From lie to shining lie

By Capt. Fogg

Many of us saw the photos of the anti-Palin rally in Alaska recently and patriots took heart at the negative reception. The Palin rally in The Villages, a planned community near Orlando, Florida yesterday was a different scene entirely. Estimates of the size of the turnout ran from 30,000 to 50,000.

The South is Palin Country, read the banner, although the area is home mainly to retired people from the North. Just as her performance with Sean Hannity suggested, she spent 23 minutes slinging wild and wicked lies about Barack Obama because, like her enthusiastically stupid supporters, she has very little to brag about in terms of knowledge, experience, education, or intelligence.

The tax-and-spend straw man, which should have been relegated by current events to some bonfire of the vanities, was aired, along with the promise that more regulation is what the Republican ticket is all about. No word yet from the Reagan grave site as to subterranean rumblings.

McCain "fought for the surge," said Palin, as if that surge and not the ethnic cleansing, slaughter, and forced exile had caused the death rate to descend from cataclysmic to simply horrible. Of course, although she claims to have been on the battlefield, she's never been to Iraq. She briefly visited Kuwait and lies about it. Perhaps we should forgive the gross ignorance because you can't see either country from Alaska.

At a decisive moment in the course of the war in Iraq, John McCain fought for the strategy, the surge, that has brought victory within sight,

said Palin, neglecting to note that it's been in sight and around the corner since 2003 and failing to explain what the hell victory might mean in terms of the long-term occupation of a devastated, depopulated country that insists we leave now.

Although Obama does openly favor responsible offshore drilling, along with investment in alternative energy, Palin continued her bleat with:

Maybe if he'd been the governor of an energy-rich state, he'd get it. Maybe if he'd been on the front lines of securing our nation's energy independence, he'd understand.

Of course, she's never been on the front lines of anything. Although she lies by insisting that Alaska, with 3.5% of domestic production provides 20%, in truth it doesn't have enough oil to make a dent in energy independence, and Texas provides more oil. Canada provides the lion's share of imports. George Bush, whose qualifications regarding oil greatly exceed hers, hasn't proven to be much of a help in the energy independence department, and both Palin and McCain are staunch and relentless foes of energy conservation and alternative energy.

Her reception confirms several things, among which are that there is no lie so transparent or so gross that the party faithful will not believe it with enthusiasm, and that there is no candidate so obviously unqualified by intelligence, knowledge, or character that she will not be supported. A new Miami Herald/St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll showed that 40 percent of voters who back McCain said Palin made them feel stronger about their choice. Meet it is, I set it down -- a woman can lie and lie and lie and be vice president.

She's the sunrise, not the sunset,

said Linda Cusumano, 57, of Orlando, quoted in today's Miami Herald.

She makes me feel there's nothing we can't do.

Indeed she's right. Linda and the other Visigoths can destroy the United States of America far better than any invading army ever could, much less a ragtag bunch of amateur suicide pilots. Linda and her ilk have, in fact, made it not worth saving. Perhaps future historians will try to fix the exact point at which the collapse became irreversible. Perhaps that moment will be this one.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Ethnic cleansing and the Surge: What really explains the improved conditions in Iraq?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In a typically excellent piece at Slate yesterday, Fred Kaplan argued that an Iraq-style "surge" just wouldn't work in Afghanistan.

What he also argued -- and he has argued it before -- is that the "surge" in Iraq hasn't been nearly as successful as its main boosters, such as McCain, would have us believe. At most, it's been successful "to a limited degree" with security improving in Baghdad and, on the whole, "[c]asualties, insurgent attacks, and roadside bombings" down.

But, even there, the "surge" has only been partly responsible for the improved conditions: "The biggest cause was the 'Sunni Awakening,' in which Sunni tribes reached out to form alliances with U.S. forces -- at the tribal leaders' initiative, before the surge began -- in order to beat back the Islamist jihadists of al-Qaida in Iraq, whom they had come to hate more than they hated the American occupiers." The U.S. essentially made a deal with the Sunnis. It is a relationship of convenience that has served both sides fairly well.

But in larger political terms -- and I do understand that improved security and fewer casualties is hugely significant -- the "surge" hasn't proven to be much of a success: "As anyone who's read Clausewitz knows, war is fought for political aims -- it is not won until those aims are achieved -- and this war's aims are not yet within sight: a stable, self-sustaining, democratic Iraq whose government is an ally in the war on terror."

**********

And yet, there may be another cause, one perhaps just as significant as, if not even more significant than, the so-called "Sunni Awakening." Reuters reports:

Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

Minority Sunni Arabs were driven out of many neighborhoods by Shi'ite militants enraged by the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006. The bombing, blamed on the Sunni militant group al Qaeda, sparked a wave of sectarian violence.

"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.

"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.

In other words, violence dropped simply because there were no longer as many people to be violent towards as there were before. This would explain the improvement in conditions generally, or at least the perception of such improvement. The "surge" didn't quell the sectarian violence because the sectarianism had already taken care of itself. Simply put, if you kill a lot of people, and a lot of people leave, there won't be as many people left to kill.

So what now? I think there is good reason to suspect that the sectarianism is merely on hold, with both sides -- all sides -- waiting for the right time to strike.

McCain and his warmongering ilk can spin the situation all they want. The truth is that their "surge" was only of limited and likely temporary success, with Iraq still as divided as ever.

Behind the walls of Baghdad

By Libby Spencer

Crooks & Liars posts a video series that takes us to the streets in Baghdad where the elite media are unable to go for fear of being shot on sight. A Guardian journalist, who is also a native Iraqi, returns to his home and finds the 'success' of the surge is not what it's cracked up to be. Watch it in full. It's under 15 minutes long in total.



Part Two: The Killing Fields.

Part Three: The Lost Generation.

Horrifying. It looks more like a living hell than peace and normalcy to me.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Surge, Italian style

By Creature

AP:

ROME - The Defense Ministry says hundreds of soldiers have been deployed in cities across Italy as part of government measures to fight street crime.

Lt. Col. Mario Busi says the deployment of soldiers — 3,000 in total — began Monday and will continue through the week.

Somewhere in America John McCain's heart is all a flutter.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

It depends on your definition of "is"

By Carl

Of all the idiotic things for the campaigns to suddenly get bogged down in, this has to rank right up there:

Senator John McCain was chiding Senator Barack Obama for “a false depiction of what actually happened” in Iraq in a television interview this week. But in giving his chronology of events in Iraq, Mr. McCain gave what critics said was his own false depiction.

OK, not so bad in its own right, but...

“I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened,” Mr. McCain told Katie Couric, noting that the Awakening movement began in Anbar Province when a Sunni sheik teamed up with Sean MacFarland, a colonel who commanded an Army brigade there.

[...] The Obama campaign was quick to note that the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006, several months before President Bush even announced the troop escalation strategy, which became known as the surge.

Seriously, anyone who has paid attention to the Bush administration realizes that it is absurd to think that the surge started after he announced it.

Think about it: On September 12, 2001, the Bushies were already planning to hit Saddam Hussein. Even during the surge, we were warned that the limit of 20,000 additional troops would be breached and it turned out to be nearly 50% higher.

Who is going to believe that Bush had not already very quietly shifted troops deployments and rushed stop-loss orders to inflate the number of troops in what was admittedly already a tenuous and crucial province in the invasion aftermath?

Too, one has to look at the "off-sheet" military, the mercenaries, who were far easier to deploy with little to no announcement. Think of it as a transfer to a branch office.

So Obama's criticism here might be better off muted. It's a silly nitpick, and sounds somewhat desperate. This is a criticism that would be better levelled at Bush, if he makes an incredulous statement like McCain did.

The bigger issue, the one both Obama and McCain seem reluctant to discuss, is whether the surge worked. There's the meat of the debate, and naturally, the basic premise of the entire invasion rests on how effective our military strategies for restoring Iraq have been.

As a military strategy, it seems pretty clear it worked, at least the way a bug bomb works: throw enough materiel quickly at the pests, and you have a lot of dead and dying bugs.

But it's not preventative, and here I think is where the surge breaks down: the political will of the Iraqi people is not focused on defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq or the other insurgent groups, but in getting the real irritant (irritant, in this sense, meaning that which incites violence) out.

Meaning us. That Maliki's government is nearly unanimous in their praise of Obama's stated withdrawal plan-- I still don't trust him to put it into play. His big financial backers have too much at stake.-- is indicative that their focus lies elsewhere.

Getting to the bottom of that is the key to "winning" this invasion.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The what-if-Obama-had-done-it game

By Creature

Steve Benen's right, as with almost everything McCain, if Barack Obama had confused the "surge/awakening" time-line and then continued to dig himself into a hole by, well, conveniently redefining the whole damn thing, the Right, along with their media lapdogs, would be calling it a campaign ending gaffe.

I know it's fun to play the what-if-Obama-had-done-it game, but with the outcome always the same -- McCain's gaffe excused, while Obama's is magnified -- it's getting kind of tiresome. McCain may want to whine media bias, but they've got his back and they will rehabilitate him at every turn.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Late signs of surge failure

By Libby Spencer

Unless you prefer to call this a sign of success.

BAGHDAD — Two insurgent bomb blasts struck at pro-American Iraqi targets in Anbar province just west of Baghdad and in the northern city of Mosul on Thursday, and the police said at least 30 people were killed and 80 wounded.

Iraqi police officials said three American marines were among the dead in the Anbar attack, which came just as the American military command was preparing to hand control of the province, once considered the hotbed of the insurgency, over to Iraqi forces.

They bought the "Anbar Awakening" with bribes of guns and money. Looks like they didn't stay bought. And this is on top of the other two attacks this week.

The bombing in Mosul, which killed 18 people and wounded 61, occurred in a busy central area of the city, and was the second large bombing in the city in the past two days. One on Tuesday evening killed two people and wounded 73.

The Pentagon claims it's the work of rogue Shia militants backed by Iran. The Iraqis on the scene say it was AQI. You know, the ones who were supposed to be vanquished. But in the end, outside of the fact that the White House is trying to use these attacks to gin up a case for bombing Iran, it doesn't matter who is doing the killing. The point is that the violence is ongoing and will rise and fall forever as long as we remain in occupation of the country. These people are being targeted for collaborating with us.

A year ago St. Pet told us the Iraqis were moments away from political reconciliation. They're still not even close. Baghdad was transformed from a thriving, ethnically mixed city into a restive metropolis of ethnically cleansed enclaves surrounded by concrete bunkers in order to 'keep the peace.' How much blood does it take before the serious pundits admit the surge success is a farce?

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

McCain: Bringing troops home from Iraq "not too important"

By Creature



Note to Johnny McWarmonger: Iraq is not Japan. Iraq is not Germany. You are a callous ass. And screaming "context" will not help you here. Enjoy your retirement.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

The Petraeus-Crocker Show: Critics in the audience for the opening

By Carol Gee

9:00 AM. Washington D.C.

It will be SRO in a couple of Senate committee rooms today. Reporters, protesters, and perhaps even some other members of Congress may want to listen in on the performances. Senator Carl Levin will be the director, and Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain will have starring roles.

Critical candidates -- "With War in Senate Spotlight, Presidential Campaigns Converge in Washington." General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will be appearing before two Senate committees today, Armed Services at 9:30 am and Foreign Relations at 2:30 am. Elizabeth Buhmiller at The New York Times has the story. All three presidential candidates will get a chance to question them both. We can assume that at least two, and perhaps all three, will come across as critical at times. To quote (NYT links):

All three senators running for president — John McCain of Arizona, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois — will have a chance to question General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad. Each of the three is determined to use the spectacle to advantage, but all face political risks as well as opportunities in the back-to-back hearings before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.

“They’re going to be walking a tightrope over the Grand Canyon,” said Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming who was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that in 2006 recommended a change of administration strategy in Iraq. “Everyone is going to be watching this like hawks.”

Over all, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, both Democrats, are likely to criticize the costs of the war and a lack of political progress. Mr. McCain, an early supporter of the troop escalation who has acknowledged that his political fortunes are directly tied to American success in Iraq, will say that the “surge” is working, and is likely to add that the Democrats are ignoring the gains.

. . . “Petraeus is a master of his craft,” Mr. Simpson said. “He’s not only a brilliant military man but a damned fine politician. So here we go.”

Republican skepticism -- "Congress To Hear Of Gains In Iraq" via Memeorandum, Karen De Young has the story at The Washington Post. Even some Republicans are skeptical. To quote:

"I think all of us realize we're disappointed at where we are," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said at a hearing last week. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) asked, "How do we get out of this mess?" While the cost in U.S. lives and money increases, said another senior GOP senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity: "We cannot . . . just say we're coasting through and waiting for the next president."

. . . Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the panel's ranking Republican, who projected that Iraqi oil income would reach $56.4 billion this year, asked the Government Accountability Office last month to investigate how much money the Iraqi government has.

. . . Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), a leading backer of President Bush's strategy and the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, one of four panels for which Petraeus and Crocker will testify over two days, said "I want to see the specifics" of Iraqi military performance."

. . . "The debate over how much progress we have made in the last year may be less illuminating than determining whether the administration is finally defining a clear political-military strategy," said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

. . . Warner said he wants to ask Petraeus for a better answer to the question the senator posed in September: Is the administration's strategy in Iraq "making America safer"? Petraeus, Warner recalled, replied "I don't know."

This time, Warner said, he wants "a full and complete answer which will justify the sacrifice and courage that our troops have shown since his last appearance."

Update after the hearing -- Senator McCain made what I thought was a good but predictable "campaign" speech, not doing much questioning during his Ranking Member time of 6 minutes. Again forgetting that Shia are the ones who live in Iran, but quickly catching his own mistake, McCain aimed for a lofty tone, while making it clear that he could have done better than Bush.

Senator Clinton did a bit better at disguising her round of questions as a political speech. Using the correct military jargon, she was measured and serious in her tone, leaving no doubt of her "we need to withdraw from Irag" position. Her questions were sharp and reinforced her view that Congress should be in on any treaties, referring to the agreement currently beginning to be in negotiation between the Iraqis and the administration. Senator Obama has his turn with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon.

Also Of Note --

• George Bush has 286 days left in office, according to my countdown clock in the column to the column to the right. $509,500,000,000+ has been spent on the war in Iraq.



(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

"A bomb on the road of reconciliation"

By Creature

WaPo: Iraq's New Law on Ex-Baathists Could Bring Another Purge

"This is a bomb on the road of reconciliation," said Kareem, a former director general in the ministry. "This law does not bring anything new. This does not serve national reconciliation that all Iraqis are hoping for. On the contrary, it envisions hostility, hatred, discrimination and sectarian strife."

Since the announcement of the new re-Baathification law the Bush administration and all those heavily invested in the fairy tale of the surge's success have been touting its passage as a sign that political reconciliation is indeed moving forward in Iraq and that this political progress is further evidence for perpetual war. As the WaPo reports today, the truth is considerably less hopeful, to say the least. Either way, I'm sure the surge cheerleaders will soon rein in their happy talk and correct the record. Well, soon as in never and correct as in ignore. Mission accomplished.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Six months to eternity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We knew this was coming. The surge has not worked (or only worked in a temporary and limited way), contrary to the claims of the warmongers, but Petraeus wants more time -- in fact, he wants six more months, just like it was all about six months last year. It's all part of what I've called "the surge deception," with Bush and Petraeus and the rest of the warmongers changing the rules of the game while the game is already underway, which is to say, altering the timelines, redefining the definition of success, and reestablishing the very purpose of the surge. Remember when the goal was political reconciliation and the long-term stability of the government in Baghdad? Remember when last September was the key date, before it wasn't anymore?

And now they want more time?

Basically, I'm with Hullabaloo's dday on this:

As Andrew Bacevich said the other day, this was actually the real goal of the surge -- to keep our troops stuck in Iraq for as long as possible, so the occupation could be passed off to the next President. The idea was to create enough security success in the short-term by flooding the zone with troops to offer a propaganda victory, to allow the neocon wags to sputter "We're winning!" and forestall the inevitable drawdown. Now, death tolls are actually rising again, and the Shiite militia cease-fire could be ending. But Iraq has moved off the front page, and the endless shouts of victory from the right have dampened any effect of this new data. And the warhawks are essentially running interference for those like Bush and Petraeus who are simply trying to prolong matters.

The truth about Iraq needs to be told -- and needs to return to the front pages. If not, and if Iraq is not the major issue this year we though it would be (and it may not be, what with the recession and all), the warmongers' strategy of washing their hands of their self-made disaster may prove far more successful than their surge.

The surge has not worked

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This according to WaPo's Thomas Ricks, who knows a thing or two about Iraq:

I think Iraqis recognize that large parts of Baghdad are more peaceful than they were, but violence is basically back to 2005 levels. And that was no picnic, 2005. It's just 2006 was pure hell.

Think Progress has the video of Ricks on Olbermann. Make sure to watch it.

**********

While in England recently I had the opportunity to talk at length to a former British special forces soldier who now works for a private security firm operating in Iraq. He made basically the same point. The surge has worked insofar as the violence is down in some parts of the country. The problem is that the surge will soon end -- the current troop levels cannot be sustained -- and that it is simply being waited out by many of those who wish to commit acts of violence. In other words, there is a certain calm before the storm right now -- although the calm is relative. This contractor told me that the situation in Iraq is much worse than is being reported. Some positive developments are going unreported (or underreported), too, but, for the most part, it is simply chaos and anarchy, and genocide. Iraq is still, it seems, pure hell -- and it will only get worse.

Military voices

By Carol Gee

Despite a looming New Hampshire presidential primary, there are other things going on in the world that are newsworthy. We are still losing soldiers in Iraq.

-- This photo was taken for the Army by Spc. Christa Martin in 2006. The subject of it is the training Iraqi soldiers, which was the specialty of Army blogger Andy Olmsted, who lost his life on January 3, the day of the Iowa caucuses. He was the first casualty in 2008.

"Rocky Mountain Blogger Major Andrew Olmsted Killed in Iraq" (from the Rocky Mountain News) was included at the Memeorandum website this morning. The story was rich and well-written and included a wonderful photo of Major Olmsted. His final post was put up for him at the Major's request after his death by "hilzoy" of Obsidian Wings. Please take the time to read this amazing and heart-rending post. To quote Hilzoy,

Andy was a wonderful person: decent, honorable, generous, principled, courageous, sweet, and very funny. The world has a horrible hole in it that nothing can fill. I'm glad Andy -- generous as always -- wrote something for me to publish now, since I have no words at all. Beyond: Andy, I will miss you.

UPDATE: Somehow, I thought that given Andy's wish that his death not be politicized, people would refrain from political rants. Most of you have, for which I thank you. Anyone who does not respect his wishes, in this thread, will have his or her comment deleted.

The Department of Defense announced the death of Major Olmsted and his companion, Cpt. Thomas J. Casey, 32, of Albuquerque, N.M. in a news release here. Casey's Albuquerque story is in that town's ABQJournal. Casey's wife and children had lived mostly in Reno, Nevada.

The DoD website also features a Bloggers' Roundtable. "Chap" at Milblogs posted today about these two military men at the Mudville Gazette.

"Worth returning to from time to time," is how "lapopessa" titled her February post of last year, which I kept up in my Bloglines feed. Thanks to her for this link that is now so very timely: Fight to Survive -- (most recent post by Jeff Englehart on 12/27/07) The site's Intro explains who they are:

The E-4 Mafia was a group of soldiers deployed in Iraq between January of 2004 and March of 2005. The posts from this period are an expression of our raw emotions and thoughts while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom II. Since being honorably discharged in the summer of 2005, we've continued to post additional journal entries, poetry, and reflections from our time served and our current lives as veterans as we continue our Fight to Survive.

This post is not about politics today, out of my deep respect for the wishes of fellow blogger, Andy Olmsted. It is intended to be about true patriotism, about genuine perspective, and about admiration for beautiful writing. We are poorer for the loss of these two good men. Take some time to read read and explore their stories; I cannot think of a better way to honor and support our military men and women at the beginning of this new year.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Yes, Virginia, there is, sadly, a William Kristol ...

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh, boy ... Like you couldn't see this one coming down the turnpike, pedal-to-the-metal and the high beams on ...

Christ, even a young toddler, that still believes in Santa Clause, knew, instinctively, this would be coming.

Gen. David Petraeus, Man of the Year; Time magazine got it wrong

Little Billy Kristol is all plump-in-the-crotch with this one.

"We are now winning the war. To say this was not inevitable is an understatement ..."

"Petraeus pulled it off. The war is not over, of course. Too quick and deep a drawdown--which some in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the Bush administration are, appallingly, pushing for--could throw away the amazing success that has been achieved. Still: It is as clear as anything can be in this world, where we judge through a glass darkly, that General David H. Petraeus is, in fact, America's man of the year.

What, exactly, has Petraeus, or us, won?

There's a lull in the action and OMG!, the surge worked.

Pardon me, if we wait and let all the sand fall through the hourglass.

There's still a pretty huge shoe - and we're talking gargantuan-sized clown shoes here - that will "inevitably" drop, namely, what happens to all those former insurgents that Petraeus armed - intentionally (and the ones he armed unintentionally) - when they decide to switch back to be regular old insurgents again?

Or they don't like a certain Iraqi politician? Or they don't like what's being served for lunch at the local deli?

Sounds like Little Billy Kristol is pushing for a Mission Accomplished II (which I suppose we get both Bush and Cheney in flightsuits) and a Wall Street-Ticker-Tape parade for the Golden Boy General.

I'm sure this will be a heavily-buzzed topic of conversation on the next Weekly Standard cruise (the Ad hanging over Little Billy's love note) and, who knows, maybe the victorious General will be on-board as well.

Can't you just see The General pulling some aging neocon out of the audience, one poured into the tuxedo bought thirty-years ago, to give some razzle-dazzle demonstration of "the surge"?

The neocons, freakshow and dittoheads on board will eat it up like happy soup. There'll be shouts from the crowd for Petraeus to run for the Senate, run for President. Surely, if he can "win Iraq", he can easily knock some sense into Washington.

Quickly, the crowd will begin foaming, delirious that are in the same room with the Golden Boy General, and it won't be long before the catcalls come for a "surge into Iran".

And Little Billy Kristol crashes through the swinging doors, all dolled up in his little cheerleading uniform and ... Well, let's not go there ... It would take us into a Russ Meyer-Meets-Tim Burton-Meets-David Lynch-Meets-John Waters-thing and that is too sick and twisted to conjure up, even for a satire piece ...

Suffice it to say Little Billy Kristol will have boatloads of more columns calling for war and destruction.

It is, he will argue, the American way.

Cleaning Up Little Billy Kristol Droppings

Think Progress: Time drops Kristol, Krauthammer

Juan Cole: A surge of phony spin on Iraq - Bush's backers are peddling a sunny view of the president's strategy -- despite Iraq's political chaos and soaring death counts

The PetraeusReportpalooza ... Ready For Your Close-Up, General?

Of Legacy Maintenance - And Corrections! ... David Corn's "REBUTTAL - Why Bush Is A Loser"

Where's Ernest Borgnine when you need him?
















(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)