Missile Defense

Michael Ramirez.

Maybe Nukes Aren't So Bad

Thomas P.M. Barnett, writing in Esquire, is certain to make the anti-war crowd apoplectic:

George W. Bush had his "axis of evil," while Obama seems to find nuclear weapons to represent a kind of natural evil unto themselves — no matter who possesses them. Now the twentysomethings in Prague may have cheered his invocations of "hope" and "change," and others may be jumping on board, but I've discovered something in my years of global-strategy analysis, and it's not the deadly fatalism Obama describes — it's the modern realism he ignores: Nuclear weapons are the single best thing that has ever happened in mankind's long history of war.

Barnett is no raging neo-con, and he has been highly critical of Bush on more than one occasion.

The Fewest Deaths Since The Start Of The War

U.S. military deaths plunged in May to the lowest monthly level in more than four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too, as Iraqi forces assumed the lead in offensives in three cities and a truce with Shiite extremists took hold.

And the AP headline?: Deaths in Iraq plunge, but will it last?

I think it will. Military and civilian deaths, along with attacks, are at record lows. I see a trend. Even the Washington Post jumps in.

Maybe the war isn't lost after all.

"When the facts change, I change my opinion"

"...what do you do, sir?"

The quote comes from David Mamet, paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, in a recent New York Post article describing Mamet's conversion from a "brain-dead liberal" to the right:

"I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson and Shelby Steele . . . and found that I agreed with them: A free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism."

Reading of Mamet's conversion, while I cannot speak of his theatrical work, reminded me of the philosophical political conversion I underwent during the fall of 2006, just after the mid-term elections. I was pretty solidly a Kerry guy in 2004, although I wasn't entirely sure why, other than he wasn't Bush. Yet, I realized soon after that I had done little in the way of research on Kerry the candidate. But what really triggered my political conversion was the war in Iraq. The valiant efforts by the soldiers and Marines on the ground, coupled with the determination of many Iraqis to rid themselves of the entrenched insurgency prevented me from seeing the deliberate Democratic ignorance and opposition as anything but disgraceful. Once the surge was put in place and real gains were evident by mid-summer 2007, I felt personally vindicated and resolved that my beliefs and intuition were true.

Political posturing is one thing, but woeful ignorance, fraud, and the tacit hope that your own country will lose in combat overseas pushed me to ever new heights in my distaste of the shameful sophism and baseless prognostications among the left. They seemed to hope for a Pyrrhic victory, a position that is simply unacceptable.

I tell friends that I am largely a single-issue voter, and that is true. "Partisanship must end at the water's edge" said Harry Truman. That is one maxim that should never be broken.

Once I reached an opinion regarding the American-led effort in Iraq, my analysis of the situation led to further inquiry in the realm of foreign policy - North Korea, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, China. And if one can accept that the United States does not act solely for its own benefit, that Americans have and continue to die in order to support the birth of infant democracies across the globe, and that our government is not inherently evil, solely determined to gobble up the world for shareholders - then we have a place to begin a debate.

Unfortunately, because of the combination of military success overseas, and the political impotence of its leaders at home, the American left has largely resorted to incendiary ad hominem attacks against all that is honorable about our military, to the most baseless of US motives in the middle east, to the conviction that America deserves each terrorist attack perpetrated against it.

Social security, Medicare, highway spending, and taxes will sort itself out here domestically. These problems are daunting but secondary to security and the world energy supply located in the least stable region of the world.

A series of poor choices, political rhetoric, and desperation have lead the American left toward its current political positions, costing it pragmatic centrists like myself, patriotic realists who can no longer stomach the anti-American sentiment coming from home, nor the obvious weakness manifest in its own inability to pass legislation while holding the majority.

"Far away in the Persian Gulf...

"Bush is creating facts on the ground that the next president may not be able to ignore."

DailyKos Slams Democrats

Is there a Civil War still going on in Iraq? Perhaps.

But there is another Civil War brewing... within the Democratic party.

From the DailyKos: Promises, Promises...

The past few days haven't been kind to Senate Democrats. They had their asses handed to them on habeas corpus, the Webb dwell time amendment became a joke, and Feingold-Reid went down in flames, with each defeat prompting an, "oh well, let's move on."

That's not the only bad news for the "progressive" blogosphere. If the left has also been following reports on Iraqi civilian casualties, they will have learned that violence in Iraq has plummeted, dropping to its lowest level in 18 months.

The "progressive" left has become so pathetic, they have to resort to outrageous, disgraceful blogging, with posts such as: Kansas cemetery ‘full’ because of Iraq war.

It is bad enough that Harry Reid can't get Republicans to vote for his legislation, but 22 Democrats recently crossed the aisle and sided with Republicans in condemning the MoveOn.org ad.

This Democratic "sectarian" disagreement is nothing new, but it is getting nastier as the Iraq war is getting better.

Update: The Levin-Reed amendment failed to pass. Yet another Democratic shortcoming... no surprise there. DailyKos once again full of woe: Where's Congress?

"The NYT's editorial page is on a quest, along with all of us, for an effective Congress"

Also no surprise.

In Case There Was Any Doubt

...that some Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, were complicit in the
smearing of General Petraeus, the Daily Kos Thanks Hillary for Calling Petraeus a Liar.

If that still isn't enough proof, Senator Clinton also voted against the Senate bill condemning the MoveOn.org ad which accused General Petraeus of betrayal. This should come as no surprise, considering the accusations the Senator made to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during the hearings:

"I want to thank both of you, General Petreaus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult... Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts both in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us, really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

To score political points, and to fire up her base, Senator Clinton and other leading Demcorats took shots at the General.

That is shameful pandering.

Liberal Bloggers Defend Ahmadinejad Visit To Ground Zero

The "progressive" CarpetBagger Report second guesses the decision to bar Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero:

I appreciate the fact that blogging does not lend itself to mixed emotions, which I admit to feeling in a case like this. My first instinct was to reflexively oppose Ahmadinejad’s request. The man is a dangerous nut, and it’s hardly a stretch to assume that he wants to appear at Ground Zero to improve his own image on the international stage. Given the hostilities between his country and ours, there’s no reason for the U.S. to accommodate his public-relations campaign. If Ahmadinejad wants to appear more responsible as an international leader, there are several constructive steps he can take in his own country.

But the more I think about it, the more I second guess this reaction.

CarpetBagger goes on to quote other liberals with conciliatory attitudes. The liberal Booman Tribune writes:

[H]ere this man comes, to make an ostensibly good-faith gesture and to pay respects to our dead. Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy so he can better understand why his country is under such a threat.

Is it really a ‘good faith’ gesture? Maybe not. Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.

The ignorant credulity is astounding. "Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy?" The same man who directs his Revolutionary Guard to actively kill Americans in Iraq? CarpetBagger also quotes another blogger by the name of Anonymous Liberal:

Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let’s get a grip. It’s not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They’re not allies. Never have been. They don’t even have similar goals or aims.

Moreover, don’t we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn’t that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn’t it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.

But this is all too complicated for today’s Republican Party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an “Islamofascist” and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.

CarpetBaggers sums it up by saying:

If security and safety concerns make the visit impossible, all of this is a moot point. But as a matter of principle, it’s worth considering what the U.S. reaction should be if, say, there were no logistical concerns. After all, Ahmadinejad is a foe, but that hasn’t stopped the Bush administration from sitting down the Iranians to discuss Iraq policy. Doesn’t that mean we have some kind of diplomatic relationship with Tehran?

No, the leader of the largest state sponsor of Islmic terror should not be allowed to visit Ground Zero. This would be an offense to every casualty of 9/11, to their families, and to every ordinary American citizen that was attacked that day.

It is appalling that all the while acknowledging Ahmadinejad probably has ulterior motives, and likely using the trip as a "stunt," it's worth dirtying the memory of our dead for something that may be "a 'good faith' gesture."

Why is this about Republicans? Bush Derangement Syndrome and multilateral political correctness has reached new heights among the morally bankrupt and excusatory left.

Al Qaeda's Mistakes

Among its many blunders: Videotaping decapitations, the overzealous killing of Muslims (resulting in Sunni's and Shi'ites rejecting its murderous ways), and of course perpetrating 9/11, which awoke the sleeping giant, al Qaeda has fumbled again.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two "boasted that the U.S. was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts."

Interesting that Zawahiri should state this position when Muslims in Iraq are now offering bounties for the capture of al Qaeda leaders.

But as Gateway Pundit noted, Zawahiri stole Harry Reid's talking points. In fact, he stole the Democrats' talking points on the war. In preaching America's defeat, Zawahiri is only reinforcing the well-established Democratic Party line, and strengthening the resolve of those who are determined to see through to victory.

When Zawahiri says:

"The Crusaders themselves have testified to their defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the lions of the Taliban," he said. "The Crusaders have testified to their own defeat in Iraq at the hands of the mujahideen, who have taken the battle of Islam to the heart of the Islam world."

...he is speaking specifically of Harry Reid's "war is lost" comments from April 2007.

Ironically, as Zawahiri professes America's "failure," regurgitating Harry Reid's shameful politicking, the AP reports:

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday that a seven-month-old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate...

On Thursday, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of about 32 to 12 per day.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

The AP beat me to it. I was on the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count earlier today, and noted that September's total Iraqi Security Force and Civilian deaths stood at 530 so far, whereas the entire month of August totaled 1,674.

Additionally, a look at U.S. military fatalities reveals that as of today, September deaths are the lowest this year by far, and at the lowest pace since August 2006.

The effectiveness of al Qaeda's killing machine is clearly diminished. I can't wait to see what DailyKos writes about the casualty count... probably something to the effect of "Iraqi civilian deaths greater in September than September 2002 under Saddam!"

Then again, Kos bloggers have already declared that they don't support the troops, what more needs to be said?

It is at least heartening that some liberal bloggers are openly disgusted with the Demcorats' weak opposition and squandered opportunities. Democrats can hardly lead a majority in Congress, how would they fight a war? For these reasons, many political observers are asking: Who bears blame for anti-war failures?:

For many in Washington, the biggest unanswered question from Army. Gen. David Petraeus’ high-profile, low-satisfaction testimony last week was not about military strategy but about political tactics. Why has the anti-war movement been unable to translate the clear public mandate they claim into any clear change in our government’s Iraq policy?

To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days.

But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.

Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.

H/T Instapundit.

And what "change in course" do the Democrats even propose? Answer: Stop training the Iraqi Police and Army.

We also learn that al Qaeda, in its hubris, has decided to open yet another front in its war: Al Qaeda Bin Laden Message Declares War on Pakistan President Musharraf.

Enemies of al Qaeda should welcome this declaration. If bin Laden and Zawahiri are delusional enough to think that while losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can open a third front in their war, American and Pakistan should seize the opportunity and welcome the excuse to kill more terrorists.

The convergence of al Qaeda's goals, and that of the pusillanimous Democrats is as ironic as it is sad. Worse, still for the Democrats, they don't even appear aware that they are being played.

The Defeatist

Donal Kagan: Today's Defeatists:

The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

And a historical analogy... the Civil War:

In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, “that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory.” Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!” The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens.”

The Democratic convention was dominated by the anti-war faction whom the Republicans called “Copperheads,” after the poisonous snake. According to their best historian, they were “consistent and constant in their demand for an immediate peace settlement. At times they were willing to trade victory for peace. One persistent problem for [them] was their refusal or reluctance to offer a realistic and comprehensive plan for peace.” Pressed by the Copperheads, the Democrats nominated a rabidly antiwar candidate for vice president and adopted a platform that called the war a “failure,” and demanded “immediate efforts” to end hostilities….” Their platform statement would permit abandonment not only of emancipation, but of the most basic war aim, reunion. Even New York’s Republican Party boss declared that Lincoln’s reelection was widely regarded as an “impossibility…The People [were] wild for Peace.” At the end of August defeat for the Republicans and the Union cause seemed inevitable, but Lincoln refused to seek peace without victory, saying that he was not prepared, to “give up the Union for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration.”

No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war. The Democrats, having declared or predicted defeat were, as one historian has written: “Tarred as traitors, regardless of their actual positions on the war, Democrats were … roundly thrashed in November. In fact, the stench of treason clung to the Democrats for years; nearly a generation would pass before another Democrat, Grover Cleveland, occupied the White House.”

Sound familiar? Many of these allegations of military "failure" have been repeatedly uttered by the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

History has already been doomed to repeat itself.

Let us hope the Iraqi Civil War turns out as ours did - with hope, reconstruction, and peace.

Murtha In The Crosshairs

Hot Air has the video: Rep. Jack Murtha confronted about Haditha accusations

And as Hot Air notes, it just so happens that the charges against another Marine got dropped today.

Gateway Pundit has more: Cold-Blooded Jeff Gannon Confronts Murtha on Haditha (Video)

Murtha Quickly Redeploys to the Next Question.Washington reporter Jeff Gannonconfronts "Cold-Blooded" John Murtha during a Congressional Press Conference yesterday on Capital Hill. Gannon asks Murtha if he will apologize to the Haditha Marines he slandered!

More here.

The man has no shame.

A Democratic Nightmare

Defeat at Any Price

The Democrats were scared for a reason. They worried that Petraeus would impress the country as dispassionate and serious--which he did. He called Bush's troop surge no unqualified success, said that much work remains--but that Iraq has turned a corner; has achieved tangible, important results in its fight against terrorism and inter-sect violence since the surge began. It was a Democratic nightmare.

Read the rest.

Some Bank On Withdrawal And Defeat

Obama wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible:

CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

The presidential hopeful would have us relinquish the advantage built on hard fought victories, just as AQI miscalculates:

If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, they severely miscalculated in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI

To heighten the degree of America's successful pursuit of victory since 9/11, Larry Kudlow writes:

Since September 11, the economy hasn’t suffered a single down quarter. In fact, it has notched 23 straight quarters of economic growth … Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What’s more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

H/T Dr. Sanity


Even the marginally liberal Economist argues that the United States must stay.



However, for a Democratic presidential victory, those who would downplay American success in the war on terror have not only ignored the fact that al Qaeda is on the run around the world and in Iraq, but even resort to launching a character assassination attack on the General. Hillary Clinton is guilty as well.


My party, the Democrats, need Petraeus to lose. It's unfortunate, although perhaps a necessity within the political sphere that one side take the contrary view for the sake of it. And in doing so, they group themselves with American enemies such as Iran and the ousted Iraq Baath party.


Too bad for Democrats this view banks on American defeat. Too bad for America, as well.

Rudy Giuliani Takes Out an Ad, Too

Courtesy, Weasel Zippers.

Allahpundit at Hot Air isn't happy with Giuliani.

More back story:

Giuliani Times: Rudy Demands Same Deep Discount MoveOn Got From NYT

More: Confirmed: NYT gave MoveOn almost two-thirds off on “Betray Us” ad; Update: Pro-war group says it was charged “significantly more” for its ad

Petraeus polls well: General PersuadeUs: 43% Back Petraeus Recommendations, 38% Oppose

Gateway Pundit: Giuliani & Thompson Blast Hillary/MoveOn Attacks on Petraeus!

Harry Reid Explains Why Democrats Are Losing

It's Tim Johnson and Joe Lieberman's fault.

I'm not kidding.

That was Senator Harry Reid's contention today in an NPR interview.

First, the meandering, banal preamble:

NPR Reporter: "Democrats have tried and failed to pass resolutions mandating troop withdrawals, or timetables... What exactly do you plan to lay out in the coming weeks?"

Reid: "We're gonna continue to lay out for the American people the fact that we need a change of direction in the war in iraq. We clearly need that.

Reporter: "What specific change?"

Reid: "The mission needs to be changed, the mission needs to be changed. It needs to be changed by having American troops begin to start coming home in signifcant numbers, and that troops that are left there be used for counterterrorism, and protecting the assets we have there. And on a very limited basis, perhaps, and only on a limited basis, to help train Iraqis.


"Remember I've - I say that the Iraqis have been trained, and trained and trained - what we have from the president is continually: 'we need patience, we need patience.' Well, my patience has worn out, as has the patience of the American people."

I can hear Harry Reid's re-election song now: "Changes" by David Bowie. Here in reality, the reporter has actually lost patience with Reid:

Reporter: "So you've lost patience. Some wonder why the Democrats aren't more aggressive in making their next move."

She basically asked Reid why Democrats bent on defeat abroad, seem doomed to defeat at home?

Reid: "Make sure that everyone understands that listens to this program: We're in the majority, but it's a very slim majority. All the votes that have taken place to this point have been with Tim Johnson being sick. As a result of that, he's been recuperaing, he's back now and we hope to have him with us now.

"But, on the Iraqi issue, with Joe Lieberman, who votes with us on virtually everything else, voting with the Republicans, I'm in the minority. I have 49 Democrats, and there are 50 Republicans. So we have been in the minority, and I think we have fought very hard to have the President change course."

That is perhaps the most pathetic excuse I've heard yet from a politician. Democrats are suffering repeated tactical defeat after defeat, not because they have a losing policy, or because their will is vastly weaker than that of their opponents, or that they suffer from a vacuum of ideas.

No, it is the fault of one previously comatose Democratic Senator, and another Democratic Senator who votes his conscience at the expense of his own party's vitriol.

Reid (and Pelosi) fared no better with another reporter when openly asked why they continue to fail time and again.

No Patience For Petraeus Or Victory

Maybe they're annoyed that most Americans trust the military... more than the politicians, at least. (H/T Hot Air).

Or perhaps they fear what he has to say (More likely they want to steal the spotlight).

But as Ed Morissey asks, just who exactly is betraying us?

Using a schoolyard manipulation of General David Petraeus’ last name, MoveOn asked in a full-page advertisement whether this honorable commander would betray
his nation for the sake of a temporary political advantage. Calling the MNF-I commander “Betray-Us”, the Democratic activist organization accused the general of deliberately misreporting the results of the war effort to boost the Bush administration.

At Heading Right, I question who's betraying whom. I question MoveOn's patriotism. I suggest that MoveOn and the Democrats who support the organization would gladly commit character assassination of the lowest order against a man who has served this nation for decades in such an honorable fashion that the Senate voted unanimously to give him command of our forces in Iraq just eight months ago.

If you ask some anti-war critics, Petraeus is not brave at all. On the contrary:

There were some brave and intrepid souls who endured every word of the six-anda-half hours of testimony before the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees.

I do not consider defeatist cowards who are only interested in trying to promote Myths and falsehoods about progress in Iraq for their own political agenda, and to get their own politicians elected as brave souls. In fact, the sacrifice of your own country's honor for political gain is pathetic. Donald Kagan has more on the history of American defeatists... and why they (heh) lost:

They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

Anti-war critics have no patience for victory. They don't even have patience for their own anti-war movement. (H/T Instapundit):

A well-known anti-war leader has gone public with the transcript of a private conference call that shows peace activists are exasperated with the Democratic congressional leadership and at a loss for a long-term strategy.

Not the first time the anti-war left has changed its mind. Glenn Reynolds:

I've noticed that the mantra has gone from "listen to the generals" to "stop hiding behind the generals." Whatever. Jules Crittenden has related thoughts.

It's ironic, Democrats are criticizing Maliki's government for its lack of unity, when they themselves lack unity: Democrats Deeply Divided Over Iraq. Or, if you're Chuck Schumer, you just whitewash your own words to pretend you never said what you said. "You are a coward, Senator!" says Gateway Pundit.

So their proxies must attack the General to deflect negative media attention from themselves:

Think "Progress": Petraeus Spent At Least 17 Days In August Flacking For Bush’s Escalation

And as Let Freedom Ring blog notes, Democrats themselves are not above attacking the General: Reid: Petraeus’ Testimony Is White House Spin

More on MoveOn from Michelle Malkin and Pat Dollard.

Pretending To Go Green

Drudge:

'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET.

This only adds to the hypocrisy.

H/T Instapundit.

On The Conservative Blogosphere

Dean Barnett writes in the weekly Standard: The Lopsided Netroots - Why there's no conservative Kos:

Some people on the right fear that the left has developed an insurmountable advantage in harnessing the power of the Internet. While the Daily Kos, YearlyKos, and other bastions of online liberalism have clearly become power players, conservatives have no comparable entities. The right-wing blogosphere doesn't hold conventions, doesn't win the attention of candidates, and more important, doesn't move voters the way the progressive blogosphere does. The progressive blogosphere is a hotbed of activism; the most prominent outposts of the right-wing blogosphere stick to punditry.

Read the rest.

Osama Bin Hidin'

Rather than take him seriously, bin Laden's latest video is being met with ambivalence, derision and sarcasm.

John Podhoretz links to a Family Guy episode which satirizes the sheik.

Time's Rober Baer writes that Bin Laden Fights to Stay Relevant.

Even fellow Muslims have criticized Osama:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A doctor who treated wounded al-Qaida fighters at Tora Bora in Afghanistan has confirmed Osama bin Laden was at the mountain stronghold as U.S. and Afghan forces attacked — and said the al-Qaida chieftain seemed concerned about only his own welfare.

Victor Davis Hanson adds:

And often friends supposedly asked bin Laden why after 1988, he did not locate to the West Bank or Gaza to wage his war against the hated Israelis, whom he had identified as the real enemies. The unspoken answer, of course, is that he thought it safer to attack the U.S. in the 1990s than to strike head-on Israel from next-door, something perceived tantamount to a death sentence.

And

even a brief scan of Peter Bergen’s The Osama bin Laden I Know will reveal dozens of various reasons why al Qaeda (in bin Laden’s own words) chose to attack—Jewish women walking around in Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, a general Western decadence, supposed massacres of Muslims in Burma, Kashmir, Somalia, and the Philippines; the arrests and detentions of Muslim “scholars;” attacks on Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan; theft of petroleum; support for the Saudi and Egyptian governments. In Raymond Ibrahim’s recent The al Qaeda Reader we even learn of furor over our financing of elections, and failure to sign Kyoto.

Others suggest bin Laden's new look places him in the category of "metrosexual."

Among conservatives, bin Laden's tape is even being derisively compared to rants by "lefty bloggers" or even Keith Olbermann: "Does Osama bin Laden sound like a Democrat, or do the Democrats sound like Osama?"

Meanwhile, "progressive" blogs whine that the media "continue to equate progressives with terrorists." and complain that:

Right-wing bloggers have also joined in. At Hot Air, Allahpundit claimed bin Laden sounded like a “socialist icon,” invoking many of the same passages Brooks did. At Political Vindication, Uncle Seth the Noble went further, claiming bin Laden sounded like Daily Kos’s Markos Moulitsas. Frank J, a Pajamas Media blogger, concluded “Kos has to get this guy as a diarist before HuffPo does.”

Two things in all this discussion are clear. 1) Whether bin Laden was sending a secret message, or has picked up some new fashion tips, he has now become a failure and a laughing stock. And 2) Osama (and al Qaeda) monitors Western media and commentary, which makes it all the more critical that the United States present a united front on the war on terror, rather than give moral comfort or aid to the enemy.

Update: More from Instapundit here, and the Beltway Blogroll here.

Do You Still Support The ISG Now?

Iraq Study Group: Surge Working, Iran Needs To Be Blocked

Riehl World View has more:

If you support our troop's efforts in Iraq, you're likely to have concerns clicking on an article on Iraq that names the Iraq Study Group (ISG) and the US Institute for Peace (USIP) as sources. Don't. This may strip the last bit of cover left for surrender-crats in Congress. Yes, it calls for a fifty percent troop reduction - in three years, which is a lifetime in US politics. But it also calls for mostly a hard line on Iran.

The full article at The Washington Post.

I'm sure the "progressive" bloggers will now bash the ISG that they once defended.

In that case, liberals will also disagree with the majority of the American public, since 54% think the war is not lost, and can be won.

The ISG report would also back up the recent assessment of a British General: 'Too Soon' to Call Iraq a Failure, British General Says.

So why are Democrats still unconvinced and skeptical?

They have an election to win.

Update: Instapundit approves, and provides more links.