Good Riddance, Bob Bennett

Another edition of bullet pointed links to articles I haven't had time to write up but which are good.

• Peter Suderman of Reason.com looks at Paul Ryan, one of my favorite congressmen, and wonders if he's a serious reformer or just another compromised small government hypocrite. You decide.

• Harvard economist and former Reagan advisor, Martin Feldstein, argues in favor of an extension of the Bush tax cuts. I'm with him, natch.

• Former AG, Michael Mukasey, worries, rightly, that we are returned to a pre-9/11 (read: naive) mindset in treatment of terrorists. This is a problem. Unless you've forgotten history and think that these lucky breaks (panty bomber, failed Times Square bomb) are the new norm.

• To the point of terror and the Obama administration, Charles Krauthammer, one of the smartest opinionators out there, tackles the question of Miranda rights and the interrogation of terror suspects. Like immigration, this question isn't as easy at it seems.

• Another favorite of this blog, John Bolton (aka, The Mustachioed Badass), holds forth on the Greece-precipitated Euro-crisis.

• Meanwhile, Daniel Krauthammer reviews the Senate investigations into Goldman Sachs. I think this is a politically opportunistic show trial with little to no merit. Hopefully it also means Goldmanites will donate less to Obama in 2012. Maybe. Unless you think they'll also take advantage of any new regulatory regime to gain some advantage over competitors. That's probably what will happen. (h/t Scott L.)

• Bob Bennett is gone and I think it's a good thing. The MFM takes the liberal line that this is an example of hysterical conservative extremists over a good, reasonable, and conservative senator. Meanwhile, when Sestak defeats Specter in PA, that--that--will be a triumph over incumbency and a renewal of core American democratic principles. Huzzah for the little guy, or something.

• No weekly links post would be complete without at least one to my fav columnist, Bret Stephens. His column on Turkey carries extra weight for me as we recently traveled to Istanbul. I hope it doesn't turn into Iran; I'd like to go back someday.

• Finally, modern-day hero, General David Petraeus, was recently spoke at an AEI dinner wherein he received the Irving Kristol Award. His speech is (transcript here) is great review of the power of ideas helping to propel the success of The Surge. If you read nothing else from this week's list-o-links, read this.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Harry Reid's Nuts 6

A report on the contraction, not the possessive.

This is turning from a sometime feature to a daily feature.

For Senator Reid, everything is about maximizing political gain. The best example of this was the delight Senator Reid took in American pre-Surge problems and the seats it would gain Democrats in the 2006 elections (for entertainment purposes, see this. Love Dennis Miller). This man is shameless. Absolutely shameless.

The latest example, via Glenn Thrush at Politico, is tamer, but of a piece with the Iraq example.

Q: How will U.S. Sen. (Edward) Kennedy's death affect things?

A: I think it's going to help us. He hasn't been around for some time. We're going to have a new chairman of that committee, it'll be, I don't know for sure, but I think Sen. (Chris) Dodd, (D-Conn.). He has a right to take it. Either him or (U.S. Sen. Tom) Harkin, (D-Iowa), whichever one wants it can have it. I think he (Kennedy) will be a help. He's an inspiration for us. That was the issue of his life and he didn't get it done.

This is also right in line with Rahm Emanuel's personal political philosophy that one ought never let a crisis go to waste. True leftist Democrats survey the political landscape and opportunistically take advantage of any crisis or mourning, sympathetic public.

I guess I should just be glad that Senator Reid is just as willing to capitalize on the death of one of his own--consistency!--as he was on the deaths of American soldiers.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Don't Forget About Iraq

The Surge bought us success & peace in Iraq which our current President & Congressional Democratic leadership both denied AND actively worked against.

This much is undeniable.

Now that hard-fought peace & security has been won, the worry is that Obama might abandon Iraq and seize defeat from the jaws of victory. As Michael Yon explains, these gains are reversible.

Today Iraq is succeeding, but as Generals Petraeus or Odierno might say, the situation remains fragile and reversible.

Whereas the Bush-war ended in a new if messy democracy, this year we could see an Obama-war begin; the new President has sent a clear signal that we intend to mostly abandon Iraq during this crucial transition period. Today, the progress is obvious. But if Iraq descends back into chaos, the Obama-war, a newborn war, will not be a result of U.S. aggression, but of limp leadership intent on fulfilling campaign promises that were misinformed to begin with.

Ignore me, if you like; Michael Yon has spent more time on the ground in Iraq than any other journalist in the world.

If Iraq regresses, Obama may try to blame generals or his predecessor, but he will have no one to blame but himself and perhaps his advisers and some idiot members of his constituency who made him promise to withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Stephen Hadley, Awesome American

In the week-long run-up to VI-Day (Victory in Iraq Day), I'll be posting good articles related to the success of our troops, The Surge, and those who supported The Surge against the Democrat and public opinion tide.

One of the people to include in the pantheon was Stephen Hadley.

[...] one fact trumps everything else: Without this good man's courage and persistence, there would have been no surge.

I don't think I am talking out of school to mention facts that have been recorded in newspaper articles and books as different as Bing West's "The Strongest Tribe" and Bob Woodward's "The War Within." The surge story begins back in 2006, when al Qaeda finally succeeded in setting the Shia and Sunni at each others' throats. That October, with Baghdad consumed by sectarian fires, Mr. Hadley tasked William Luti to come up with a new way forward.

Mr. Luti was then serving in the National Security Council (NSC) as special assistant for defense policy and strategy. A retired Navy captain who had commanded an amphibious ready group that included thousands of Marines, he was familiar with war planning. The briefing that he came up with was called "Changing the Dynamics: Surge and Fight, Create Breathing Space and Then Accelerate the Transition." You know it as "the surge."

The difficulty for these two men was that outside their colleagues in the NSC and West Wing, few wanted to hear about sending more American troops to Iraq. The Democrats wanted out and were declaring the war lost. Some Republicans were joining in. The Iraq Study Group offered a face-saving out, and many in the Defense and State departments wanted to take it. The American public was weary.

By having Mr. Luti draw up the concept for a surge, Mr. Hadley ensured that when options were presented to the president, one of them would be to fight. In Mr. Luti's strategic conception, securing the population became the top priority. In public, advocates like retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and military strategist Fred Kagan did yeoman's work to press the case for a surge. But within the White House decision-making process, it was almost this simple: No Steve Hadley, no surge -- and no success.

What can this possibly mean for Mr. Obama? The answer is plenty. Many things have changed since he first came out against this war. For one thing, he is now the president-elect instead of an opposition voice in the Senate -- which means he now bears the responsibility for how the war turns out. For another, back when he first called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn, President Bush's victory talk was treated as a joke. It is no longer a joke.

As Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno are keen to remind us, the gains in Iraq are fragile and reversible. But they are nevertheless real. And that means that if Mr. Obama is not careful, he could be the president who loses Iraq.

It need not turn out that way. At bottom, Mr. Obama's war stance boils down to reducing our presence in Iraq and increasing our presence in Afghanistan. The success of the surge permits him [Obama] to carry out this strategy from a position of strength. In fact, the security pact just approved by Iraq's cabinet suggests that Mr. Obama is now in a position to achieve most of his Iraq aims without jeopardizing the hard-won gains our troops have made -- provided he keeps his word to listen to our commanders on the ground.

(per usual, emphasis added)

What a difference 2 years makes.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Success In Iraq (UPDATED, x3 & Bumped)

Most everyone I know wrote off Iraq sometime in 2006 or 2007. I'll admit, it was rough going and things looked bleak--especially in summer and fall 2006 ahead of The Surge.

But General David Petraeus and his #2, Ray Odierno and all the many brave soldiers in their command executed the principles of The Surge masterfully, with the result being that Iraqis (and Americans) can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. As I've mentioned numerous times before, John McCain deserves a lot of credit for supporting it early, consistently, and to his detriment.

George W. Bush deserves the lion's share of the credit. He could have succumbed to his Democrat critics and pulled out of Iraq, leaving American military and domestic morale in a shambles and handicapping our influence for at least a generation. But he didn't.

My suspicion is that in 40 years, fair-minded historians will treat W's presidency with far greater equanimity than either today's opinion polls or pundits. I would guess that even many of his more sober critics would probably admit that they agree.

Thanks to Branden B. for the tip: Click the link and view a solemn reminder of some of the costs of victory in Iraq. The WSJ graphic shows the coalition troop losses over the course of the war. Best of all is the "biography" option which allows you to click on the dots (which represents soldiers who died) and read a short biography.

My fear (shared by many) and probably the greatest danger, is that Barack Obama will seize defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling coalition forces out of Iraq before Iraqis are able to defend themselves from interior and exterior threats. They are on the path to that goal, but they are not there yet.

To leave before they are ready would waste the sacrifice and work of thousands of brave American and coalition soldiers and would amount to the single greatest American defeat since the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese. It would be an unmitigated disaster that would destabilize the entire region.

UPDATE 11:50pm BST: Steve M. writes:

Sometimes in life we have to finish a job that was started by someone else or in error, but it must be finished in order to not marginalize, minimize, or totally negate the sacrifice of others.

Sorry, but I spent two years living in South America under a dictatorship and watched people suffer from the autrocities of oppression. Regardless of whether this was to fight the war on terror (which I believe it was, but our liberal friends have no concept of how to bring an unseen enemy out of the shadows to fight), or to keep control of oil, it can and has created a country where people have the freedom to choose their direction. Who are we to say they aren't worth that effort. What if we were the ones oppressed, wouldn't we welcome the restoration of our liberties? Or would we refuse the help because it was too hard and continue suffering?

UPDATE 18 November 2:54am BST: More good news from Iraq, this coming from General McCaffrey's AAR:

THE BOTTOM LINE:

a. The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives:

• The withdrawal of the majority of our US ground combat forces in Iraq in the coming 36 months.

• Leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces.

• An Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

• And an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states.

b. The security situation is clearly still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or to degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government. However, the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability which is unlikely to be reversible. I would not characterize the situation as fragile. It is just beyond the tipping point.

• Daily attacks hit a high of 180+ in July of 2007--- they are now down to 20+ per day.

• Civilian deaths dropped from 3700 per month in Dec 2006 --- to 400 + in October 2008.

• US military deaths dropped from 110 in May of 2007---to 10 in October 2008.

• Iraqi Security Forces KIA dropped from 310 in June 2007--- to 50 in October 2008.)

Like his denunciation of Nafta, I hope Obama's promise to 'withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground,' was just empty primary campaign boilerplate, designed to get the anti-war moonbat wing of the Democrat party on board, and not, you know, his grown-up position.

(thanks to Ace)

UPDATE 18 November 1:38pm BST: VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY: Alright, folks, this Saturday is Victory In Iraq Day. The day in which we celebrate the triumph of the American military over its many foes in Iraq and the establishment of a free democracy in the Middle East--by my count, the 2nd such democracy in that part of the world.

As you'll read when you click the link: don't expect the media, or either the outgoing (just trying to keep his head down) or incoming (didn't think it was possible, owes early success to our struggles there) Presidents.

Save the date and celebrate it. Thank members of the military wherever you see them for their hard work and sacrifice.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Nobama: An Appeal To Reason

Among my friends who support Barack Obama, there are very few who can actually name or describe in any detail, his admittedly few policy prescriptions. In most cases, I know more about what he has said he would do than they do. For them, a vote for Obama, in addition to being a vote for "change" and "hope," is also a feel-good vote.

Thomas Sowell put it pretty well:

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.

An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.

Whether that feelgoodedness comes from the collective cool transferred to them by the Obama camp (another way Obama is a collectivist) or because they believe the hype and the rhetoric or perhaps even because they think electing Obama will somehow help America get past its history rather than Presidentializing a racial grievance monger--whatever reason they feel good about voting for Obama, my sense is that it's going to turn into a feel-bad outcome.

What little we know about Obama--his foul associations with racist, hate-monger Reverend Jeremiah Wright, commie-terrorist Bill Ayers, slum lord Tony Rezko--does not match his airy rhetoric and campaign promises.

Why should we believe a man who promises to cut taxes when, at every opportunity, he has voted to raise taxes or opposed tax cuts?

Why should be believe that a man has any respect for human life when he voted against protecting those babies who, against the odds, survived the abortion procedure and were born alive?

Why should we believe a man will successfully lead our armed forces and protect America when he has demonstrated that politics--winning an election!--is more important than winning a war?--A man who refuses to acknowledge the success of The Surge and would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Why should we believe that Barack Obama will ever do anything that is unpopular politically for the good of his country, when all he has ever done is voted present?

Why should we believe that Obama will do anything to change the way government is run when, after receiving over $100,000 in campaign donations, he so willingly went along with the Fannie Mae train wreck, opposing any attempts at reform. If you believe Obama will change anything in Washington with respect to earmarks, corruption, kickbacks, etc., you are woefully mistaken.

We have no reason to believe--no rational, logical reason to assume--that Barack Obama will actually do what he has promised or be able to do what millions of people have hoped. Those who vote for Obama, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, cast aside all logic and reason and ensconce themselves in a willfully ignorant, padded room of feel-good platitudes.

Unless you are a far left liberal, then you may be pleased with what you will get.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Guy Who Said Iraq Would Be A 'Cakewalk' Endorses Obama

I catch hell from my anti-Iraq war, liberal progressive friends all the time (or at least I used to, until The Surge became such a wild success) about the supposed statement that the war would be a "cakewalk," etc. They would smugly point out that it has been anything but.

So anyway, the guy who actually made that infamous statement--not Bush, not Cheney, not McCain--KEN ADELMAN, just announced that he's supporting Barack Obama.

Now that he's for Obama, all is forgiven. Whatever.

(h/t Ace)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

War Games: 'Obama Was Willing To Lose In Iraq'

The Conventional Wisdom is that Iraq is a cautionary tale of lost prestige and ability to influence. But our experience in Vietnam--history--tells a different tale of how things might have been.

Former Reagan National Security Advisor, Robert McFarlane writes:

A profoundly important point is being missed in the campaign debate over which candidate was right on Iraq. In 2006, when conditions on the ground were trending downward and a decision was required either to continue the struggle or to cut our losses, Barack Obama stated that the proposed deployment of more forces, the "surge," was doomed to failure and instead called for a phased withdrawal of all forces within a defined period.

In short, Sen. Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis -- something without lasting consequence.

I recall very vividly April 30, 1975, the day we acknowledged defeat in the Vietnam War -- the day Ambassador Graham Martin and others were evacuated ignominiously from the roof of our embassy in Saigon. Only later did it become clear how damaging that defeat was.

There were consequences for all nations, especially small states who are vulnerable to great-power pressures. In the late 1970s it contributed to a greater Russian willingness to take risks and a more aggressive Soviet foreign policy. Indeed, in the years immediately following our defeat in Vietnam, an emboldened Soviet Union established a dominant influence in Angola, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Mozambique, Nicaragua and ultimately invaded Afghanistan with 100,000 troops.

Our loss also lessened our willingness to criticize the Soviet Union and thereby undermined the struggles of oppressed minorities inside that totalitarian state.

Losing a war also affects the behavior of allies who begin to wonder whether the United States can still muster the means and will to uphold its obligations, and to ask themselves whether they need at least to hedge their bets by being more conciliatory to adversaries. I recall very well the sudden rush of European foreign ministers to Moscow in the late '70s without so much as a preliminary discussion with their counterpart in Washington.

Further, losing a war also has a profound effect on the thinking within our military concerning how it was led, restricted, or abused in wartime. Painful reflection on a loss penetrates every level of the military and conditions its future relationship with civilian leaders -- as it surely did in the wake of the Vietnam War. Specifically, it led to the adoption, at military urging, of the Weinberger Doctrine, which asserted stringent criteria to be met in the future before any resort to the use of military force. These criteria included not committing forces to combat unless it was vital to our national interest, we had clearly defined political and military objectives, and unless the engagement had the support of the American people and Congress -- and then only as a last resort.

Allies and adversaries could see that these criteria were virtually impossible to fulfill, thus worrying the former and encouraging the latter. Yet such was the effect on senior military leaders of losing a war they knew they could have won. We are seeing some of the same disdain within the military toward our political leadership today as a consequence of how civilian leaders mismanaged the war in its first three-plus years.

Losing a war also affects our body politic. Americans have a low tolerance for foreign wars; losing one only reinforces their inclination to avoid foreign involvement and focus on matters here at home. Now is such a time. Yet can you imagine how much worse our political stability would be today -- faced with the financial and housing crises -- if we were also coming home from losing a war?

[...]

The next president will enter office with the war in Iraq winding down but with the conflict in Afghanistan requiring urgent, focused attention. The stakes engaged there go well beyond restoring order in that country alone. How we emerge from Afghanistan will go far toward determining our ability to prevail in the global war against radical Islam, our ability to limit nuclear proliferation, and to bring order and the hope for a brighter future to the almost two billion people in South and Central Asia. These are issues of profound importance to the future security of our nation and our citizens. Losing is not an option, and no sensible leader should entertain the thought that it is.

(emphasis added)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More On Iraq & Gen. Jacke Keane

Longtime friend and reader of OL&L, Matt D., writes in response to my earlier post:

Having spent 14 months in Iraq from December 2003 through February 2005, the one that is very clear to me is that this is unlike any war that has ever been fought. Anybody that currently believes that we can and should just pull out tomorrow does not understand the ramifications that such an action would cause. Regardless of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place, we have to finish the job before we leave.

The dynamics of this war are difficult to understand, and the history of what is happening there does not go back when we invaded in 2003, nor does it go back to 1990-ish for the first gulf war. It goes back to WWI and the treaty of Versailles. That was when we got Turks, Kurds, Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims shoved into the same country. They've never really gotten along, and they only stayed relatively quiet under Sadam's rule because he had a habit of killing people. We dug up years and years of history, and the only way to calm everything down is to provide an intense amount of security until the new government can stabilize itself. Allowing one of the groups to overly dominate the others by force instead of through constructive debate would only bring progress to a screeching halt.

So, our current role is to try to keep people from killing each other so the constructive debates can continue. It's hard to do that if you only have one pair of eyes for every 1,000,000 people. The surge helps us keep tabs on terrorist groups and their movements, so we can prevent attacks and kill terrorists. From where I'm sitting, that's a good thing. I'd like to see our troops come home as soon as possible too, but let's not make the political unpopularity of the war drive us to defeat. I'm with Gen. Keane--let's git 'er done.

This is good stuff. And I want to thank all the readers who email me with thoughtful comments. With so many emails, I can't possibly post everything everyone sends me, so don't be offended if what you send doesn't make the cut.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

McCain Suspends Campaign To Resolve Economic Crisis (UPDATED)

If ever there were a candidate who had the credibility to do something like this, it's John McCain. This is the man who supported The Surge when it was eminently unpopular to do so, because he felt he was putting his Country First.

Whether you agree wholeheartedly with the bailout or, like me, have doubts, you must believe that John McCain is suspending his campaign because he believes it is best for America.

UPDATE 4:31pm MDT: Barack Obama's response to John McCain was to say, essentially, 'I wanted to issue a joint statement with John McCain and he unilaterally decided to suspend his campaign and go back to DC to resolve the crisis. Presidents have to be able to chew gum & walk; I'm going to carry on campaigning and prepping for the debate.'

Of course Presidents have to be able to muti-task. But you better believe that if Pres. Bush were abroad, talking foreign policy, pundits would be calling for him to return and focus on the economic crisis. And they would be right. Whether he, personally, actually did anything about it, his attention to the crisis lends efforts to resolve it increased legitimacy and calms market and public fears.

UPDATE 4:55pm MDT: Yesterday, Harry Reid said that John McCain's support was the key to passing bailout legislation. Now, Reid says he doesn't need McCain's help. What's going on here?

In the first instance, Reid was trying to get political cover for legislation that may or may not work out. If it failed, disastrously, he could pin some or all of the blame on Republicans & John McCain.

Now that McCain has called his bluff and is going to get to work, Reid says, "stay away." Why? Pure politics. He's sticking up for his man Obama.

That's leadership, Democrat-style.

UPDATE 7:00pm MDT: Looks like Mr. Obama is going to Washington after all--at the invitation of President Bush.

I know how political junkies on both sides--McCain & Obama--view today's developments. What I don't know is how will the casual observer look at things? Events like these tend to break down into simple sentences in the larger election narrative--McCain went to Washington to fix the problem, Obama followed his lead OR McCain tried to play politics with the economic crisis.

How will today's page of the 2008 election picture-book read?

UPDATE 9:31pm MDT: McCain & Obama finally released that joint statement Obama was crying about in his press conference earlier in the day.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama & The Troops

We're not going to say that Barack Obama, Guitar Hero* hates the troops or that he's unpatriotic. We're sure he respects them and is as patriotic as the next guy. But we will say this: by skipping his visit to the injured troops in Germany, he once again showed his true poltical colors.

Obama is a political opportunist--a man whose every campaign decision is made out of political expediency.

It's common knowledge that visits to injured troops are limited to the respective staffs of the visiting politicians with campaign staff excluded. That Obama and his fawning entourage were ignorant of this fact is revealing. That they opted to skip the visit because they couldn't make it another campaing event is even more revealing.

This tells us--rightly or wrongly--that if the injured troops couldn't be used as political props for the Obama campaign, then they aren't worth visiting.

Obama's political outlook--lick a finger and stick it in the air--contrasts sharply with John McCain. Every politician makes political decisions, but can anyone point to an unpopular position taken by Obama? Can anyone highlight a principled political risk he has taken?

Before The Surge, John McCain was for more troops in Iraq. And since the start of The Surge, he has been it's staunchest defender--despite it's unpopularity. A year ago, most political observers were writing John McCain's political obituary because of his support for The Surge.

One year later, The Surge has produced incredible security gains and the political gains have followed. John McCain deserves much credit for his principled stand.

Back to Obama.

What can we count on from the junior Senator from Illinois? Anything beyond empty, pleasing to the ear rhetoric about Hope and Change?

We know one thing: he will always act in a self-interested, politically expedient way--whether it's visiting the troops or supporting The Surge.

*Over-the-top performance, no real skill.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

McCain's New York Times Op-Ed

We woke up this morning intending to write a kind of an update about Iraq and how much things had improved over the last 18 months, 12 months, and 6 months. We were going to talk about how courageous Senator McCain had been to defend The Surge just over a year ago when it was so unpopular and looked like it would probably cost him the Republican nomination.

All of those things remain true--and Senator McCain should be rewarded for taking an unpopular stance that has proved right and good.
(something like this: Victory in Iraq)

But it's all been kind of preempted by the New York Times' refusal to print Senator McCain's op-ed just a week after printing Senator Obama's. This doesn't surprise us. It fits right into the ongoing narrative of Obama's fawning press coverage. At this point, can anyone deny it?

Obama commits gaffes every day ('I'll be President for 8-10 years') but it is not reported the way it would be if Senator McCain made the same remark. And if the shoe were on the other foot about Iraq--if Senator McCain were the one who wanted to abandon Iraqis to civil war and sure genocide, you better believe every liberal talking head would write numerous 'I told you so' op-ed pieces about how The Surge proved him wrong.

And the New York Times won't even print an op-ed piece in which Senator McCain challenges Senator Obama on Iraq. He challenged Obama the way the MSM should have been doing all along--by pointing out that Obama has been and remains wrong about Iraq. That his policy does not match reality. That he said ridiculous, unsupportable things in the primary ('I will withdraw within 16 months regardless of what's happening on the ground or what my commanders tell me') to get elected by the Leftists in his party.

Is it too much to ask that his press entourage actually ask Senator Obama a tough question? Is that allowed?

Oh well, the least the rest of us can do is link to the text of Senator McCain's op-ed piece at Drudge. Check it out here.

This is just another example of Barack Obama, Guitar Hero candidate:

He's plays well to a crowd, but give him a real guitar and he's a disaster.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Devil Gets His Pitchfork

We're always sad to see a fellow believer lose the faith. For that reason, we took Obama's resignation from Trinity United pretty hard. But when a supposedly faith-full decision is made for purely political reasons, what can you expect?

All of this raises a larger point that we have pointed out numerous times--mainly that Barack Obama, despite his unified rhetoric, is just like every other politician.

But that doesn't quite do it justice. Beyond choosing his church out of political expedience--Trinity United is a hugely influential church on Chicago's south side--Obama has demonstrated over and over again that the most important consideration in any decision is the political one.

Before anyone gets all in a tizzy over that last point, can anyone cite one example of a bipartisan or post-partisan stand that was politically unpopular? Anyone?

You can't because he hasn't.

Obama isn't post-partisan (whatever that means) post-race or even bipartisan. His voting record in Congress is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's.

John McCain is by far the most moderate candidate in this presidential race. Obama's prop-machine is doing it's darndest to paint him as Bush's 3rd term, a la Bush Senior, but they are so far unable because this country recognizes that McCain's maverick label is a deserved one.

Whatever we true conservatives may think about McCain's campaign finance reform and position on immigration, the independents and moderate Democrats in this country recognize that John McCain is more centrist than either of the two Democratic candidates. This is why he polls so well among those voters. It's why more states are up for grabs this November than might have been in 2004.

One point about McCain and Iraq, before we close. Before "the surge" became The Surge (!), John McCain advocated for a drastic increase in troops on the ground. Heck, he was critical of Rumsfeld's limited footprint policy from day one.

Savvy observers of the Iraq war recognize that McCain was right and that his staunch defense of our presence there and in Afghanistan, while clearly not a politically popular one (contrast again with Obama), has been emphatically affirmed.

The political gains Bush and McCain and others said would come in the wake of the security gains are happening every day. Things are drastically improved. And with that improvement, a lot of the wind has been taken out of the sails of the anti-war left.

The decision between McCain and Obama becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day: want a President willing to make tough decisions that buck partisan politics and, when necessary, popular opinion? The choice is clear: vote for John McCain.

One thing is certain. You cannot say you embrace moderate politics and choose Barack Obama over John McCain.

So, Obama & change you can believe in?

With John McCain you don't have to believe, you can know just by looking at his long record as a reformer.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.