Il mondo è tornato ad essere un posto normale. Ricordate, qualche settimana fa, l’editoriale del New York Times (la password per leggerlo cercatela qui) che invocava il ritiro statunitense dall’Iraq? Il giorno dopo, giornali e telegiornali italiani …

I believe the NYT is climbing back on the bandwagon just in time for the 2008 election. They’re laying the groundwork for a dem President while lending credibility to the claim that ’she’ won the war.

Do bear in mind this is an Op-Ed piece. This does not represent a new outlook on the war at the NYT. The paper will follow this up with story after story in an attempt to repudiate this article. Doesn’t the NYT finally understand all the talk and demands of a pullout, if successful, would cause a massacre that could not be “Bush’s fault”.

…FOREMAN: So what’s the real situation on the ground? Arwa Damon is in our Baghdad bureau. CNN military analyst Brigadier David Grange, U.S. Army retired joins us from Chicago and here in Washington Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, just back from Iraq. Michael, let me start with you. The basic question, is the surge working?

MICHAEL O’HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: In military terms, yes. Two big reasons, one, we are doing very well against al Qaeda in Iraq. I don’t want to jump into this whole debate about whether they’re taking orders from Osama bin Laden or not, but they have an extreme ideology and they have gone so far that the Sunni-Arab tribes are now fighting against them. I walked through the streets of Ramadi a couple of days ago without body armor. That city is turned around, 95 percent reduction of violence because the Sunni sheikhs and tribes are with us now against al Qaeda. That’s going great. The sectarian violence much less well resolved so far, but at least we’ve put a bit of a cap or a lid on it with our greater troop strength. So that’s the more long-term problem.

But the fight against al Qaeda is going brilliantly at the moment.

It’s an interesting point … because you just have to ask: wouldn’t an unequivocal American success in Iraq pretty much end the Democratic Party?
Wouldn’t it?
Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Well Professor, maybe not end the Democratic Party but certainly end their majority in both houses.
Unequivocal American success in Iraq would probably mean a Republican President and control of both houses.

Now bear with me:
We live in a land of compromise. A compromise between defeat and victory is just to keep on fighting. The latest Democrat initiatives in Congress were not intended to end the war, and certainly not intended to win the war. By reducing the troop levels back to the Rumsfeld days the war could be extended through the 2008 elections.

Now that would end the Republican Party.
But Harry and Nancy already know that.

I only listen to KFI 640 AM, during trips to/from work. Mostly that w/b during the hours of Bill Handel and John and Ken. Though I like their independence, one thing of note is exactly what you said – rah, rah, rah all for the war, until things got sticky. Then rah, rah, rah all against it. Same as the senators and congresspeaople on the left and some righties. Unreliable rats all.

I don’t know who you have in mind, but would appreciate you sharing the host. With sincere thanks for your service and best regards,

The short attention span, sheep like hoi poloi hear this and hear how they want to make America “fair and just” and buy it. After all, who could be against a “fair” society? Just those mean-spirited Republicans, that’s who, not to mention all those conservatives, libertarians, and any one else who doesn’t vote D.

And since the root cause of all that is unfair is caused by capitalism and free enterprise and can be fixed by top-down government control, well then, it’s obvious what we have to do (socialized medicine, anyone?)!

I only WISH they hated America. It would make things SO much simpler

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back of…

Commenters, make sure you disseminate the link widely. I did my part too.

Now that the Iraqi gov’t went on a long holiday, maybe ours will go for one too.

If that is what it looks like to two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration, just think what it looks like to a really objective reporter….

Read page #2 of the article to see for yourself, the progress, the challenges that still face our troops and the overwhelming feeling of succeeding…. at least until they look to Washington, the only place that still has not gotten the memo:…

FireFly on July 30, 2007 at 12:06 PM

There can be no conservatism without capialism. You kill one you kill the other.

The Dems, MSM, and acadamia are on the ‘death to capitalism’ wagon and aren’t getting off.

Limerick on July 30, 2007 at 11:03 AM

While they want a death to capitalism, they want the Death of Conservatism even more.

How many of that slight majority are socialist/ communists that hate America and think the USA is the great Satan? The democratic leadership are part of that 35% thanks to Pelosi and Reid giving power to KOS and moveon.org. The secret to victory in 08 is to make the other 20% of democrats see that they are not part of that 35% of their party. Reagan did that. It can be done. Will it? I have no idea. I hope it is but I don’t know.

35% are TROOFERS…Democrats have a slight edge over Republicans in numbers. What that translates to is a democrat advantage that just isnt going away regardless of how the Iraq war ends up.

I agree I just don’t think the democratic message will play with the majority of Americans. While they have the upper hand for now I think that upper hand is due more to the anti-incumbant feeling sweeping the country than due to their message. I think the democrats are confusing the two. Much like they are confusing the message about Iraq. It is very hard to understand the truth and the fact that the MSM is in the pocket of the Dems will not help the dems in the long run because they will be getting the wrong feedback.

unseen on July 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM

You take me wrong (my ramblings sometimes do that). I am no defeatist. What I am is a fella who plans based on what is in his bank account and not the promise of future deposits.
Stumbles could go either direction. In that we agree. I just don’t underestimate the enemy. Right now they have the upper hand and nothing I see shows me that the Rep’s have their act together enough to change that.

How many elections can you win with 35%?