A Motto for Rep. William Delahunt: "Res Ipsa Loquitur"

* Update, 6/30, below)

They are some people who know better. But for the sake of some small, momentary advantage, they willfully deliver a low blow that is so far beneath the line of decency, that thereafter they are viewed with revulsion.

That is because they have revealed an inexcusable darkness in their soul. Jane Fonda is such a person. William Ayres is such a person. And now William Delahunt may have joined that team.

When a United States Congressman openly express glee that a top American official is exposed on television, so that al-Qaeda can thereby get a good look at him, he is certainly to be condemned, especially where the government official has had considerable involvement in the War on Terror.

Representative William Delahunt (D - MA) is that Congressman. Click on the video and just listen to what he says to David Addington, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and formerly a counsel to the CIA. And, notice the vicious look of contempt on Delahunt's face when he says it!

Not only is it patently obvious to anyone what Delahunt meant, but he thereafter publicly lied about it, and, of course, now refuses to truly apologize.

The man couldn't even cook up a believable lie about it! That makes it doubly insulting to the intelligence of anyone who hears it, and compounds the inexcusable offensiveness of his original comment.





It seems to me that the people in his district in Massachusetts have a job to do, and that is to vote this man out of office.

What are others saying about this incident? Well, for starters:

Powerline: Here, here, here, here, and here. John Hinderaker's comments are especially strong on this issue. In his latest post, John destroys Delahunt's preposterous "claim" that he was saying that he was glad to see Mr. Addington.

As John put it:

It is sad that we have vicious haters like Bill Delahunt in Congress, but it is good that when the mask slips for a moment, and viewers can see how they really think, haters like Delahunt have no recourse but to lie.

HotAir: Here, and here. In the first post, Allahpundit links to the CBS coverage, via Politico.

In the second post, Ed Morrissey posts a link to a portion of the Mark Levin radio show. Delahunt had called in to "explain" his comments. He gamely tried to repeat the rubbish about being the one who was glad to see Addington, rather than al-Qaeda.

Unfortunately, Mark Levin surprisingly let the guy off the hook by asking him, "did you misspeak?" Delahunt quickly said he had, and further that there was no malice intended. Levin thereupon told Delahunt that he took him at his word.

But when you look at the incontrovertible evidence -- the video clip -- you can see that there is simply no truth at all to what he now says. He got caught and is now trying to lie his way out of it.

Ed Morrissey didn't buy it either, saying the Congressman deserves censure, as is being called for by and, further, Ed opined that "Delahunt is a first-class jerk and, after listening to this clip, a bit of a weasel as well, but let’s not make him into Adam Gadahn and sound hysterical."

Somehow, I don't believe there is any danger of that, but this clip should get as much circulation to as many decent folks as possible. The thing speaks for itself.

When the New York Times recently published the name of the interrogator who broke the captured 9/11 terrorist planner, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (and pointed out that the man was married and a father, as well as naming the company he now works for), the thought occurred to me that some congressional committee would try to compound the crime by finding a way to trot him out in front of television cameras.

Rep. Delahunt apparently decided to save the honors for David Addington, by sitting in on a hearing of a subcommittee he is not even a member of, and questioning witnesses until he got what he thought was a clear shot.


* Update, 6/30). Powerline has another post up, this one a video clip appeal from a former counter terrorism expert, Major Eric Egland, who has served in all theaters of operation where we are fighting terrorism, and who urges people to contact their Congressman to put pressure on Rep. Delahunt to apologize from the floor of Congress for what he said.

Acknowledging Success in the Counter-Insurgency

Replying to the last post,* suggesting that Senators Obama and McCain consider holding a Presidential debate in Iraq, I got a funny but sarcastic e-mail from one friend and regular reader saying, "Obama can stay there after the debate." I also replied sarcastically in turn, "Heh. Maybe he could be a community organizer." Another sardonic e-mailer followed with: "And let Senator Byrd be the moderator."

But that got me thinking. Addressing the situation on a more serious level, one thing that continues to surprise me is that Senator Obama does not acknowledge, in any respect, the extraordinary work and sacrifice of our military over the past year by specifically addressing the notable success of the counter-insurgency operation, implemented through the leadership of General Petraeus.

In spite of the risks, that strategy has turned the tide in huge areas of Iraq.

Here we have in Senator Obama someone who should be able to appreciate first-hand the difficulties of confronting demagoguery and building trust in a situation involving severe social dislocation, through his work as a "community organizer." Obviously, I am not suggesting there is a direct correlation, given the exponentially greater dangers our military encounters, but certainly he could candidly recognize and acknowledge their work in winning the support of Iraqis, in reversing the explosive potential we faced before the surge began.

Whether or not one opposed the initial incursion into Iraq, is simply immaterial in that sense. Lawrence Wright, the author of "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, arguably the seminal book on the rise of al-Qaeda, has acknowledged in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that, though he opposed the incursion into Iraq, he is now finds himself opposed to the withdraw.

From Hugh's interview with Wright:

Lawrence Wright: "Well, you know, there are two really important intellectual centers in the Arab world. One is Egypt, the other is Iraq. And the idea behind the invasion of Iraq, which I was opposed to, was to set up this model democracy that would then become a beacon for reform all over the region. It’s going to be really hard to achieve the goal that we had set out, although now, I am in the awkward political position of being opposed to withdrawing. I think we should stay there as long as we can to try to hold this entity together until they are able to remain stable, create a fairly reliable electoral process, police force, and that kind of thing, and take care of themselves. I don’t know if we can achieve that, but it’s hopeful to see that Iraq has been, you know, I don’t want to say that they’ve been put to death completely in Iraq, but they certainly are in retreat. And that’s critical, because if al-Qaeda won in Iraq, who knows how far it would go."

I also believed that the Democrats' 2006 demands for immediate withdraw and redeployment, or even their silly withdraw schedule amendment last summer, containing the unworkable "targeted counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda" language so effectively responded to on the Senate floor by Senator McCain, were utterly irresponsible. Hamstrung in the ability of our military to respond as a result of the myriad Democrat limitations, we could now be witnessing a real humanitarian debacle, had we simply "cut and run" the way they intended.

Who can dispute that al-Qaeda in Iraq, and indeed the entire movement, would have gained a huge victory by our military defeat, underscoring their history of tempestuous rampage, and perhaps even justifying it in the minds of many people throughout the world?

And who can also doubt that this would have spelled out a major strategic setback for the United States in the most dangerous region in the world?

As it is, Lawrence Wright now reports reports in his article in The New Yorker (H.T.Hugh Hewitt, here) that even a "mastermind" behind the al-Qaeda justifications for the employment of extreme violence, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, aka, "Dr. Fadl," a man whose early works were used to underscore the "justification" for such extremely violent jihad, has now openly repudiated those views.

A year ago, Dr. Fadl sent out a fax outlining his latest views from where he is confined in Tora prison in Egypt.

From the beginning of Wright's article in The New Yorker:

Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

By all means, please read the New Yorker article, and Hugh Hewitt's extremely important interview of Lawrence Wright.

And if you have not done so, please try to pick up a copy of The Looming Tower. It is truly an extraordinary read.



*(This post began as my own comment on our prior post, but took on a life of it's own.)

John McCain's Own Benchmark Porposal:
A Timetable for Withdraw!

UPDATE BELOW: Romney's strong support for the surge in early January '07:
UPDATE II BELOW: Captain's Quarters had the McClatchy Tribune story as well:

Regarding this CNN-reported ongoing kerfuffle over the timetables . . . how about a little perspective here?

One year ago, on January 26th of 2007, the McClatchy Tribune out of Tuscon, Arizona, per Margaret Talev, reported that John McCain himself was proposing a timetable of specific benchmarks that the Iraqis would have to meet, or we would pull out!

And Barack Obama was quoted in the story congratulating his fellow Senator at the time, noting that he (Obama) had proposed the same thing two weeks before!!

Below are the first several grafs of the story, which can be found here (my emphasis added).

And he's making his accusations aimed at Mitt Romney, for being for a timetable back then?

Washington
McCain considers setting benchmarks for Iraqis
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy-Tribune
Tucson, Arizona
Published: 01.26.2007

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.
McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."
. . . .

Here is the key quote in the story from Barack Obama at the time:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: "I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I'm glad that John McCain agrees with me."

So, just one year ago, John McCain was suggesting PULLING OUT of Iraq for failure to meet his benchmarks! And, he was warmly congratulated for his stand by Senator Barack Obama!


UPDATE: Here is the link to the Boston Globe story, (hat tip: Free Republic, here) dated January 10, 2007, highlighting former Governor Romney's position supporting the troop surge, a few weeks before John McCain (above) announced he was for specific benchmarks and withdraw if they were not met!

From the story by Rick Klein:

WASHINGTON -- Former governor Mitt Romney Wednesday endorsed President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq, breaking his public silence on the troop "surge" by arguing that a stable Iraq is only possible if US forces can provide security to Iraqi civilians.

Hours before Bush spoke Wednesday night, Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province -- precisely the plan for as many as 21,500 new troops that was outlined by the Bush administration before the president’s speech.

"It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people," Romney said in a statement released Wednesday morning. "In consultation with generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops."

UPDATE II: Captain's Quarters had the McClatchy-Tribune story linked as well here. Ed Morrissey notes there was no specific timetable included, but observes how unwise it now appears for McCain to have picked a fight over this issue:

He didn't use the supposedly verboten word "timetables", but unmet benchmarks have to have timetables to be unmet, and clearly McCain had some timeframe in mind with this remark. Like I said, he drew a really dumb line in the sand with this issue.

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.

Happiness Under This Sky -- For Most A Better Life?

* * *
UPDATE III, 08/24. For a little perspective, I'm not sure anyone could say it better. Senator Lieberman release, posted at the Weekly Standard, (ht: Jon at Exurban League).

"I share the frustrations about the performance of the Iraqi government. But the fact is, as my colleagues know, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus are meeting every day with Iraq’s democratically-elected leaders to help them reach compromise and reconciliation on a range of complex, painful, and existential issues. Political progress in Iraq depends on this kind of steady statecraft and patient diplomacy on the ground in Baghdad, rather than scapegoating and congressionally-ordered coups.
. . .
"Ultimately, the choice we face in Iraq is not between the current Iraqi government and a perfect Iraqi government. Rather, it is a choice between a young, imperfect, struggling democracy that we have helped midwife into existence, and the totalitarian, terrorist regime that al Qaeda hopes to impose in its place, should we retreat."
. . . .

* * *
UPDATE, 08-24. Scott's exhaustive post at Powerline, found here focuses a considerable amount of additional information on English writer, William Shawcross, and the evolution of his thinking on Cambodia and Southeast Asia, especially as that history now relates to Iraq. It makes for fascinating and provocative reading.
* * *

Peter W. Rodman has published an important piece (ht: Hugh Hewitt) on the importance of considering the potential for a bloodbath, or even genocide, should we too quickly abandon Iraq. The reason it was so important is that yesterday, in his speech to the VFW, the President raised the issue in the context of not repeating what we now know was one of the great blunders of the Viet-Nam era.

The press today immediately miscast that portion of the speech, by saying that the President was comparing Iraq to Viet-Nam, when what he really said was that it would be tragic for us to repeat in Iraq, what the Congress back then forced on the Administration by precipitously cutting off funding in Southeast Asia.

And, in doing so, he forcefully laid down a line in the sand.

These days, of course, cutting and running is precisely what the left is vehemently demanding of Congress. Should they succeed in forcing the issue, one wonders if some of their attitudes, among their leftie "cultural heros" will be the same? One immediately comes to mind.

Asked for his reaction to the emerging Cambodian genocidal bloodbath, William Kunstler once said,

"I would never criticize the actions of any Socialist government."

One wonders what sort mentality would lead anyone to make such a comment? Hard to imagine, isn't it?

Hugh Hewitt, however, points out that the left is not only fully aware of the consequences of what they are demanding, some of them are actually gearing up for it!

Now we are watching a replay of that debate of 30 years ago, but this time no one is even bothering to deny that American withdrawal at this point would lead to a bloodbath. It is a strange time, because the "screw 'em" school of cut-and-run advocates includes many folks arguing for doing something for Darfur just as we did in Kosovo. It is as though the prospective slaughter of Arabs just doesn't rank with them.

English writer William Shawcross once published a book called "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia," Simon & Schuster, 1979, suggesting that the Nixon Administration policy had devastated Cambodia. He later reconsidered some of what he wrote, at least in his assessment of what the expected impact of the fall would be, horrified as he was by the excesses of the Khmer Rouge. (See, UPDATE, 08/24, above).

Shawcross later became a strong proponent of deposing Saddam Hussein. Today, of course, the left views him as a traitor.

Recently, Shawcross and Peter W. Rodman, (author of the piece at the first link above), two men who had clashed sharply years ago over United States policy in Cambodia and Southeast Asia, joined in writing an Op-Ed piece, "Defeat’s Killing Fields," which was published in the New York Times (on June 7, 2007), supporting President Bush's determination to avoid a military defeat in Iraq.

The President referred to that piece in his speech yesterday to the VFW. He said:

Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.

Here's what they said:

"Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

The speech the President made yesterday is quite astonishing in the breadth of its historical perspective, and should really be read in the entirety. He addresses all of the historical commitments we have made since World War II, including pointing out the doubts expressed by the critics at the time, given their religious and cultural backgrounds, about whether Japan, or Korea would ever embrace democratic ideals. And he also addresses what he defines as the tragic consequences of our policies vis-a-vis a too-precipitous pullout from Southeast Asia.

Here is the link to that Op-Ed he referred to, as it appeared on June 7th the New York Times. Here are a few of the many points they made:

SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.

We beg to differ.

. . .

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and "re-education" camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt.

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact.

. . .

Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.

As in Indochina more than 30 years ago, millions of Iraqis today see the United States helping them defeat their murderous opponents as the only hope for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have committed themselves to working with us and with their democratically elected government to enable their country to rejoin the world as a peaceful, moderate state that is a partner to its neighbors instead of a threat. If we accept defeat, these Iraqis will be at terrible risk.
Thousands upon thousands of them will flee, as so many Vietnamese did after 1975.

. . .

Our conduct in Iraq is a crucial test of our credibility, especially with regard to the looming threat from revolutionary Iran. Our Arab and Israeli friends view Iraq in that wider context. They worry about our domestic debate, which had such a devastating impact on the outcome of the Vietnam War, and they want reassurance.

. . . .

Peter W. Rodman, an assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs from 2001 to March, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. William Shawcross is the author of “Allies: Why the West Had to Remove Saddam.”

And here is a link to an essay/review from Commentary Magazine entitled, "Was Kissinger Right?" by Gabriel Schoenfeld (ht. Powerline) that reviewed Henry Kissinger's book, and addressed the larger issues of genocide in the historical context of the Cambodian experience in the aftermath of the defeat of the United States in Viet-Nam, including the impact of the congressional cut-off of funds.

It is not for the faint-hearted, particularly, I would think, when you read the following account. Among other reactions, it will likely sadden and then anger you:

. . . Only six months after the Paris Accords were concluded, Congress barred the further use of American force "in or over Indochina," rendering the agreement impossible to uphold. Despite Ford and Kissinger's intensive lobbying, the provision of supplies that might have given South Vietnam a chance to defend itself on its own was progressively slashed by Congress, from $2.1 billion in 1973 to $1 billion in 1974 to a paltry $700 million in 1975 (not all of which was actually disbursed).

As SOUTH VIETNAM, deprived of sustenance and support, began to crumble, even longtime congressional supporters of the war turned their backs. Although Kissinger finds villains across the political spectrum, he singles out for special censure the late Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, "scourge of detente and Ford administration critic for its alleged softness on Communism," who in early 1975 abandoned his perduring support for the war and, to "our immense surprise and huge disappointment," voted to throw South Vietnam to the wolves just as it entered a last desperate struggle to survive.

With the United States reduced to the role of bystander, the fall came swiftly. Cambodia succumbed first. As he does also with Vietnam, Kissinger retells the riveting tale, recounting how, as the Khmer Rouge closed in on the capital city of Phnom Penh in early April 1975, the United States offered a number of Cambodian officials a chance to escape. The reply addressed to the U.S. ambassador by Sirik Matak, a former Cambodian prime minister, and reprinted by Kissinger in full, is one of the more important documents of the entire Vietnam-war era.

Dear Excellency and Friend:

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.

As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.

You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].

Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.

Immediately after the Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh, writes Kissinger, Sirik Matak was shot in the stomach and left to die over the course of three days from his untreated wounds.

In the beginning, middle, and end of this episode, Kissinger shows to telling effect, the barbaric natureof the Communist Khmer Rouge was painted over in soothing tones by much of the American press.

The New York Times was the most flagrant offender. In one dispatch, its correspondent Sydney Schanberg described a ranking Khmer Rouge leader as a "French-educated intellectual" who wanted nothing more than "to fight against feudal privileges and social inequities." A bloodbath was unlikely, Schanberg reported: "since all are Cambodians, an accommodation will be found." As the last Americans were withdrawn, another upbeat article by Schanberg appeared under the headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." In short order, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to march nearly two million of their fellow Cambodians to their deaths in the killing fields. Also in short order, Schanberg went on to greater glory and a Pulitzer prize.*

The President also mentioned Schanberg's "report," though he did not not cast it polemical terms. There is no mistaking the meaning, however.

A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

One can only hope that Hugh Hewitt was correct when he said on a positive note:

The tide appears to be turning at home just as it has in Anbar Province, so the world may avoid a sequel to the killing fields played out in the desert. But if not, President Bush's speech lays down the clearest of markers: The United States has a choice between holding off genocide in the hope of seeing a stable government and renewed region come out of that effort and great sacrifice, or the U.S. can disengage and permit the killing to commence. President Bush is for the former. Most Democrats want to make the other choice. Clarity is a great thing, and nothing could be more clear than this choice.

UPDATE II: 08/24: In a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed today, Max Boot argues that the President's analogy to Southeast Asia is not incorrect, but that it is incomplete. Again, as noted with the first update above, Scott Johnson at Powerline, covers the topic thoroughly.

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 . . ."