Rove giving Bush his due

Great column by Karl Rove in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. After initially describing the sentimental plane ride back to Texas, Rove wrote --

Yet, as Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.

To start with, Mr. Bush was right about Iraq. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And the former president was right to change strategy and surge more U.S. troops.

A legion of critics (including President Barack Obama) claimed it couldn't work. They were wrong. Iraq is now on the mend, the war is on the path to victory, al Qaeda has been dealt a humiliating defeat, and a democracy in the heart of the Arab world is emerging. The success of Mr. Bush's surge made it possible for President Obama to warn terrorists on Tuesday "you cannot outlast us."

Harry Reid too puny to admit he was wrong about the surge

Arguably the most inept Sunday talk show appearance in memory, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the most recent "Meet the Press," especially when new host David Gregory hammered away at Reid's claim in the early stages of the surge that the war in Iraq was "lost" --

A transcript of Reid's remarks, with an accompanying video link, from the MTP website --

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the war in Iraq. In April of 2007, this is what you said: "I believe myself that ... this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything." Were you wrong?

SEN. REID: David, I first met General David Petraeus in Iraq. He was training the Iraqi forces at that time. At that time, he knew it wasn't working. After he became the commander in Iraq, he and I sat down and talked. He said to me, and he said within the sound of everyone's voice, "The war cannot be won militarily." I said it differently than he did. But it needed a change in direction. Petraeus brought that about. He brought it about--the surge helped, of course it helped. But in addition to that, the urging of me and other people in Congress and the country dictated a change, and that took place. So...

MR. GREGORY: But you said the surge was not accomplishing anything. Even Barack Obama said last fall that it exceeded everyone's expectations and succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

SEN. REID: Listen, at that--the time that statement was made, the surge--they weren't talking about the surge. Petraeus added to the surge some very, very interesting things that changed things. He said a lot--just simply numbers of troops is not going to do the deal. What we need to do is work with the Iraqi people, which we haven't done before. That's where the Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus' genius. He's done--he will be written about in the history books for years to come. My original statement was in keeping what David Petraeus said; that is, the war cannot be won militarily.

MR. GREGORY: Do you believe that the war in Iraq has been lost?

SEN. REID: I don't think at this stage we can talk about that with any degree of sensibility. That has to be something that will talked about in the history books to come. We...

MR. GREGORY: So you spoke to soon in 2007?

SEN. REID: David Petraeus and Harry Reid spoke at the same time. David Petraeus said that the war cannot be won militarily, I said what I said. Who, who phrased it the best is...

MR. GREGORY: You said that the war is lost. Today, in 2009, that's no longer your view?

SEN. REID: David, listen, someone else will have to determine that as the years go on. What has the war done? It's brought about--it's destabilized the Middle East. We have a civil war going on in Israel. We have a civil war in Iraq, as indicated today, more than 50 people killed with a bomb in Iraq today. We have Lebanon, a civil war there. We have Iran thumbing their nose with every, everyone. And if that weren't bad enough, our standing in the world community is so far down as a result of this war, so--and that doesn't take into consideration the tens of thousands who have been injured...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. REID: ...and the thousands have been killed in the war. So it's, it's--historians will have to talk about what the war in Iraq did. But I think historians today indicate, as I have, the outline that I've given.

Reid said "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything" in April 2007. On Sunday Reid claimed when he made this statement, "they weren't talking about the surge." All except Reid, and apparently apropo of nothing. The opposite is true -- "they" sure as hell were talking about the surge, meaning just about everyone who gave a damn about the war.

How about this dandy -- "That's where the Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus' genius." Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't liberals said repeatedly that the Sunni Awakening came before the additional troops from the surge?

Nice to see Gen. Petraeus belatedly getting his due, however, seeing how he was slandered by the morons at Moveon.org -- "He will be written about in the history books for years to come. "

Then there was this -- "We have a civil war going on in Israel. We have a civil war in Iraq, as indicated today, more than 50 people killed with a bomb in Iraq today. We have Lebanon, a civil war there."

Got that? Three simultaneous civil wars in the Middle East -- when the actual figure is zero. Until you count the one looming between Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Murtha: 'The surge is working'

A headline I also never thought I'd see, or at least the part that includes Congressman John Murtha. But in fairness to Murtha, an early proponent of US withdrawal from Iraq before the job is done, the man is willing to give credit where credit is due.

Here's the full story as reported today by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Chicken Little morphs into Give 'em Heck Harry

"We can't just walk away and no one suggests we can" - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid telling radio host Ed Schultz today why Democrats won't end funding for the war.

Quite a change of tone for the good Senator since his assertion last spring that "this war is lost."

Reassuring its readers worried about American victory in Iraq

From an editorial in today's Boston Globe under the headline, "Iraq's war of the warlords" -

"When the radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada Sadr called last week for a freeze on his Mahdi Army's operations, it might have been tempting to take it as a positive step toward reducing violence and promoting stability in Iraq."

... Yes, especially "tempting" for the sane and rational among us ...

"But even if his directive is heeded by most components of the far-from-unitary Mahdi Army, any such timeout will only be a tactical pause to let Sadr's forces regroup."

... Globe editorialists being privy to an infallible crystal ball allowing them to predict the future ...

"It hardly portends a transformation of the basic situation in Iraq."

... Let me see if I have this straight - even if "most" of Sadr's army lay down their arms, thereby refraining from further mass killings that have already stained their hands with the blood of thousands, this is not a "positive step"?

In other words - not to worry, we might lose this war yet!

Reminiscent of relentlessly biased coverage

A story published yesterday by the New York Times Service, running under the headline "Bush relentless in making case for his Iraq strategy," and written by Steven Lee Myers:

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush's Iraq strategy faces a crisis of faith these days - from the American public. And he is confronting it the way he has previous crises: with a relentless campaign to persuade people to see things his way.
Bush interrupted his annual August retreat here last week for a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars replete with historical references to Vietnam.
Back at his ranch, he recorded a radio address that showed neither doubt nor any intention to reducing the U.S. commitment in Iraq. On Tuesday, he will speak to the American Legion in Reno, Nev., arguing a hasty withdrawal of troops would prove disastrous.

( ... wow, two speeches and a radio address - pretty "relentless" stuff ...)

"We are still in the early stages of our new operations," Bush said in the radio address Saturday as if there were not those who fervently wished the country was in the later stages, preparing to bring the troops home.

(... most of whom are dutifully employed in the mainstream media ...)

In military parlance, the White House's strategy is called preparing the battlefield - in this case for the series of reports and hearings scheduled on Capitol Hill next month to debate the wisdom of struggling on in the midst of Iraq's sectarian chaos and bloodshed. If recent history is a guide, Bush may well prevail, as he did in January when he made a similar blitz ...

(... as Nazis are inclined to do ...)

... to build the case for dispatching more troops to Iraq, despite swelling public opposition to the war and a Democratic rout in last November's elections.

( ... what's this "rout" stuff, paleface ...?)