membership in the WTO and by having direct one-on-one diplomatic negotiations with Adolf Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, we learned that Senator Clinton supports New York Governor Spitzer’s unilateral decision to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens, unless of course she opposes the idea, but if given the option, she would pretty much just ask that we not ask such hard questions…. after all, it’s not nice to pick on girls.

I sincerely hope that, should the country go insane and elect HRC president, she not pull this weak everyone-is-picking-on-me crap when dealing with the leaders of other countries, friend and foe alike… they’ll eat her (and us) alive.

What if… the United States leaves Iraq victorious instead of in retreat… 

What if… the “surge” works… 

What if… well… what if President Bush leads us to a victory in spite of those in Congress who throw up roadblocks and nonsensical distractions at every turn and seem resigned to a defeat that will lead to victory for them in the polls… 

What if you loved your country so much that you want us to win in Iraq but you love to hate George Bush so much you are ready retreat in shame to prove he is wrong? 

The irrational hatred of George Bush appears to be blinding many and making it nearly impossible to cut through the rhetoric to see the reality.  

But the facts on the ground are indisputable and will, hopefully, seep into the mainstream thinking of the American psyche so that perhaps we can move beyond the irrational doom and gloom surrounding the news about Iraq which is tainting the morale of a country, whose recovery from 9/11 is nothing short of miraculous, and allow us to feel good about our future, even if it does mean a few less votes for the liberal naysayers whose power continuance is so dependent on us feeling like all hope is lost. 

Thanks to Gina Cobb for highlighting a good op-ed in the NY Times that might just serve as a stepping stone to pulling ourselves out of a somewhat self-induced nightmare that is being fed by liberal hypnotists constantly reminding us how bad our lives are today. 

Only excerpting a small piece to pique your interest, but Gina has more or you can visit the NY Times via the link above: 

(By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK) VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. 

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. 

(snip)

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. 

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. 

(snip)

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. 

While not exactly pointing to a stroll in the park that will lead to victory without set backs, this op-ed in the NY Times, no right-wing rag, does indicate we are moving in a better direction. I know I’m rooting for us.

Even if you love hating George Bush, I hope you love your country more. 

Update: Spree over at Wake up America drives home the point… some folks have put all there chips on the US to lose and winning will cost them too much. Just like in sports, if you bet on the other team, the temptation is strong to throw the game.