Clinton Supporters: "McCain Will Win"

Harriet Christian, from New York City, an obviously frustrated supporter of both Hillary Clinton, and of the effort to count all votes of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, was reportedly tossed out of Saturday's meeting of the Democrat Rules Committee in Washington (H.T. DrudgeReport, 06/02), and she stopped to express her strong views as she left the meeting room. Her expressed views also included a comment that the Democratic Party has passed over the nomination of Hillary Clinton, "for an inadequate black man."

At the end of the video, she predicts a McCain win in the fall. You can also hear her obviously embarrassed son in the background telling someone that, "My mother gets a little exorcised." Here's betting he gets a little piece of her mind when she views this video on YouTube!



Yesterday, in one of several updates to a prior post, we also posted a link to a video (H.T. Powerline, here) of a female protester from California, also a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, and, as well, of the need to count 100% of the vote.

She said her support was for the "rights of the Democratic Party," but she did not refer in any way to race. But she opposes the nomination of Barack Obama. Her strong view that the 2.35 million votes should count 100%, is what she said distinguishes Democrats from Republicans, that "democrats are obsessed with everyone's vote counting," She also said that, though Obama looked good at first, that the controversial personalities surrounding Obama -- Reverend Wright, William Ayres "the bomber," and Rezko, the embezzler -- amounted to what she termed "food for the Republicans," that would ensure a Republican victory in the fall. And, she said she would vote for McCain as well, if Hillary did not get the nomination.

As you can see, she was outside during a demonstration on behalf of Clinton's challenge to the ruling earlier this year, that had stripped both Michigan and Florida from seating the delegates selected in their primaries. Note that she says she travelled all the way to Washington from her home on the West Coast, just for the protest. The outside protest was later interrupted by a downpour.

Here is the clip of this voter again, this time embedded in the post.



Also posted on YouTube by firedoglake is a clip of a third protester, Deborah Foster, a phys-ed school teacher from Long Island, New York, who shows bruises on her arm she said she received when she was forceably removed from the meeting for chanting "Denver, Denver!" Unlike the others, her frustration was almost exclusively reserved for the "party bosses." As she put it, "Those idiot bosses in there have given me two winners in forty years!" And then, jabbing her finger in the air for emphasis, but with a little smile on her face, "The party elite sucks!" Obviously, she believes that Obama is far less likely to win in the fall.



How typical are these voters? How strong are their views? For example, how much of their views are driven by their adherence to the principle underscoring the protest -- that every vote should count? And how much is driven by loyalty their to Hillary Clinton, who they support for the nomination?

Are we witnessing a phenomenon that will resonate to the benefit of Senator McCain in the fall general election?

As we post this, Hillary is announcing that her post-primary speech will be delivered tomorrow evening in New York, rather than in South Dakota, perhaps laying the groundwork for ending her quest for the nomination.

Will she make a strong effort to bring these voters back to the Democrat fold?

Will The Democrat Rules Committee Issue A Pardon?

Updates (5), all below:

Increasingly, the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee seem to be really feeling the heat. They will be meeting this Saturday to decide the "fate" of the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democrat Convention in Denver.

The 38-page "legal opinion" by Committee lawyers, cited in this AP article by Nedra Pinkler, says that all they can do is seat half of the delegations from Michigan and Florida. That won't likely sell. From the article:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

But is there a rule, or some sort of a precedent whereby they have "pardon" authority? Or, will this contentious continue to be a huge thorn in the side of the Democrat Party as they show up for their convention in Denver -- a matter that would then have to be directly addressed in a floor fight?

And, what if that floor vote is close, giving Hillary a basis for claiming that it would have been resolved in her favor, if the entire delegations had been seated?

Maybe it would not be quite as bad if this did not involve Florida!

Florida, for crying out loud! Of all places for Democrats to be charged with nullifying election results!

Think about what kinds of comments, and signs and very active street theater will become very public this coming Saturday (a veritable YouTube bonanza, one would think). And you have to believe that it will all, thereafter, be laid directly at the doorstep of Barack Obama, no?

Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention.

DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday.

This year seems a little like 1968, but potentially could become worse in terms of public relations. Shrill charges of racism and sexism already fill the airwaves, and could be accentuated as the public pays more attention at the time of the convention.

Almost none of the street protesters in Chicago back in 1968 were actual insiders, or party activists. (I couldn't find what was to me at the time the most graphic image of the street protests -- that of the Chicago Police shoving a crowd up against a plate glass window of the Hilton Hotel, causing the glass to shatter with the shards of glass falling down directly into the crowd.)

But spurned delegations this year could easily organize, and focus their case in a very public way.

Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.

In 1968, there were a few credentials confrontations inside the hall, including an incident with Dan Rather being shoved around in the hall.

By the way, you can bet the farm that there will be outside agitators present at both conventions this year as well!

Secondly, think about some of the graphic the images of that 1968 convention, and the even greater impact that the constant replaying of YouTube clips might have had then?

Makes you wonder . . . what were the Democrat Party officials thinking when they decided -- upon penalty of complete exclusion of a delegation from the national convention -- that state parties are prohibited, before a certain date, from deciding when they may hold their own primaries?

Update: Yesterday, Roger Simon recognized the extraordinary importance of the topic -- and of the meeting in his, "Democrats Seek To Avoid Meltdown" posted on Politico. Here are the seemingly intractable issues he saw that the members of the Rules & Bylaws Committee were trying to resolve:

But finding a solution will not be easy, and one reason is that there are so many competing agendas.

First, both Michigan and Florida have mounted furious public campaigns to get their punishment lifted, saying the party really has no choice if the Democratic nominee wants to win those states in November.

Second, there is the Clinton campaign, which sees the rules committee meeting as its last, best hope to gain significant ground on Obama.

Third, there is the Obama campaign, which does not want to see the gains it has made in primaries and caucuses overturned by a committee vote.

Then, and most overlooked, is the agenda of the committee itself. It is a rules committee, its members believe in rules and that rules must be enforced, even as political realities are addressed.

There is a further complication: Not only does the rules committee have to decide what percentage of the Florida and Michigan delegations to seat (the options run from zero to 100 percent) but what percentage Clinton gets and what percentage Obama gets. Clinton “won” both states, but the contests were controversial: She was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan, and everybody agreed not to campaign in Florida.

Stay tuned!

Update II: The Washington Times reports today in "'Chaos' threatens DNC delegate solution" that the Obama campaign is now openly accusing the Clinton Campaign of trying to create a chaotic atmosphere over Saturday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington, with Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe calling it an attempt by the Clinton forces to "create chaos."

Supporter and former Bill Clinton activist, David Wilhelm, said the risk was the creation of a "circus" atmosphere.

In what appeared to be a veiled threat, Plouffe also suggested that the Obama campaign could quickly retaliate by generating "tens of thousands" of counter-demonstrators. That sounds like an unhelpful bluff if, as they say, the avoidance of a circus atmosphere is their goal. But, maybe down deep that is what they all want -- a way to let off steam at one another.

Is that the "Entrance of the Gladiators!" we can hear? Or, for those who might prefer a French version of some clown music.

From the Washington Times story:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said his boss is being charitable by compromising for some seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations even though those states broke party rules by holding their primaries too early.

"We don't think it's a helpful dynamic to create chaos," Mr. Plouffe told reporters in advance of Saturday's daylong hearing to resolve the disputed contests.

He characterized the planned protests as "a scene" and "a spectacle" while Obama supporter David Wilhelm, who ran Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, said the protesters risk turning "this thing into a circus."

Mr. Plouffe argued that the campaign has considerable support in the Mid-Atlantic region - Mr. Obama swept the Feb. 12 primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia - and said with the simple "click of a mouse" the campaign could generate "tens of thousands of people" to rally for the Obama cause.

Perhaps in a show of unity they could get together afterward and sing us the refrain from the old circus song!

We are Clowns Now

We are all clowns today
We are all clowns today
Hey Ho the derry O!
We are all clowns today

Update 3: Now, who would have guessed, at least according to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, that Lanny Davis would volunteer to take the lead . . . and lose his cool?

UPDATE 4: More here from Dan Balz at the WaPo. The Clinton campaign was incensed by the way the Committee determined the Michigan delegate votes were to be split, with Hillary getting 34.5 and Obama getting 29.5.

"This motion will hijack -- hijack -- remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton," said Harold Ickes, who oversees delegate operations for the Clinton campaign and is also a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. "This body of 30 individuals has decided that they're going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters."

Arguing that the Michigan compromise "is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," Ickes warned that Clinton had authorized him to note that she will "reserve her rights to take it to the credentials committee" later. Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later affirmed that Clinton will reserve her right to challenge the outcome.

The New York Times, per Katharine Q. Seeyle and Jeff Zeleny, reports today that the net gain in committed convention delegates for Clinton was 24, leaving the difference between the two at "about 176 delegates." The story details much of the divisive back and forth among attendees in responding to committee actions or proposals. The following occurred when an Obama member proposed splitting the Michigan delegates evenly between the two:

At that point, Tina Flournoy, a Clinton adviser and member of the rules committee, said Mr. Obama’s proposal essentially called for overriding the will of the voters.

"What is being proposed here is that you go into a voting booth and at some point later down the road, someone decides that your vote is for someone else," she said. "If we’re going to do that, let’s cancel 2012, and let’s divide all the delegates in all the states."

Party unity? Read the whole account.

Update 5: John Hinderaker at Powerline posted a piece on the demonstrations late yesteday entitled, "Recreate '68" noting the potential for similarities. In particular, watch the embeded video which gives a good taste of the strong feelings of many of Hillary Clinton's supporters demonstrating outside the Rules Committee hearing. You can also find the clip here on YouTube. Note who this woman from California says she'll vote for if Hillary is not the nominee. (Hint: It's not Obama.) Those strong feelings can only have been amplified by her victory in Puerto Rico, announced earlier this afternoon.

"I Will Stand Where I Stand . . ."
-- Senator John McCain, Senate floor speech, all-night debate, July 18, 2007

(Update: 03/02/08)
Campaigning down in Tyler, Texas early today (02/27/08), Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, delivered a direct ripost to a comment made by Democrat hopeful, Senator Barack Obama during the final Democrat presidential debate last night. Senator Obama said, in response to a question, that if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq and established a base after he, as President withdrew the troops, then he would send military troops back to Iraq.

But as John carefully and pointedly explained today, al-Qaeda is already in Iraq. "It's called al-Qaeda in Iraq!" he said. And he further noted that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) does not want a base; they want to take the country. McCain said, "I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."

Here is the video*:


Base-tm
Uploaded by luvnews


The words in the title quote (above) of our post today, were taken from a early morning speech delivered by McCain during the debate over a Democrat proposal to force the Administration into a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, way back on July 18, 2007.

It was, in my opinion, one of the great speeches in American history, coming as it did at a pivotal moment in our nation's contentious internal debate and, at that moment, institutional confrontation over the future of our commitment to the struggle in Iraq. Yet, his stirring remarks went utterly unreported by any in our national media, save for a few bloggers who picked up the significance of his speech and shared them.

Most notably, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters quickly turned around a transcription of McCain's remarks, which the Senator actually finished delivering at about 4:10 am, and Ed astonishingly was able to have them posted them on his blog, along with commentary, by 10:46 a.m. that morning!

Ed properly entitled that post, employing John's own words, ones embodying his determination that whatever the ultimate verdict of history, or the shorter term judgment of the people, that "I will stand where I stand." Ed introduced the Senator's remarks thusly:

Harry Reid wanted a debate, and he got one, especially from John McCain, during last night's stunt -- which Reid himself mostly skipped. It didn't change a single vote, and more importantly, Reid didn't get what he wanted -- a Republican refusal to engage. Instead, Republicans made it clear that they had no intention of allowing Congress to usurp the role of the executive, and McCain made it clear why. Here's his entire statement from the debate early this morning:

. . . .

The AP reported on the debate back then in a story that began:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules."
. . . .

Had the Democrats succeeded in forcing a withdraw back then, our nation would now be humiliated and retreating, having opted to abandon an ally whose people we freed, and having, in our cravenness, emboldened al-Qaeda to become a major force, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East, freely recruiting future terrorists. And, we would have also clearly signaled our other allies, both there in the region, and throughout the world that we can no longer be relied upon.

One wonders how long would it have been before al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists would have been back on our shores, and at our throats? But because of the surge, which the Democrats opposed -- AQI is quickly becoming a discredited and defeated force, with recruitment down, prospects dimmed and increasingly, a Sunni populace that has rejected their approach.

During that all night debate, at a little after 4 am, John McCain, his campaign for the Presidency on the brink of collapse, nevertheless stood and delivered one of the great speeches in all of American history. Yet no one but a few bloggers such as Ed Morrissey reported his stirring words at that moment.

Senator McCain concluded his speech as follows:

"I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril."

"I will stand where I stand . . ." should, and one can only hope will likely become words embodying courage and steadfastness of purpose at a moment of real peril. That, it seems to me, is the very mark of good leadership. Please, go to the post and read the Senator's full remarks.

Finally, as we noted in a comment on that post at Captains Quarters, McCain's remarks were immediately followed by those of Hillary Clinton. Imagine, if you will, being in her position that day. She no doubt figured that, as the putative Democrat candidate, she had been given the advantage of the final word, by being scheduled to speak after him. But as she listened to his remarks, surely it had to cross her mind that something quite extraordinary had just been said. I wonder if, for even one brief second, a thought crossed her mind that she was indeed on the wrong side of history. We'll never know; she would likely never admit to it. And, neither will many likely know or care what she had to say that early morning. The moment had passed her by.


Thank you President Bush and John McCain, and General Petraeus, and thank you to all those brave troops who have put their lives on the line for our nation, and so effectively taken on an implacable enemy of this nation. We must not abandon them.


*A news report, from Brietbart, embedding the video of the Senators remarks today can be found located here. Reader comments are also linked to that post. (No comments were permitted with the original Dailymotion video, posted above.)

** The McCain campaign website indicates that he began speaking at about 3:45 a.m., which may only be slightly inconsistent with the AP report published the 18th that indicated he finished at 4:10 a.m -- it was not a 25 minute speech.

The CNN/YouTube Debate Update

As has been duly noted elsewhere, here is a CNN story, "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" dated just this past Monday (11/26), in which CNN Vice President, David Bohrman made it quite clear that the specific intention of the hosts of Wednesday night's debate was for Republican questioners to ask the Republican candidates questions.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. "We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions.

Both claims were utterly and completely untrue.

We now know that a significant number of the few selected questioners, from as many as 5,000 YouTube video submissions, were submitted by out-and-out Democrat plants, and even one aired question was by a former CAIR intern, all with no other purpose than to hurl ambush questions at the candidates, and that a minimum amount of research on the part of the CNN producers and researchers would have quickly revealed those connections to them.

At Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds correctly calls it "a failure of professionalism," noting, as others have, that YouTube is, after all, owned by Google!

So, what happened, Dave? Who in production and/or research dropped the ball? Who, if anyone, was uhhhh . . . Googling?

Over the years, we have seen CNN in various outrageous iterations, including having experienced the disgusting accusation by the former President of CNN news, Eason Jordan (in Davos) -- who ultimately had to resign -- over falsely accusing the U.S. military of intentionally killing reporters in Iraq out of anger! Now CNN has attempted to skew the nomination process on both sides, within two weeks.

Are they trying to outdo Dan Rather?

The CNN story on Monday ended as follows:

CNN's political unit is keeping the questions a secret, but those selecting them say viewers should be prepared for presentations that are funny, questions that are poignant and a format that is unprecedented for the GOP.

Yep.

Hey, maybe what they really meant to say was "funny" questions, and unprecedented presentations.

(Our original post, here.)

CNN - Another Media Misdemeanor

Let's see -- last week CNN hosted a Presidential debate for the Democrat candidates, and the "public participation portion" was infested with Democrat activists asking the questions of the candidates.

This week, CNN, along with YouTube, hosted a Presidential debate, this one for the Republican candidates, and the "public participation portion" (the entire debate) with YouTube video questions, was infested with Democrat activists asking the questions of the candidates.

Hmmmmm . . . maybe there is something to that Harvard media bias study that concluded, among other findings, that CNN is the most openly hostile to Republicans.

A video question on gays in the military was asked by a retired military officer, Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, whose solid connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign was popped last night before midnight by Kenneth P. Vogel on Politico. The former General initially lied to Vogel about his connection to the Clinton Campaign, as did the Clinton campaign.

From Politico's report:

. . .
Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign, and CNN
verified before the debate that he had not contributed money to any candidate,
the broadcaster said in a blog post after the debate.

Kerr told CNN he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself, CNN said.

On Thursday, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the retired general "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."

A Nov. 11 press release retrieved from the website of the nonpartisan magazine Campaigns & Elections lists Kerr as one of nearly 50 co-chairs of "Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary."

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an e-mail asking about Kerr’s role
in her campaign or whether he was acting on behalf of the campaign.
. . . .

And today Michelle Malkin has the complete wrap-up on who the various plant questioners were in last night's CNN - YouTube "debate" free-for-all format.

Given the fact that, to some extent, the CNN Cable network had their reputation on the line in terms of allowing plants to misrepresent themselves on their debate programming after the latest Democrat debate they hosted, you would think the producers would have done a little better job of screening those asking the questions.

Nope.

This time, it is clear they did exactly what they intended to do -- give free air time to misleading, and in the case of the former general, lying questioners -- ersatz Republicans -- each of whose sole purpose was to try to embarrass those in the field of Republican candidates, by hitting them with "gotcha" questions. But don't completely fault the questioners for trying -- hey, they're partisans!

Blame CNN for failing miserably to handle it with any sense of fairness at all.

This is an old story with CNN. The pattern probably began a long time ago, with an earlier "innovative" election participation technology that was popular at the time -- the "call-in" show.

In the 1992 Presidential race, CNN's Larry King brazenly allowed known Clinton political operative and Communications Director, George Stephanopolus, to be one of several "just folks" call in questioners on his show, Larry King Live. Stephanoplous then proceeded to harangue the sitting President with a totally misleading and accusatory question about Iran Contra.

Though the senior Bush immediately objected on air to King on the grounds that it was an obvious ambush question by a plant from the other side, King insisted that Stephanopolus had a right like anyone else to "call in," and he allowed the call. The damage was done.

Of course, no doubt the call came from the Clinton "war room" -- the one which Stephanopolus himself set up -- where they had the distinct advantage of using a bank of telephones to be sure at least one call got through. Or, perhaps more likely, the Clinton team simply coordinated with Larry King, a known Democrat partisan, to set up the call in advance.

Either way, however, CNN openly participated in the ambush at some level. And, in that instance they arguably succeeded in helping skew the election process.

Participants in the new media, however, are time after time exposing the partisan nature of the old. The problem has been, and continues to be that the old media partisans still have the advantage of getting in the sucker punch. And they don't do such a hot job of covering one others' media misdemeanors. They tend to ignore or lightly gloss over the stories.

Only Fox News Channel covered it as an actual news story, although CNN contributor, Bill Bennett interjected the exposure of Clinton team's military questioner, and Anderson Cooper later weighed in with an apology, acknowledging Bennet's role.

Oh, don't expect too much coverage of the CNN story from ABC News, whose President is George Stephanopolous.

Today's ABC Good Morning America video recap on the debate by Jake Tapper still up on the ABC site in the late afternoon of November 29th, makes no mention at all of the controversy over the series of Democrat plants. And there is not even one word of mention about the Clinton Campaign's intrusion with General Kerr's question, which, as we noted, was exposed last night.

Jake's entire take was that the Republican debate was about "personal attacks," and that the campaign was "only going to get nastier."

Quick, Wolfy Needs Our Help!

Folks, as you know, the CNN Democrat Presidential contenders debate in Las Vegas will be off and running in just a few hours! Bet it did not occur to you that talking heads like Wolf Blitzer -- especially Wolfy -- may need our help right now!

No doubt you're aware, reports indicate that Wolf was warned by the Clinton Campaign to go light on Hillary and not try to "pull a Russert" by asking her tough questions, or pressing her for answers! Of course, that really means that Wolf will need to ask some hard questions to avoid being tagged forever as a complete sell-out weenie! The one thing that a top level talking head cannot afford is to be disrespected by both the right and the left!

Just ask Tucker Carlson over at left-leaning MSNBC!

Well, as you also know there is a writer's strike on! That's right! Who is going to write Wolf Blitzer's questions for him, huh? He can leave it for the rest of the panel to ask the usual fascinating questions of Hillary . . . questions like, "Has powder blue always been your favorite color?"

But Wolfy has to hammer home at least a few tough ones, or else he'll be the one remembered as the "potted plant" from this evening's debate.

For that reason, we've jotted out few quick suggestions for him. They're really in rough draft shape, but I assume he can edit out what he doesn't like, no?

The only other thought we had is that reports state the recent Harvard study showed that CNN is very, very left wing -- "the most hostile to Republicans." No doubt the writers there are as well. Group Think, you know?

That means he may be unfamiliar with the focus we've taken, and perhaps the style as well. Hey look, nobody is perfect! At least we tried to help the poor guy out!

So, if you can think of a few quickies to add, please do! And more importantly, if anyone has an e-mail address for Wolfy, please be sure to forward this link on to him, along with any additions you might want to make. Just copy us for the file as a courtesy, if you would.

Thanks! Whew!

So, at last, here are our 10 suggestions, arranged by subject matter, for questions that Wolf Blitzer might ask Hillary Clinton tonight!


Experience:

Senator Clinton . . .You have repeatedly said in earlier debates, that you are the most experienced of the Democrat candidates for President. But your critics note that you have never run anything, never made a budget, nor have you ever been responsible for the lives of tens of thousands, or even millions of citizens and residents. And, you never served in the military, though you reportedly once thought about it. They also note that as First Lady, you failed miserably at those few things you personally became involved in, such as health care and the travel office. Even so, one could argue that you are more experienced than some of the would-be candidates on the dais with you . . . some, but perhaps not all. Would you please turn to Governor Richardson, who has actually run a federal government department, and who is now the Governor of a State, and please explain to him exactly what makes you more experienced than he is to be the President of the United States, and the Commander-in-Chief of all of our military forces?


Campaign candor -- Two questions:

a) Mrs. Clinton . . . A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama quipped to the New York Times in a story published today, that since it took you, "two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them." Would you please take the opportunity right now to respond directly to Senator Obama, or would you be more inclined to just let that one sit out there unanswered?

b) Mrs. Clinton . . . when specifically did you first hear that your campaign was planting questions with audience members, and who exactly did you hear it from? Has anyone who participated in the planting of such questions been removed from your campaign, and if so who, and when?

Immigration:

Senator Clinton . . . you and one of your potential opponents on the Republican side, Senator John McCain, both voted for the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" package that was before Congress recently, which went down to defeat. Since that time, Senator McCain has noted that we have really had a genuine national debate on the immigration question, and that he now understands and agrees with those who say that we must first deal with the question of border security before we can implement any broad provisions that would automatically enhance the status of the millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country. Do you agree with him? Would you also be in favor of firmly securing our borders before passing such status provisions?


Health Care:

Mrs. Clinton . . . critics of your national health insurance policies point out that in jurisdictions that have taken a more socialized approach, such as you propose, that it is common for individuals to be stuck in long waiting lines, or hampered by lengthy waiting periods of time for sophisticated procedures, such as MRIs. Suppose that, under your system, your daughter suddenly developed a condition that required an MRI, but she was forced to endure a long "waiting period" for the procedure. Where would you take her to get around that problem, as many foreigners often do now when they come to the United States for treatment? Canada? Great Britain? Cuba?

Iraq & War on Terror -- Two questions:

a) Senator Clinton . . . now that another month has passed, in Iraq few could deny that our military has made considerable additional progress on the ground in defeating al-Qaeda and it's affiliates. Do you think that the time may now have come for you -- and the rest of the candidates here as well - to publicly apologize to General Petraeus, in your case, for specifically implying to his face that he was a liar when he gave his testimony?

b) Senator Clinton . . . you recently said that you would not vote for any more money to support the troops in Iraq without a withdraw schedule attached. Now it appears that the President's surge strategy is working well, and specifically without a congressionally-mandated withdraw timetable. You want to be Commander-in-Chief. You also voted for the authorization for this war. If you were the Commander in Chief, would you invite Congress to put specific timetable limitations on your ability to do your job? And if not, why do you want to do that to the current President, whose strategy is now quite clearly working without any such timetables?

Campaign Finance:

Mrs. Clinton . . . I assume by this time that your campaign has finally identified all of the donors "bundled" by Norman Hsu, and if so, how many were there exactly, will you publicly release a complete copy of that donor list? And if you have returned all of the money, how many came back to you in "voluntary donations" from those specific donors? And, what about the so-called "dish-washer donors"? Does that sit well with you, or are you troubled by the fact that a substantial number of minimum wage workers, many of whom cannot even speak English, are somehow each coughing up a few thousand dollars to contribute to your political campaign?


Press Relations:

Mrs. Clinton . . . The New Republic has just published a lengthy and very, very unflattering piece by editor Michael Crowley about your campaign's media strategy -- Bunker Hillary: Clinton's Strategy for Crushing the Media -- addressing questions like, and I quote, "the Clinton camp's reputation for fearsome omnipotence is its treatment of media figures who cross them." Just in the past few days, unmistakable comments and pieces have been published that have been interpreted as "warnings to me" not to try to "pull a Russert" in this debate and ask you tough questions. Did you or your spokesman Howard Wolfson know anything at all in advance about any veiled threats from your campaign for me to go easy on you with my questions? And do you condone any such actions?

And, finally, not to bring up old news, but tough is tough:

Mrs. Clinton . . . have you forgiven Monica Lewinsky in your heart for having taken advantage of your husband's, shall we say, weakness -- the one you specifically identified years ago as having arisen in his childhood out of the conflict between two strong women raising him, i.e., his mother and grandmother?

Make Way For the Neo-Deniers!

Neoneocon has a provocative post up regarding "change" which she discusses in regard to attitudes and perceptions of the Battle for Iraq.

As we did earlier, she too notes the articles by "the intrepid Michael Totten" citing them -- among other postings – in the context of her formulation. Please read the whole thing, including the comments.

Neoneocon begins by framing the issue of "change" in clinical terms – she has a background in therapy.

But change of this sort is not easy. This is true for individuals, and perhaps to an even greater extent for societies. The human psyche is resistant to change and struggles mightily to preserve the status quo. Therapists even have terms for this: resistance, homeostasis, denial.

And then she posits as a given, a separating of the opposition wheat from its chaff.

And the same is true, strangely enough, for our effort in Iraq. If you eliminate those war critics in this country who are motivated by a hate-America agenda, and simply look at those who have bona fide objections to the war in Iraq, you might summarize the difference between those who still support our effort there and those who think we must get out now as, "the former believe fundamental change for the better is possible and is actually happening, while the latter believe it cannot and is not."

Well, if can be true for societies, it certainly can be true for political parties – and the political lives of the politicians who populate them.

If the various dynamic factors necessary for the homeostatic maintenance of a credible and sustained opposition to the mission in Iraq fall dangerously out of balance, and that opposition thereby feels threatened, we can expect those politicians who feel dependent on that opposition for their political survival to engage in a pattern of denial and resistance in the face of anything resembling success.

Some of them, i.e., Harry Reid, are simply too transparent for extended discussion. Having declared Iraq "lost" back in April, by mid-June he was claiming Petraeus "isn’t in touch with what’s going on in Baghdad."

Others critics evince multiple reactions, including humorous reactions, such as the revelatory quip of Senator Daine Feinstein (D-CA), noted in Politico (ht, Michael Barone, here), when the Senator was confronted with the stark reality of a measure of success in Iraq.

Asked what the Democrats’ next move on Iraq will be, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "You will see," with an emphatic fist pump, before turning back to a reporter and saying with a laugh, "That’s assuming we know."

We would also note that she had sniffed to Fox News Sunday about Petraeus that, "I don't think he's an independent evaluator."

So, we feel your denial pain, Senator, but your little slip into shtick was also duly noted!

So, what about Hillary . . .?

The not-so-jovial Hillary Clinton appears to be a different story. Less obvious than Harry Reid, she nevertheless seems incapable of a slip into candor on this topic. Having already maintained two poles-apart positions on Iraq, she can ill-afford the perception of a further shift.

Hillary Clinton’s portrayal of the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as "requiring a willing suspension of disbelief" then, is a perfect example of denial masquerading as an accusation of denial on her part – a form of denial standing on its head.

The point is, that what they were testifying to could not possibly be true if her formulation is to remain at all viable.

Therefore, what they were saying must be false – notwithstanding the inconvenient evidence to the contrary. She even went on to say that "in any of the metrics" referenced in their testimony, "a fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post surge, in my view, end up on the downside."

Thus, she is rather plainly saying that even success in Iraq is bad. I think we’ve got it.

Gee. At this rate of "denial" -- or, should we pretend to be clinical and call it "homeostatic interference" -- how will she ever get the opportunity to pen a credible sequel to "Living History?"

Tell 'Em In The Village It's Too Late

Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-NY) obviously flummoxed by the recent successes of the coalition forces in Anbar Province, and elsewhere in Iraq, during the run-up this summer to the recent congressional testimony of General Petraeus, cooked up a standard political response to the evidence of the improvements.

She said it was "too late."

Here she is, in her inimitable "eat your peas"* style, telling General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that very thing, in addition to very strongly implying that they were both lying.

Recently, milblogger Michael Totten, in his Middle East Journal has been reporting in a two-part series on the ground in Anbar Province, first here, in "Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi" and then again today in "Anbar Awakens Part II: Hell is Over," on the remarkable successes we have seen in Anbar.

And he records the reactions of the many people living there, in an ongoing battle with al-Qaeda that was thought completely lost, just one year ago. Please scroll down to see the joy in the faces of these people, especially in today's article.

Yet, in spite of what our "lying eyes" are telling us through Michael's observations and photographs, Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the Iraq incursion, insists it is now "a rather grim reality" and that it is "too late."

Well, if that's the case, then, why don't you go to their village, look those children right in the eye, and tell them it's too late, Hillary?

And while you're at it, why don't you tell them the continued improvements to their lives and their prospects would unfortunately "require the willing suspension of disbelief?"

And then, you could also tell them , just as you told General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, "Any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post surge, in my view, end up on the downside."

And, while you are there, you could tell all the troops that it's "too late." You could say, never mind about Donkey Island, or any of the victories. It's too late.

After all, you want to be the Commander in Chief, right?

Boy, that would show them who is boss!

*A phrase attributable, I believe, to Maureen Dowd, in once describing Presidential Candidate Michael Dukakis.

A Drift of Swine?

What is an assemblage of money donors, a bundled group of political contributors, led by a convicted criminal swindler who flew the coop well over a decade ago to avoid sentencing?

What could we call them? In his popular 2003 book, "Popular Miscellany," Ben Schott lists what might be a potentially good candidate among his "Nouns of Assemblage" at page 11 -- A Drift of Swine.

Until recently, the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton was very enamored by Norman Hsu (pronounced "shoe"). A story in today's LA Times, addressing how easily "Hsu fit" in the bundling system, and even quotes former President Bill Clinton singling him out for special recognition at a gala dinner for the late Robert F. Kennedy just last year. The story notes how Bill actually began his remarks, all warm and fuzzy, by acknowledging "our friend Norman Hsu."

But now the Clinton campaign does not want us to know very much about this group of Norman Hsu groupies, and they are clearly attempting to get the press off the trail by "returning" the money to those hustled their way by the still-mysterious Mr. Hsu. Rather brazenly, however, they are trying to woo the contributors back after returning the dough. John Kerry in 2004, and many of the announced Democrat candidates for President this cycle -- Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson -- are all recent recipients of Norman Hsu-related contributions.

A pessimist pal of ours said in a phone conversation late yesterday that this story will now die because she gave all the money back. Don't you believe it! This story has more moving legs than a giant centipede with RLS!

In the first place, each one of the "returned" donations will be recorded, making them all, in a sense, traceable. There is an FEC-mandated trail for anyone to follow.

Thus, this preliminary WSJ list is only the beginning. And, will those individual donations have been voluntary? Some folks, as cited in this LA Times story, are already saying, "no." And, were they made with their own money, or laundered funds? His attorney denies Hsu laundered any contributions, but the evidence may show otherwise. All of these issues and more are potential problems for the recipients.

Stories similar to, or even more bizarre than the Wall Street Journal's Paw family saga (subscriber only) may begin to emerge on a regular basis.

Secondly, one of the most perplexing issues about this story, has been the origin of the seemingly unlimited funds Mr. Hsu was using to finance this financial machinations. Today, the Wall Street Journal again seems to have supplied one piece of the puzzle, that is, where at least some of Hsu's money came from in the first place. Speculation about Hsu has been running wild, especially considering past Bill Clinton connections to money from mainland China, including the Clinton campaign funding scandals involving Charlie Trie and John Huang. Some may recall that at the time, even the Washington Post editorialized strongly about Mr. Trie's activities, especially when he fled the country and went to China at the height of the Clinton scandal exposures.

As to Norman Hsu, only now is the story beginning to surfacing, and the WSJ has today given us our first glimpse -- that it came from a criminal Hsu raid on a Madison Avenue investment fund called Source Financing:

Where did Norman Hsu get his money?

That has been one of the big questions hanging over the prominent Democratic fund-raiser, as reports have surfaced about hundreds of thousands of dollars he made in political donations, plus lavish parties, fancy apartments and a $2 million bond he posted to get out of jail earlier this month.

New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.

The article also notes that an attorney for Mr. Rosenman has asked that the large number of Democrat campaigns that are now madly scrambling to distance themselves from Mr. Hsu by "returning" or donating to charity many of the funds connected to his fundraising activities, instead hold on to the funds so they can be returned to the "Source Financing" investors so that its large number of investors can be made whole at least to that extent.

Mr. Rosenberg, the attorney for Mr. Rosenman, asked politicians to hold on to the funds so that Source Financing and other investors can be made whole. "It appears that Source Financing Investors joins Hillary Clinton...and many others as his victims," Mr. Rosenberg said in an interview. "We urge candidates who received contributions from Mr. Hsu to retain those funds so that they may be returned to victims of the scheme."

The Clinton campaign in particular seems to be oddly way off balance with the rapidly and multiple-angle stories as they break. For example, what might best be termed sarcastically as the "likely story" of the day yesterday, was from the Washington Post story entitled, "Clinton Campaign Cites Flawed Background Check - No Evidence of Fundraiser's Lawsuits or Bankruptcy Turned Up in Records Search, Spokesman Says." Ditto, with a New York Daily News story which notes the campaign's inability to explain the failure to identify Hsu, and further noting that "FBI agents are collecting e-mail evidence in the widening scandal." The story also notes that the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, is looking into the matter for possible ethics violations by the Senator.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson actually tried to claim straight-faced that they failed to discover the connection of Norman Hsu to any of the legal troubles -- the bankruptcies, the conviction for running the Ponzi scheme, the flight from justice, and other questionable matters -- because they failed to include his middle name(s) in the computer search they conducted!

Though a commonly used public record search shows that Hsu had multiple business lawsuits filed against him dating to 1985, filed for bankruptcy in 1990, and was a defendant in two 1991 California court matters listed as possible criminal cases, the campaign said its computer checks used insufficient search terms that did not include the two middle names Hsu used in the California case. "In all of these searches, the campaign used the name Norman Hsu, which, like the search results of other committees and campaigns, did not turn up disqualifying information," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson explained.

Oh, come on! That story is simply not credible on it's face. Presidential campaigns receive Secret Service protection, and anyone getting anywhere near a candidate is thoroughly vetted. Michelle Malkin notes an e-mail she received from a law enforcement source pointing out that because of Secret Service procedures within Presidential campaigns, it is highly likely the Clinton campaign could not have been aware of Norman Hsu's background. Michelle also posts a list of additional commentators on the case.

And, of course, the Clinton campaign story simply does not square with the fact that they were told a few months ago by Jack Irvine, a California businessman, that Hsu was trouble, and they apparently low-balled the advice. Here was that original story! So, now they are saying they knew back in June, and thereafter conducted an utterly incompetent web search?

One associate, Irvine businessman Jack Cassidy, said he had tried to warn authorities and the Clinton campaign as early as June that he feared Hsu was running an illicit enterprise, but had gotten no response." Nobody picked up the ball," said Cassidy, who was not an investor but heard about Hsu's business from a friend. Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson declined to respond to Cassidy's claim, saying only that the campaign had conducted a background check of Hsu, who has emerged in the last three years as one of the Democratic Party's biggest fundraisers.

The story actually notes that Hillary does some of her own research on the web, often searching on-line before meeting with people for the first time. And now, she -- "the smartest woman in the world" -- wants to be the Commander in Chief?

Asked about the warning from Cassidy by the WaPo, here's how the Hillary Clinton campaign addressed the matter in yesterday's article:

Irvine, Calif., businessman Jack Cassidy told the FBI that he sent at least three e-mails to a Clinton campaign official on the West Coast this summer, specifically raising concerns that Hsu was engaged in a risky investment scheme and was using Hillary Clinton's name "in vain" to solicit people for his business proposition, according to a person directly familiar with the matter.

Cassidy's concern was that Hsu was using the Clintons to give credence to his business venture, the source said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing FBI inquiry.

Cassidy also raised his concerns with local police, the local prosecutor, California Democratic Party officials and the FBI, which dispatched agents to interview him and collect documents in recent weeks about Hsu's business and fundraising activities.

Clinton spokesman Wolfson said the campaign did an initial public records search in January when Hsu began raising money. The inquiries from Cassidy this summer prompted the campaign to do a second vetting of Hsu, which turned up nothing derogatory. "When the concerns were raised, we again checked publicly available information and unfortunately did not find this decade-plus old warrant," he said.

Yet, in spite of the following facts -- a) Mr. Hsu has clearly shown to be a substantial flight risk, having run in spite of posting $2 million bail; b) there is good evidence that he either attempted suicide the last time he had a moment's opportunity, having reportedly mailed a suicide note to several people, or something else happened on the train ride to Colorado to cause him to become extremely ill; c) there is growing evidence that the funds he has recently spreading all over were all unlawfully swindled from others, as Hsu had once been convicted of doing before; and, d) that there are a very large number of extremely powerful Democrat political figures in this country who would benefit considerably from the silence of, or actual disappearance of Mr. Hsu -- a Mesa county Judge in Colorado has now set his bail at $5 million dollars! Mr. Hsu reportedly had a checkbook in his possession at the time of his arrest showing available assets totaling $6 million!

Norman Hsu, a previously convicted Ponzi-scheme swindler, simply scammed them all over the past few years! Here's the list of major Democrats who have received donations, either directly from, or bundled through Mr. Hsu, from the latest WSJ story, and who are scrambling to rid themselves of the dough -- more to follow:

The contributions are now haunting the Democratic party. Mrs. Clinton's campaign said on Monday it would refund all of the donations made or raised by Mr. Hsu. More Democrats announced yesterday that they would dispose of funds that Mr. Hsu gave or raised, including Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York ($25,000), Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts ($35,000), Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu ($11,700), Montana Sen. Jon Tester ($4,750), Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill ($20,700) and Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph Sestak ($2,500). Others have given their money to charity, including Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, whose campaign received $2,000 in March from Mr. Hsu.

More Democrats are expected to follow. A Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign finance reform records has linked Mr. Hsu with at least $1.8 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.

Even as of the end of August, the Wall Street Journal's list of recipients of money from Norman Hsu and those whose contributions he bundled, included contributions to the following prominent Democrats, in addition to the ones listed above who had determined that they would refund the contributions.

They include: John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Harold Ford, Debbie Stabenow, Barack Obama, Maria Cantwell, Bob Casey, Joe Biden, Frank Pallone, Dianne Feinstein, Robert Menendez, Patrick Kennedy, Jim Webb, Tammy Duckworth, Jay Rockefeller, Jack Reed, Al Franken, Tom Harkin, Frank Lautenberg, Tom Allen, Marc Pryor, Harry Reid, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, Ed Rendell, Phil Angelides, Tom Vilsack, Sherrod Brown, Bill Nelson, Doris Matsui, Fiona MMa, and the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, as well as various State parties.

(Updated: 09/14 am)

ABC7News, from out on the coast, is now reporting that the Mesa County (Colorado) District Attorney, Pete Hautzinger, noted that in addition to the New York investment fund scam outlined yesterday in the WSJ, above, Orange County, CA authorities out on the west coast are “on the verge” of filing additional fraud charges against Hsu, related to a $33 million dollar scam he was operating in Southern California, one involving different investors than the New York scam.

From the report:

The New York District Attorney is now investigating Hsu for defrauding a New York investment fund out of $40 million dollars and today in court the prosecutor said he heard Hsu was also the target of an investigation of a possible scam in Southern California.

"Orange County authorities are on the verge of filing charges on a very similar alleged scam involving $33 million dollars with 50 different investors," said Hautzinger.

(Updated: 9/14 pm)

According to MediaBistro NBC's Andrea Mitchell will state on Chris Matthew's show on MSNBC over the weekend, that the pressure of the unfolding Hsu story is beginning to tell at the Clinton campaign, and is causing in-fighting amongst staff, with at least one public "shouting match." Too many parallels to past fund-raising scandals?

Getting Off On Donkey Island

"Evil news rides post, while good news baits."
John Milton, Samson Agonistes, Line 1538.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried a lengthy article on its front page about a recent battle in Iraq, written by Ann Scott Tyson. It is, I believe, a classic study in factually good news from Iraq, caught up in the entrenched bad news analysis meme. She and her editors simply sought to stretch and twist an exceptional story of victory, though it was somewhat modest in size, into a foreboding tale, fraught with the same old and tiresome lessons that certain news outlets continually try to impose on war stories out of Iraq.

Her facts are, so far as we know, accurate. But the headline, and her "lessons drawn" are right out of deep discount central. You almost have the feeling she thought she was on the trail of Tet.

MSNBC also carried the story, but has apparently now -- a mere three days later -- determined it is no longer newsworthy and has actually taken the link down!

Wrechard at Belmont Club analyzed the MSNBC version, and concluded:

Of course, once the local American reinforcements arrived the al-Qaeda unit was doomed, but their fate was sealed earlier. The three Humveee patrol fixed, disrupted and cut up a force three to four times their size and immobilized an enemy unit that saw its mission change instantly from the infiltration of Ramadi to surviving. It's an amazing story.

Yet, neither Belmont Club's link to the MSNBC story, nor a search of the MSNBC news site using MSNBC's own search engine, yields any remaining Donkey Island story link. It has simply disappeared, including the Today Show version. All you get, as of noon today, August 22d, is "Page not found."

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


The Washington Post version of the story factually relates the circumstances of a rather intense roadside firefight back on June 30th, initially between a small patrol of 9 American troops from the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment, and a vastly numerically superior contingent of 70 or so al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terror fighters (the MSNBC version said 40). The American patrol unexpectedly came upon them while riding on patrol along swampy trails near the Nassar Canal, just south of Ramadi in Anbar Province.

While both the canal and the Euphrates River tend to "compartmentalize" the city of Ramadi, neither is "wide enough to seriously limit crossing" hence such recon partols are considered a military necessity in the area.

Our guys were driving along near the canal looking for water-based weapons smuggling operations, and at around 9:15 pm, they suddenly happened on the AQI contingent, and two “semitrucks” that, as was later determined, had been used to smuggle the terror fighters and weapons around several checkpoints, and into the area. Both sides were surprised at the contact, and a firefight ensued that lasted much of the night. Our guys won the engagement, big-time.

But the "lessons" portion of the story Tyson tells is fraught with exaggerated concerns and misgivings that seem plainly unjustified in the context of the very facts she cites.

As she reported, captured video and other intelligence from the insurgents later showed, that the AQI terrorists had trained for months in the lake region north of Ramadi, and were apparently seeking to launch terror counterattacks in and around the city, including proof of a desire to assassinate a local tribal chief just south of Ramadi, one "Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who founded the main pro-U.S. tribal alliance, known as the Anbar Awakening." The clear outcome of the battle, in light of the high AQI casualties, compromised intelligence and captured weapons cache, is that neither of those two AQI objectives will be attempted at any time soon. But she doesn't say that. Instead she describes this demonstrably failed attempt, as a battle,

which would not only reveal their enemy's determination to retake Ramadi but also throw into question the region's long-term stability if the Americans were to leave. It suggested, moreover, that preserving the city's fragile, hard-won calm would call for heavier fighting than anticipated.

Sheik Rishawi was one of the first tribal leaders in the largely Sunni region to begin working closely with the Americans last fall, in order to fight AQI. It was back then that, as stated in the article, several “influential Sunni tribes around Ramadi, weary of the violence and executions of their leaders, joined with the U.S. military to oust the hard-core Islamic insurgents.” Though unstated in the story, they were also outraged by the constant terrorizing of civilians, and the attempted imposition of extremist Sharia, or Islamic law on the populace. No doubt that was buttressed by the fact that recent intelligence obtained from captured AQI demonstrated that the terror organization is teeming with foreign fighters and leaders, which has no doubt contributed to the rivening between Sunni Iraqi tribal leaders and AQI related groups.

Clearly, neither the Americans nor the highly trained AQI insurgents anticipated running into one another that night, but the ensuing roadside battle, later dubbed by someone as the Battle for Donkey Island, turned out very poorly for AQI. Donkey Island was a small strip of land in the canal that a few of the AQI fighters swam to in an unsuccessful attempt to flank the American fighters during the battle. As soon as they discovered the AQI fighters, the Americans quickly backed up their three Humvees about 100 yards, lining them up three abreast, and where they also got cover from a small ridge. The fire fight had ensued. Some time later (around 11 pm) additional reinforcements from the I-77 Charlie Company, and no doubt some form of air cover, joined with the nine Americans in the battle, but at no time did American troops outnumber the insurgents.

Two Americans were killed and eleven were injured in the all night violent exchange, while nearly half, or 32, of the AQI fighters were killed. Both American deaths tragically occurred the next morning while troops were disarming AQI “suicide vests” on the dozens of AQI bodies. They were shot by a wounded terrorist.

Largely disregarding the overall tenor of what she was covering, you could tell that Ms. Tyson, or perhaps an editor, were intent on reporting uncertainty about the outcome of the struggle, including raising questions about the entire current surge operation. But the facts, even as she reported them, simply do not support those conclusions.

Take for example, just the highly misleading headline attached to the story:

A Deadly Clash at Donkey Island
On a Routine Night Patrol Near Ramadi, U.S. Troops Stumble Upon a Camp of Heavily Armed Insurgents Poised to Retake the City

Deadly Clash –

Plainly, the deadliness of the clash was heavily weighted to the al-Qaeda fighters who were crushed by the engagement. Months of planning for a series of terror attacks, simply went down the drain for them. And in spite of having significant numerical superiority, they were utterly outgunned and suffered nearly 50% killed, or 32 dead. The two Americans deaths both occurred the next morning after the firefight, when two troops were attempting to disarm the suicide vests of the dozens of dead AQI fighters, and were tragically shot by a wounded terrorist.

On a Routine Night Patrol – Stumble Upon Insurgents --

Secondly, the article strongly implies that our troops, while on patrol, only stumbled on the enemy. You would almost think it was a dumb mistake, stumbling upon insurgents. But that is exactly what recon patrols are all about – discovering enemy movements while on patrol in order to keep them from succeeding in surprise attacks on your defensive positions. Prarie Pundit pretty well nailed that aspect of the "battle."

Heavily armed –

Thirdly, the statement that the insurgents were heavily armed is just plain silly. They had AK-47s, a few machine guns and some grenades, as well as the suicide vests. And, in the trucks were whatever arms they had smuggled into the area for future attacks in the area. In any event, all were lost to AQI.

Poised to retake the city –

And finally, the most outrageous statement was that they were "poised to retake the city." That is just plain unadulterated rubbish. This AQI terror group planned to launch a sneak attack on at least one tribal leader of the region, in order to try and undermine local support for us in our mission, and to launch additional terror attacks. But it was seventy (or forty) fighters. They failed miserably at both, and paid a very heavy price. However, the suggestion that they were poised to retake the city is nonsense.

But you have to dig well into the story to find one small accurate assessment in the story, which the author couches in the opinion of the U.S. military.

U.S. commanders said the battle was a major defeat for al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents, showing how hard it is for them to operate in Anbar, where they face an increased U.S. troop presence and rejection by the Sunni population.

And the story ends with Tyson quoting a general assessment by General Petraeus, noting al-Qaeda in Iraq has largely lost in Anbar Province, which she follows with quotes from local commanders suggesting contradictions -- i.e., that further AQI attacks in Ramadi will likely occur.

Her over all tone is a “forced” note of pessimism that seems largely unjustified.

As Prarie Pundit quite correctly noted:

What the story really shows is that some relatively inexperienced troops overcame a numerically superior force and prevailed. This is the kind of action that deserves medals and commendations. It does not deserved to be used in someones talking points for defeat.

With stories and assessments of success quickly emerging, even among former war critics, there certainly seems to have been a sea change in the statements and attitudes of national Democrat politicians, who all now seem to be scrambling to align themselves with evidence that the mission in Iraq has turned the corner. Today's Washington Post story on the subject notes in a gentile manner, the "refocus" of the Democrat message.

A few days ago, Representative Brian Baird, (D-WA), long a critic of the battle in Iraq, stated that we may need to stay there longer. Some, as today's Post noted, are even beginning to turn on leadership, such as Representative Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who has recently begun waivering on troop withdrawal deadlines.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

If the tide of the battle of Iraq continues to turn, and begets success, he's not the only one who is going to be raising that very question. After all, only two months ago, Harry Reid was calling General Petraeus, "out of touch," and even strongly implying that the General was lying.

As for the Democrat Presidential contenders, watching them scramble for position may well challenge the triggers of the world's least sensitive hypocrisy meters. Not two days ago, Barak Obama confidently assured the world that it was too late . . . there could be no victory in Iraq. But today the Post story quotes him saying,

"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

What's it going to be, Barak?

And Hillary Clinton is now even saying that the surge strategy is working! But where was she last week?

For the troops fighting and putting their lives on the line, however, all of these positions du jour must seem very unsettling. After all, these people claim to be leaders running for President, which would make one of them the Commander in Chief.

As a child I often wanted to see the noblest of motives in others. So my father used to somewhat cynically remind me from time to time, "Just remember . . . everyone lives on Selfish Island."

For the legions of Americans who had lost a measure of faith in the real liklihood of success in Iraq, the leapfrogging siren songs of the political opposition may have seemed somewhat enticing -- for a while. But now, watching them all hastily swim away from their positions, away from their Donkey Island, just has to furrow more than a few brows.

NY Times: Two Liberals Turn Tail On Iraq Loss:
Yanking Stability from the Jaws of Defeat?

(Update below)

Two liberals from the Brookings Institute, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today, (HT: Powerline here), grudgingly observing that the war in Iraq just may be a war we could . . . ahhhh . . . win.

Well, they don't quite say that. Not yet, anyway. They delicately sidestep the use of the term "victory," of course, preferring instead to choke up a familiar diplomatic alliterative euphemism -- "sustainable stability." That put them on the same page as Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in his remarks just the other day. Said he, as quoted in a Steven Hurst AP article:

"I think it is very important that for own interests that we stay with this until Iraq gets to the point of sustainable stability, I think that can be done."

And though Scanlon and Pollock were quick to charge that the Bush Administration "has over four years lost essentially all credibility" on the War, they nevertheless concede that Administration critics have indeed failed to take note of several positive changes taking place in Iraq.

Well, it's not like the ignoring of specific successes, as well as shortcomings, haven't been repeatedly pointed out by Michael Yon, or Michael Totten and a slew of milbloggers, and other new media critics all along. Here, for example, is some incredible recent reporting of Michael Yon on us working with Iraqi insurgents, and how we are persuading them to come over to our side. This kind of reporting never makes it into your average newspaper. And Michelle Malkin links to the latest dispatch from Michael Totten.

Yet O'Hanlon and Pollock are incapable of acknowledging anything sounding like praise for even the Administration's recent handling of the conflict, notwithstanding acknowledging several recent successes. Check, for example, the inherent inconsistency in this introductory statement of theirs:

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.

Live with? Basically, these two sound a little unhappy, don't they? Don't they seem to be saying that Americans could grudgingly learn to "live with" success? They're only talking to the left when they say things that way.

Perhaps these two are ringing what amounts to a political two minute warning bell for all the liberal Democrat Presidential candidates and congressional leaders (a repetitious redundancy if there ever was one), to cautiously eschew the scheduling of any more specific funeral dirges for this war. One recalls Harry Reid announcing that the war "is lost" and basically calling General Petraeus a liar, alleging that the surge had failed back in mid-April, well before the extra troops had even arrived! Or the ill-timed scheduling of the congressional vote on the Levin/Reed "al-Qaeda Enabling Act of 2007." Or, maybe they're cautioning against holding any more hearings where congressional members openly and personally attack our military leaders, at least for the time being?

It seems unlikely the Democrat leadership will listen. Having arguably spent the entire good will of their political victory last fall, in an unceremonious, undisguised, and ill-advised series of attempts to force a humiliating military defeat on this country, these Democrats are now singularly ill-equipped to find, or even recognize any neutral middle ground.

If this nation and the coalition should succeed in Iraq in spite of them, they lose. And their entire current lineup of Presidential contenders are hopelessly locked into endlessly parroting their nutroot base's Bush-hate rhetoric, so that any attempt by any of them to pull back now will backfire with their legions of primary voters. None of them dare. And who would be the Fred Thompson to those pygmies? There is no Scoop Jackson in that party, let alone a Senator Vandenberg!

Here are a few of the specific developments in Iraq that O’Hanlon and Pollack now acknowledge:

Troop Morale Up:

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.

What happened? Wasn't the leftie "plan" to undermine troop morale? The New Republic (TNR) had just launched (subscription needed for full article) their latest salvo with the "Scott Thomas" story in that regard, that is until serious questions began to surface, and it suspiciously turned into what Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post reported was a TNR concession that the story was an inside job. Hack job would be more like it.

O’Hanlon and Pollock also note significant other good news.

Improvements in Security and Providing Basic Services:

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.

Other things these two liberals point out we are now doing well in Iraq include, holding areas until they are fully secured.

And, they say, we are successfully persuading the Iraqis into helping to fight the right enemies, i.e., al-Qaeda and other Salafists. They will have to patiently explain why this latter one is a positive development to Katie Couric, and the folks over at CBS News, who allege that this is all just Bush propaganda – his "new rationale."

O’Hanlon and Pollock also note that the

coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. (my emphasis added)

And outside of Baghdad, they point out that a new focus on decentralizing power is working surprisingly well, too.

They also note areas of what they believe are shortcomings, especially on the political front with many politicians "of all stripes" resisting reaching accommodations where they are needed. Please read it -- it sounds like a pitch-perfect description of the new Congress.

But in the end, even these two "progressives" conclude that,

there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Given the nearly completely opposite view, driving a daily drumbeat of harsh criticism from the Democrat party leadership for so long now, isn't it just possible there has been a dogged blindness on the part of the Democrats to any precurser signs of progress all along? Or that there has been a complete lack of respect for balance in reporting the news out of Iraq by this nation's left-leaning mainstream media?

As for the Democrats' staunch supporters in the media -- enablers really -- won't this talk of possible success likely prove very confusing?

Sustainable stability? What is that?

Perhaps we could think about it historically. Let's see . . .

"Sustainable stability" has really meant unabashed victory to several generations, and thus, millions upon millions of Korean people living below the 38th parallel, for over half a century. Hasn't it?

Oh well, somebody call "Okinawa Jack" Murtha, and break the news.

There go the damned Viet-Nam analogies!

(Update: 6:53 pm) Dean Barnett from Hugh Hewitt notes the anticipated reaction from the left -- personal attacks mounted on the two authors of the Op-Ed, with no effort to address what they actually observed. Given that, how likely is it that there should be anything other than personal invective coming from the Democrat leadership?

Dean also links to a Michael Goldfarb piece posted today at the Weekly Standard regarding the piece, and noting the strange behavior of Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (D-KS) during hearings at the end of last week. Boyda sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and on Friday, she actually got up and left the room rather than listen to the testimony of retired General Keane. She later returned to the hearing, only to deliver a rant about how she refused to listen to claims regarding Iraq "that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation . . ."