The Cool Blue Blog

Rejected

On July 14th, the New York Times printed an editorial by Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama in which he outlined his plan for Iraq. Less than a week later, the New York Times rejected an editorial by Senator McCain saying it wasn't enough like Obama's.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

Senator McCain has decided not to rewrite the article. What follows is the full text of the editorial the New York Times doesn't want its readers to see courtesy of the Drudge Report:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

When asked by ABCs Terry Moran yesterday “If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?”

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.

In fact, when talking to Iraq's Prime Minister yesterday, he did not acknowledge that the Surge is responsible to the current state of affairs in Iraq. Or that America had anything to do with it at all.

"I congratulate you (Maliki) on the achievements of your government ... I am supportive and committed to preserving the gains the Iraqi government achieved under your leadership," the statement in Arabic quoted Obama as saying....

Obama told ABC News he "did not anticipate ... the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni Awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al-Qaeda, in the Shiia community the militias standing down to some degrees.

"So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops."

But the Surge had nothing to do with it, according to Obama. It was all Iraq, and more specifically, all Maliki the whole time.

Obama rejected "the Surge" at the beginning and rejects it today.

Obama may claim to be able to change many things, but he can not change his own mind.

Even when the evidence is clear.

Obama, like the New York Times, does not want to hear, or recognize any facts or opinions that contradict their own firm fixed positions.

Reality notwithstanding.

Seeing only clouds

The Institutionally Media continues to have to report successes in Battle for Iraq

The number of attacks during the four weeks encompassing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan was far lower this year than during the same period last year, despite recent threats by insurgents to inflict heavy casualties, according to U.S. officials and independent statistics.

...overall violence for the period was down 40% compared with the 2006 Ramadan, and U.S. military deaths fell by half, to 49, according to the U.S. military and icasualties.org, which tracks casualties in Iraq. The Iraqi Ministry of Interior said violence in September, which included two weeks of Ramadan, was at the lowest monthly level of the year.

This year's Ramadan may have been the least deadly for U.S. troops in Iraq, according to icasualties.org, which lists 98 troop deaths during Ramadan last year, 93 the year before, 104 in 2004, and 88 in 2003.

Civilian deaths amounted to one-fifth of the level in September 2006, according to icasualties.org, although the group said such figures tend to be unreliable.

The Islamic State of Iraq, a Sunni insurgent coalition that includes Al Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement in mid-September saying it would launch a Ramadan offensive through Oct. 22.

But reinforcing the notion that when it comes to Iraq, there is never a Silver Lining, this reduction in violence is proving to be a hardship for some. No, what follows is not a story recounting the effect on the anti-democratic Islamists, but rather the grave-diggers

At what’s believed to be the world’s largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq.

"I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead,” said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. “People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don't talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more.”

Dhurgham Majed al Malik, 48, whose family has arranged burial services for generations, said that this spring, private cars and taxis with caskets lashed to their roofs arrived at a rate of 6,500 a month. Now it’s 4,000 or less, he said.

Malik said that the daily tide of cars bearing coffins has been a barometer of Iraq’s violence for years. The number of burials rose and fell several times during Saddam Hussein’s persecution of Shiites, and it soared again during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Then in the 1990s, the daily average fell to 150 or less, Malik said. With the current war, the burials again reached 300 daily.

In the early days of the war, some bodies brought for burial had been victims of Saddam, found by their families in unmarked mass graves. Later, there were surges; September 2005 marked a high point after a stampede during a Shiite Muslim festival killed hundreds on a Baghdad bridge. More than 1,300 were buried in a single day, Malik said.

Well, as far as barometers go, I gravediggers are a pretty good reflection of what's going on in Iraq.

Where's Juan?

Juan Cole, writing for Salon, damns Operation Arrowhead Ripper from afar

Earlier this week Sen. Richard Lugar, the senior Republican from Indiana, dismissed the U.S. "surge" in Iraq as unlikely to succeed. He condemned any illusions about staying the course. "We have overestimated what the military can achieve, we have set goals that are unrealistic, and we have inadequately factored in the broader regional consequences of our actions," Lugar said from the Senate floor.

His alarm has been illustrated by the difficulties the U.S. and Iraqi militaries faced in the recent offensive operation dubbed "Operation Arrowhead Ripper," aimed at subduing Baquba (pop. 300,000), the restive capital of Diyala province, located 31 miles northeast of Baghdad. American generals admitted that 80 percent of the guerrilla leadership there had slipped away, and that the Iraqi army lacked the equipment and training to hold areas taken in difficult hand-to-hand fighting.

On the other hand, Michael Yon, reporting from the battlefield, had this to say

On 19 June American forces sealed off Baqubah and began attacking targets within the city. The immediate goal of Arrowhead Ripper was to free Baqubah of al Qaeda, by trapping and killing its members, but according to American officers here, public remarks by senior military officials may have flushed many AQI leaders before the attack. Despite this frustrating and significant setback, progress toward the end-state goal of Arrowhead Ripper—turning over Baqubah to Iraqi government control—appears to be working, at least in terms of the removal of the current AQI leadership and its quasi-government. There are conflicting signals about how many of the AQI leadership escaped before Arrowhead Ripper launched. This weekend’s capture of a possible high-value target in Baqubah indicates that not all AQI leaders successfully fled the city before the attack.

Media reports indicating that many top leaders escaped before Arrowhead Ripper began appear to be mostly true. But other information suggests some AQI leaders are trapped just down the road from where I write. In addition to the seven men who were caught trying to escape while dressed as women, there is information that some AQI leaders remain trapped in a constricting cordon.

For security reasons, the Iraqi Army (IA) was not included in the initial planning of Arrowhead Ripper, yet with each succeeding day the IA has taken a larger role in the unfolding attack. The Fifth Iraqi Army Division is considered an increasingly competent group of fighters, and from the limited scope of 5th IA that I personally witnessed, that judgment seems correct. The 5th is committed to battle. Whereas the Iraqi Army is coming into the fight, and playing increasingly critical roles, the local police force is less impressive.

And the Military itself reports

Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) teamed with Task Force Lightning units, Thursday, to clear Baqouba and surrounding areas as Operation Arrowhead Ripper continued.

“We are shoulder-to-shoulder with Iraqi Security Forces in this fight,” said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commanding general, operations, and commander of Operation Arrowhead Ripper. “Specifically the 5th Iraqi Army Division led by Maj. Gen. Saleem Kariem Ali Alotbei, along with the provincial director of police, Maj. Gen. Ganim, have provided the Iraqi security forces to the fight.

The weeks ahead are absolutely key in not only holding and retaining the ground that is cleared in partnership with Coalition Forces (CF), but also in building trust and confidence with the citizens of Diyala.”

In support of the operation, attack helicopters from 2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Squadron, 82nd Attack Reconnaissance Battalion provided assistance to Iraqi and Coalition ground forces, killing at least 13 al-Qaida operatives and destroying an al Qaeda compound during the second day of the operation.

“Over the last three days, the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade has provided Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition infantry

brigade combat teams, attack, scout and transportation helicopters. These assets give Coalition and Iraqi ground forces the added support they need to eliminate or contain al Qaeda during operation Arrowhead Ripper in Baqouba,” said Lt. Col. Gregory Baker, deputy commanding officer, 25th CAB.

In a separate engagement, CF soldiers discovered an empty school complex rigged with explosives in Baqouba, the capital city of Diyala province, Thursday, during Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment discovered the booby-trapped school complex. An investigation of the area determined the school and surrounding buildings had been abandoned.

CF had to destroy the school due to risk to the community. CF were unable to disable the explosives because of instability. Ground forces effectively coordinated a precisions guided munitions strike and successfully destroyed the school-borne IED.
                  There were no civilian injuries or deaths as a result of this action.

“Jointly with ISF, and the citizens of Baqouba, we are beginning to root out al- Qaida operatives and safely neutralize their traps,” said Bednarek.

As Arrowhead Ripper continued through June 21, at least 51 al Qaeda operatives have been killed, with 20 al Qaeda operatives detained, seven weapons caches discovered, 21 improvised explosive devices destroyed and nine booby-trapped structures destroyed.

                                                                                                               

It is clear that some al Qaida leaders have bugged out. But they've always been cowards. And all that means is that they know they would be killed or captured. Some clearly were trapped and were killed or captured.

But while it is fun to kill al Qaida, the point of the operation is to clear the city and hold it so that they can't return. Then push aid in to build up the area. That's how counter-insurgency works.

It is true that there are Iraqi Army units that performs better than others. Good performers are very good. Bad performers need improvement either by changing the leadership, increased training, or both. But that is just a matter of time. Time that some are being very stingy with for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq.

And the weak point in Iraq has always been the police. But that too is a matter of time and intention.

It is quite true that Iraq's political class has got to want to serve the people of Iraq for this to ultimately succeed. The jury is still out on whether they have that will. It's pretty clear that many in our political class do not have that will.

What is most clear is that Mr Cole is part of the effort to discredit every success in the hope that by spreading enough doom and gloom, their grim assessments will ultimately turn out to be right. Notice they don't talk about Anbar Province anymore; it no longer fits the script. The fact that what happened in Anbar could very well happen in Diyala and the Baghdad "belts" is very upsetting to the defeatists. It is imperative for them to stop the drive for success before that can occur.

Perhaps Mr Cole should join Mr Yon in Baqouba and do some real reporting.

But reporting isn't really his job, now is it.

Compare and Contrast

The following stories both appeared today

USA Today:

Iraqis see hope drain away

Jobs gone and schools closed. Marriages delayed and children mourned. Markets bombed and clean water in short supply. Speaking freely now a dangerous act.

And hope lost.

Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.

The New York Post

IRAQIS' UPBEAT VIEWS: POLL FINDS HOPE

On the eve of tomorrow's fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, a new poll finds that most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than under Saddam Hussein.

And contrary to the beliefs of many analysts, most Iraqis do not feel their country is engulfed in civil war, the survey reveals.

Though opinion is divided along sectarian lines, only 27 percent think there is a civil war, compared with 61 percent who don't.

Now you might think these papers are reporting on two different surveys: and you'd be right. The former was conducted by "USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network" while the latter was conducted by "Opinion Research Business, a British market research firm that said it was the largest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003." The former polled  2,212 Iraqis while the latter 5,019 Iraqis.

But what are we to do? Two completely different assessments of Iraq, both supposedly based on the opinion of Iraqi's.

Perhaps the polls aren't so different, maybe its just the reporting.

Both polls say life is better now than it was under Saddam.

Both claim Iraqis are expecting a better future. From USA Today

Shiites are the most optimistic that their children will have a better life than they have had; two-thirds express optimism about that. So do half of the Kurds polled. But seven of 10 Sunnis predict that their children's lives will be worse.

But if that's the case, the why the headline "Iraqis see hope drain away"?

One would have to wonder if the USA Today poll oversampled Sunni's who are understandably less happy. After all they were a minority that was top tog under Saddam. Now they are just a minority. And even though the USA Today poll show that most prefer life today than under Saddam, they highlight people who long for the old days

Even some of those whose sect suffered under Saddam recall that time fondly. "I miss those good old days," said Jasim Mahmood Rajab, 60, a Shiite businessman. "I had my work and my social life, and now — nothing. I'm ready to pay everything I have to sit at Abo Nowas Street and eat fish at night."

I'm not convinced these polls tell a diiferent story, but the articles sure do.

Then there's this

Black-clad women shuffle past sidewalk clothing racks in front of shops in a commercial district of central Baghdad. Elsewhere, black flags flutter from lampposts — marking areas of Shiite control.

A two-hour drive by Western journalists through the center of Baghdad this weekend showed parts of the capital are slowly recovering from the trauma of sectarian slaughter that paralyzed this city of 6 million before the start of the security crackdown last month....

Within the sectarian bastions, commerce is beginning to rebound, along with other signs of normalcy — though many shops remain padlocked. Some streets appear relatively lively. Others are all but abandoned....

Vendors hawk oranges, bananas and vegetables from outdoor stalls around Tayaran Square, a Shiite-controlled area that has been struck frequently by suicide attackers and roadside bombs.

At Kahramanah Square in Karradah, workmen were out repainting a concrete barrier, where a suicide driver two days before had killed eight people — three soldiers and five civilians.

Elsewhere in Karradah, shoppers were returning to the main commercial streets, though not in the numbers of a few years ago. Soon after Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed, people flocked to shops to buy new television sets and satellite dishes — forbidden under the old regime.

Outside the script

A fire-fight in Anbar province surpised the Washington Post more than it did anyone else. Consider their report

Iraqi security forces backed by Sunni tribesmen killed dozens of suspected Sunni insurgents over several hours of fighting Wednesday in a village in western Iraq, Iraqi police officials said Thursday.

The fighting was unusually fierce for an Iraqi-led operation and was also notable because of the collaboration of tribesmen in volatile Anbar province.

It should not have surprised the WaPo that an "Unusally fierce for an Iraqi-led operation" occurred. It was only a month ago that Iraqi's repelled a large attack just outside of Najaf with only US air support.

Neither should the WaPo found that it "also notable because of the collaboration of tribesmen in volatile Anbar province" because back in November it was reported that the Anbar tribes were aligning against al Qaida. And back in March, it was reported that the popular tide was turning against al Qaida.

Bill Roggio points out, that in regards to this most recent attack

The media accounts claim 'insurgents' attacked the village, but do not provide a reason for the attack.

And

...the full story, according to an American military officer and an American intelligence source, is that al-Qaeda in Iraq, under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq, assembled several hundred fighters to attack a prominent leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of local tribes and Baathists, and former insurgents who now oppose al-Qaeda in Iraqi. The leader of the Anbar Salvation Council was to attend the funeral of one of those killed in last week's suicide bombing in Habbaniyah.

The Iraqi police in Amiriya held off the attack, and radioed for backup from Iraqi Army, police and members of the Thurwa al-Anbar, the tribal militias assembled by the Anbar Salvation Council. U.S. air support was called in to help fend off the attack. The Anbar Salvation Council leader escaped as Army, police and tribal fighters poured into the village and routed the al-Qaeda force, which was estimated to be several hundred fighters. Once intelligence source claims the figure of 50 al-Qaeda killed is low, and the number is likely over 100.

The New York Times claims "two groups that have had ties to insurgents, the Islamic Party Fighters and forces of the 20th Revolution brigade, counterattacked in support of the local residents." The proper name for the insurgent groups are the Islamic Army in Iraq, and the 1920s Revolution Brigades. And they also fought with Iraqi Army and police units.

The problem with stories like this is precisely that they do not fit the script that Iraqi forces are not gaining in resolve and capability. And it's no wonder given how many on the Left have staked their political careers on Bush failing in Iraq.

And reports like this aren't helpful either

Violent incidents are still decreasing in number and impact in Baghdad. Yesterday for instance the only reported incident was the abduction of an adviser to the minister of defense by gunmen in western Baghdad. It was less than 24 hours until the security forces succeeded in freeing the abducted general and arresting 4 of his captors.

Elsewhere in the capital the troops are using not only guns and Humvees, but also shovels and bulldozers.

As success continues, it will be more and more difficult for the media to ignore....

or feign surprise.

More good news from the front

A few more stories of hope for Iraq hit the major news outlets. The first is from USA Today

The number of extremist attacks in Baghdad has declined over the last two weeks since a new security plan took hold, although the relative lull may be short-lived, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bombings on Monday that killed more than 40 Iraqis demonstrated that extremists were still staging attacks aimed at grabbing headlines, but the overall number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops has fallen, said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the U.S. military.

Reinforcements began arriving last month as part of President Bush's plan to expand the U.S. force by 21,500. They have joined with Iraqi forces to provide a 24-hour presence in some violent neighborhoods where troops previously had patrolled only by daylight. New roadblocks and house-to-house sweeps have targeted sectarian militias.

Garver said there had been fewer attacks in the past few days. He declined to provide statistics.

"We also look for the enemy to look for opportunities to attack back," Garver said. "They still want to launch spectacular attacks to embarrass the government."

Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, warned last month that it could be late summer before it becomes clear whether the new security plan is working.

Garver said there has been a decline in reported sectarian kidnappings and apparent murder victims in the Baghdad morgue. The average number of bodies brought to the morgue a day has dropped in the past week to 10 from 50 to 60 a month ago, the Associated Press reported.

Mohamed Al Daiyni, a member of Al Tawafek, the largest Sunni coalition in the parliament, said violence was down because "all the fighting groups are hiding."

Good. Clearly they will remain in hiding so long as security remains.

The other story is from the Christian Science Monitor

many Iraqis say they have seen some positive steps in the days since the surge officially came into effect last Thursday. And not just because several hundred Iraqis are reported to have been able to return home, or that the daily average of 50 dead bodies on the streets has dropped to single digits in recent days.       

"People are very, very happy," with the replacement of a commando unit that refused to go after Shiite militiamen by a regular          Iraqi Army unit in the southeast district of Zafaraniyeh, says a resident who could not be named.       

      

"When they came 10 days ago, there was chaos and killing. Since then, I have not heard of a single person being killed," says          the resident. It is the new Iraqi commander who is making the difference.       

      

"He came and took the Shiite and Sunni clerics to lunch and told them: 'I am not a sectarian man, and all should be under the law, Sunni and Shiite,' " says the resident, quoting the new commander. " 'If you help me, we will help you. If you don't cooperate with me, you will be breaking the law, and I will crush you.' "

      

That commander has "made many changes and tells people he will be responsible for supplying all families with cooking fuel," says the Zafaraniyeh resident. He has also marked each official checkpoint with a large number – so people can more easily spot fake checkpoints – and his Iraqi forces are searching every vehicle, including police convoys. On Friday, a joint US-Iraq checkpoint there snagged a "police" colonel who proved to be an imposter after calls were made to the Ministry of Interior to check his identity.

Let me speak slowly to the Democrats and Republicans who 1) have condemned the new security plan for Iraq before it even got started and 2) are working hard to make sure the new initiative is a failure:

Americans do not want to be defeated in Iraq.

The plan will work so long as security is maintained and rebuilding is allowed to occur.

The US military will be needed to help maintain security and can leave when Iraqi security elements are trained enough to do it on their own.

OK? Got that? Surrendering we expect from Democrats and we celebrate those who are not inclined to run away. That's why I pointed out those in the House to bucked the leadership on this issue: Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia and Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi. And of course we can not forget Senator Lieberman of Connecticut.

But we do not expect, and will not tolerate it of Republicans. And the Victory Caucus is watching

House Republican leaders and conservative activists are targeting critics of President Bush's plan to send more combat forces into Iraq -- and some GOP lawmakers are on the hit list.

Amid a mounting campaign in Congress to limit Bush's military options, conservatives led by talk show host Hugh Hewitt have created an advocacy group designed to counter the anti-war MoveOn.org. And its first round of targets will be the 17 GOP lawmakers who voted for last week's Democratic resolution in the House opposing the troop increases.

First in the sights of the new Victory Caucus is Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., whose district includes Orlando.

While Hewitt carries considerable sway among conservatives, the fledgling Victory Caucus starts out with little of the money and prominence of MoveOn.org, now nationally entrenched as a liberal interest group.

At the same time, House Republicans are hitting Democrats who represent districts Bush won in hopes of preventing a congressional majority that would restrict money for Afghanistan and Iraq. The GOP is flooding those districts with news releases and e-mails warning that Democrats are undermining U.S. troops.

Let me repeat: Americans do not want to lose in Iraq. Whether we live in a Blue state or a Red state, we will attempt to punish at the polls all those who will not even allow the new security measures to work.

And that's the bottom line.

An unusual Iraq story

Headlines in various media outlets include the usual stuff

The BBC

Fresh violence rocks Iraq capital

The US military in Iraq says another five American soldiers have been killed by insurgents in the past day.

CBS News

2 GIs Killed In Iraq Attack

Insurgents Send Suicide Bomber To Combat Post Near Baghdad, 34 Iraqis Die In Attacks

The LA Times

Insurgents strike U.S. outpost in Iraq

Two troops are killed and 17 wounded in an assault north of Baghdad.

And even the Washtington Times

Crackdown in Iraq spurs violent day

But few outlets carry this, more hopeful AP story which was carried by Worcester Telegram

Baghdad’s quiet, at least for now

NEWS ANALYSIS

By Robert H. Reid THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq—  U.S. troops rolled into Baghdad primed for a showdown with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. But most of the shooting has come from Iraqi police firing weapons in the air to clear the way for their convoys.

That doesn’t mean the extremists have given up or that Baghdad is on a course toward calm. At least 63 people were killed and more than 120 injured in car bombings yesterday.

Nevertheless, the capital has been relatively quiet since the operation began Wednesday.

But it also appears that all the players — the Iraqi government, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias — are saving their resources for the next and perhaps climactic round — the civil war that could break out once the U.S. push is over and American troops begin to pull out.

“The Sunni resistance needs to keep its powder dry for the internal war that commences when we go,” said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, a prominent writer on military affairs. “The Shiites are waiting to see if we push them the way we have pushed the Sunni population.”

As evidence, U.S. officers report an influx of Sunni militants into Diyala province and other areas around the capital, apparently insurgents moving temporarily from Baghdad so they can live to fight another day.

In Baghdad, Shiite militiamen, too, have largely put away their weapons. But they can still be seen milling about on the streets of neighborhoods like Hurriyah, scene of bloody sectarian purges three months ago, and seem certain to reassert themselves when the crackdown is over.

Most importantly, the Shiite-led government appears to be stalling on key U.S. demands, including a quick military move into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City, where an ally of the prime minister holds sway.

That raises questions about whether the much-advertised U.S.-led security crackdown will deliver on expectations and set Iraq on course for a stable, functioning society.

Clearly that will not happen without American resolve: a resolve that is being eroded daily by the Democratic Leadership in Congress. A major part of the new plan is to hold the areas and do reconstruction with US Military elements embedded with Iraqi Army and Police providing long-term security. The whole idea is to kill, capture, or drive underground insurgent forces. And as long as a security presence is maintained long enough for reconstruction occur, the benefits of a strong central government will become apparant to the locals who will learn they do not need militias for protection and there is no benefit to them for joining the Islamists.

But for political reasons, Democrats will not see the plan; they refuse to acknowledge its existence and try to convince people its the same old, same old.

Clearly most media outlets are complicit.

For now, however, Baghdad is calmer than it has been for months. Weeks ago, police were finding 50 or more bullet-riddled bodies in the capital every day. That figure has dropped to below 10 a day since the crackdown began last Wednesday.

And unless Congress intervenes, it will stay calm in each area the new security elements move into: Areas which will increase daily unless Democrats stop the progress.

Now you do the Google search for this story. And not only will you find that it is carried in now major outlets (the biggest one I could find is in the Military Times (Army, Air Force, etc) but you will also find two different versions: one less hopeful than the other.

Still, it reflects a growing reality that larger media outlets, and most Democrats, deny.

The Meme as News

A front page story at the Washington Post has an damning sub-head

'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War

and it's lede is no less an indictment

Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

No where in this article do we find the conclusion reported by the New York Times about the very same report

A Pentagon investigation into the handling of prewar intelligence has criticized civilian Pentagon officials for conducting their own intelligence analysis to find links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but said the officials did not violate any laws or mislead Congress, according to Congressional officials who have read the report.

Though much later in the article, the Washington Post does allude to this, obliquely, and by quoting "Pentagon officials" as if in defense

Pentagon officials said in responses cited in the summary that no senior policymakers mistook these briefings as "intelligence assessments," the inspector general said that administration officials had indeed cited classified intelligence that allegedly documented a close al-Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

The report in question is not about WMDs and Iraq, it is about al Qaida's connections with Iraq. And the opinion of Sen Levin, who was one who commissioned the IG's investigation, is featured prominantly.

"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq," Levin said yesterday. "The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

It must be a severe disappointment to the esteemed Senator that the report concluded that  "officials did not violate any laws or mislead Congress" even though the Washington Post reports that

The summary document confirmed a range of accusations that Levin had leveled against Feith's office, alleging inaccurate work.

I guess this hit piece by antiwar writer Walter Pincus is the consolation prize. And the AP follows up with other misleading statements, such as:

The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion.

Which clearly is not true. The 9-11 Commission could find no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida in the matter of 9-11, the subject of its investigation, but did find

"On particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

And I have documented the numerous, pre-war links my own self.

So Senator Levin wants to investigate this to death even though the report he commissioned says there is nothing to investigate.

I can only echo Senator Chambliss' comment

"I'm trying to figure out why we are here,"

But it should be obvious:

Repeat after me the Left's meme "Bush lied; people died"

What's the story?

So who's right?

“Bush Cheered at Fort Benning: FORT BENNING, Ga.–President Bush, surrounded on Thursday by cheering soldiers in camouflage, defended his decision to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq and cautioned that the buildup will not produce quick results. ‘It’s going to take awhile,’ he said.”–headline and lead paragraph, Associated Press, Jan. 11

“Bush Speaks and Base Is Subdued: FORT BENNING, Ga., Jan. 11–President Bush came to this Georgia military base looking for a friendly audience to sell his new Iraq strategy. But his lunchtime talk received a restrained response from soldiers who clapped politely but showed little of the wild enthusiasm that they ordinarily shower on the commander in chief.”–New York Times, Jan. 12

Sheesh

(hattip Sean)

Seventeen to one

Back in August a very big deal was made when U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the NSA wiretap program initiated by President Bush in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

But little has been made in the press regarding the seventeen courtroom wins that occurred subsequent to that (clearly wrong) decision. According to the New York Sun

Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records.

In at least 17 criminal cases, federal district judges nominated to the federal bench by presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush have ruled against requests to force the government to tell defendants, most accused of terrorism-related crimes, whether the NSA eavesdropped on them without a court warrant.

The rulings indicate that even as public support for the war in Iraq has eroded in polls and as the NSA program has come under criticism from congressional Democrats, and even some Republicans, federal judges may be a bulwark that the Bush administration can rely on to defer to at least some aspects of its wartime policies...

Individually, the judges' orders, often very brief and rarely providing explanations, indicate little. Taken together, however, they signal that the judges are unwilling to permit defense attorneys to use prosecutions to force disclosures about the program.

Now why haven't we heard more about that?