PROGRESS IN IRAQ

THIS IS JUST SO GOOD THAT INSTEAD OF COMMENTING ON IT, I JUST POSTED THE ARTICLE!

Shocking New York Times Op-ed: Iraq Is ‘A War We Just Might Win’
By Noel Sheppard | July 30, 2007 - 10:07 ET
On Sunday, NewsBusters reported a shocking discussion that ensued on "The Chris Matthews Show" wherein five liberal media members actually debated why America shouldn't withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Maybe more shocking, the following day, an op-ed was published in the New York Times claiming that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, "morale is high," and, as a result, this is "a war we just might win."

Adding to the shock is that this piece was written by two members of the Brookings Institution, which even Wikipedia acknowledges is "widely regarded as being politically liberal." The authors - Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack - described themselves as "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq."

Not anymore. Better prepare yourself for an alternate reality (emphasis added throughout):

The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. 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.

Shocking. But it got even better:

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops...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.

And, the numbers speak for themselves:

[C]ivilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began - though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

[...]

[T]hings look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

Amazing, wouldn't you agree. Yet, the best was still to come:

In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Maybe most shocking, the authors, almost speaking directly to dovish Democrats in Congress as well as those running for president, concluded:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

How extraordinary to read this in the New York Times.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and a contributing editor to NewsBusters

"BALLSY" INCIDENT

I just want to send a shout out to Faith Hill for ripping a fan a new A-hole for grabbing Tim McGraw's nads during their recent concert in Louisiana. If you want to see the video of the incident, go to TMZ.com. I would insert the link but I'm not that good at doing such things...
Faith is quoted as saying, ""Somebody needs to teach you some class, my friend. You don't go grabbing somebody else's, somebody's husband's balls, you understand me?
"That's very disrespectful". I love it! It seems as though some people think that celebrities are public property and fair game to be touched, fondled, harassed, etc., and I'm glad Faith had the hutzpah to confront the ball-fondling fan!

YOU TUBE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE

I am a Republican and my boyfriend is a Democrat (Carville and Matalin ring a bell???), so I was subjected to the above-mentioned auditory assault on CNN the other night. To be fair and honest, I watched it willingly because I wanted to hear what Clinton, Obama and the others had to say. I'm not going to get into political rhetoric because that is not the purpose of this post. My intention here is to say how utterly ridiculous and politically ignorant & unsavvy much of the American public is. I was appalled at the selfishness of some of the questions. Granted, I only watched, I think, the last hour of the "debate"; but I heard enough. Someone asked for his taxes to be lowered so he could afford college; two women asked if they could get married if any one of the candidates became the next president; someone asked about reparations for slavery; someone asked on behalf of others if undocumented workers could get health care coverage under his/her potential administration; BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! One jackass asked the candidates to look at the person on their left and say what they liked/disliked the most about that person. GIVE ME A FUCKIN' BREAK!I think I laughed out loud! If this was a ploy for the Dems to show how much they value the opinions of the common man, I think it backfired. I don't think even they expected the lack of substance in the questions and that the questions would originate from such narrow self-interest. I was secretly hoping that some tree-hugging PETA member would ask for universal health care coverage for animals!!!!
I heard on the Quinn & Rose show this morning that the Republican candidates do not want to do the You Tube debate, and I can't blame them. I understand that our president needs to care about the interests of the American people, but I believe he/she needs to be most concerned about macro, not micro, issues that benefit the majority of Americans. I think the Republicans understand this, and don't want to waste their time answering ridiculous questions. The Dems really didn't have a chance to debate each other over the questions, which, I thought, was the point of having the whole thing.

Application Matters

I heard recently of a minister in the Midwest who was going for a walk with a soap salesman in the community who was a real skeptic toward Christianity. They were having quite an active debate while walking through the park. The businessman was getting in some good jabs at the inconsistency of Christians.

As they were walking through the park the soap salesman questioned the minister, "How can you say that Christianity works when even within the inner-city park you see derelicts of every kind, drugs, and prostitutes? Then you have the problems of the family, war, and disease, not to mention the negative problems of the world. How can you say that Christianity works? Just look around-it's not working." They walked in silence for a few moments, and then the minister turned to him and said, "You're a soap salesman, right?" "Yes, of course," was the reply. "Is it good soap?" "It's the best soap on the market!" was the comment of the salesman. The minister turned and pointed to a small child playing in the park who was covered with dirt and grime, and said, "This boy is dirty and filthy from the mud in the park; doesn't your soap help him?" The salesman said, "Well, you've got to apply the soap." The minister's response was, "So it is with the Christian faith. You must apply the Christian faith in order for it to work."