John McCain's youngest son

...gets a New York Times bio:

By enlisting in the Marines, Jimmy seemed to be giving up his birthright. The Navy is, by reputation, the most aristocratic of the armed forces, the McCains among its most storied families. Now he would hold the lowest rank in a branch known for its grittiness. “The first time I heard he was going to be in the company, I couldn’t believe it,” said First Lt. Sam Bowlby, one of Lance Corporal McCain’s officers in Iraq.

The article also notes Senator McCain's reluctance to discuss his son's military career:

Mr. McCain did not speak publicly about whatever anxiety he may have felt about his son’s deployment

And Lance Corporal McCain's humility

Just before Jimmy’s departure, Mrs. McCain decided she had to see him one final time, according to Lieutenant Bowlby. With a few well-placed phone calls, she won permission to visit the Air Force base from which his unit would depart. When Lance Corporal McCain found out, he protested. No special favors, he said. Mrs. McCain stayed away.

You have to admire Lance Corporal McCain's willingness to serve his country, particularly in the toughest branch of service, especially given his family's background. Likewise, John McCain's reluctance to exploit his son's military career for political gain is equally deserving of respect and admiration.

"Far away in the Persian Gulf...

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

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.

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.

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.

Lost In All The Rhetoric About Iraq

Strategy Page:

The basic problem is that the United States is divided into two groups; those who have worked (or fought) in Iraq, or otherwise paid close attention to what's happening on the ground, and those who create their own picture of what's happening, one that fits other needs (personal, political, religious). No amount of wishing will change what is going on over there. The majority of the population hates the Sunni Arabs, who now have four years of terrorist attacks added to their list of sins. The Kurds, although beset by corruption and factionalism, have shown that you can still have peace, security and prosperity if everyone works together. The Arabs to the south see that, but have not been able to work together well enough to make it happen. Will the Arabs be able to overcome their factionalism and hatreds? THAT is the big question. What is lost in all the rhetoric about Iraq is that Iraq is the only real Arab democracy in the Middle East. Egypt is a one party state, a dictatorship masquerading as a dictatorship. Every other Arab state is either a dictatorship or a monarchy.

H/T Instapundit.

Liberal Wisdom

The CarpetBagger Report on Fred Thompson:

"the poor guy doesn’t know very much, particularly on matters of national significance."

Surely a man who has: practiced law for some 30+ years, including stints as an assistant U.S. Attorney, worked as a campaign manager for a U.S. Senator, served as White House counsel, investigated presidents and civil servants (including Watergate), who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, and who served 9 years in the United States Senate can be expected to know a little about "matters of national significance."

CarpetBagger, a liberal blogger, from my (shudder) own Democratic party, who promotes political novices such as John Edwards and Barack Obama, not to mention a one-and-a-quarter-term Hillary Clinton, displays some profound ignorance and hypocrisy with the claim that Thompson "doesn't know very much."

Question the man's positions or his politcal views, call him a conservative or right-wing, but he's not stupid.

Stupid is telling your voters to throw away their SUV's when you own more than a few.

Ignorant is calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, but an attack on ally Pakistan.

The NYT On Fred Thompson

There's a little something in there for everyone, I suppose:

Over time, as Mr. Thompson traversed the highly politicized terrain of the Congressional investigations that built his off-screen career, he evolved from a man primarily cast as a defender of Republican interests to one whose fair-mindedness would win praise from Democrats and incur the wrath of the Republican leadership.

and

But the White House’s worries were quickly set to rest by the man the Senate had chosen to get to the bottom of the matter, Fred D. Thompson. In July 1981, just one day into his job as special counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Thompson assured the White House that there was no “smoking gun,” documents show. He had yet to interview a single witness.

The Corner has more.

NIE: Don't Squander The Surge

There's a little something for everyone in the NIE (as usual). But still... Bill Roggio:

Most significantly, the NIE states that shift from a counterinsurgency role to a counterterrorism and support role, or the “strategic redeployment” of US forces, would squander the progress of the past year and lead to further instability in Iraq. “We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far,” the NIE concluded. “The impact of a change in mission on Iraq’s political and security environment and throughout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment.”

This would mean John Warner's suggestion to begin a drawdown of troops in the next few months could possibly erase any progress made by the surge.

Oh, and the NIE also noted the falling support for al Qaeda, and the recent drop in the numuber of insurgent attacks. More from Gateway Pundit.

Update: "Expert" wisdom from MissLaura, of DailyKos, just days before the NIE is released: The Surge is Not the Solution.

Update: Predictably, other liberal Blogs like CarpetBagger completely ignore the positive news from the NIE.

Iraq Momentum Building - Update: Maybe No Baath Party Support

This is Big:

The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

Captain's Quarters asks: Has Maliki Ended The Insurgency?

This could be game, set, and match for the Iraq War.

The Weekly Standard says: Baathists "Disown" Al Qaeda

It is in an interesting development in the insurgency since Saddam's Baathists have fought alongside al Qaeda since the beginning of this war. I don't know if this latest development is a result of the "surge" or not. It may be that al-Douri has realized that being on al Qaeda's team is a losing proposition given the success American-led forces have had in routing al Qaeda in places like Anbar.

Gateway Pundit: Bad News For Dems... Baathist Leader Al-Douri Joins Coalition

THIS COULD BE HUGE! Did the Iraqi Baathists just surrender???

But that isn't all the big news from Iraq this week. Let's not forget - With surprise visit, France changes its tack on Iraq. And guess what esle?:

In the European nation most publicly opposed to the Iraq war, media reaction in Paris on both the left and right appears to support new French offers to mediate among Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions – whose strife is paralyzing Iraq's day-to-day governance.

And after the AP admitted it earlier this week, U.S. News & World Report has stated what should now be obvious: Momentum Shifting To GOP In Iraq Debate:

With congressional Democrats still groping for a unified Iraq withdrawal strategy, the eyewitness reports from individual Democratic lawmakers who've recently visited Iraq appear to have changed the dynamic in the debate over the war. The Kansas City Star's "The Buzz," for example, reports Democratic Rep. Brian Baird "saw enough progress on the ground that he will no longer vote for binding withdrawal timelines." Rep. Jerry McNerney "suggested that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the war." Also changing his tune is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says the troop increase 'has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.'" As the Washington Post says this morning, "Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with...Bush on the Iraq war." Instead, "Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions."

It should also be noted that amid rising support for the surge among Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush has also gone on the offensive, as the New York Times writes of Bush's speech yesterday that he,

delivered a rousing defense of his Iraq policy on Wednesday, telling a group of veterans that “a free Iraq” is within reach and warning that if Americans succumb to “the allure of retreat,” they will witness death and suffering of the sort not seen since the Vietnam War.

The good news is piling in... just in time for Petraeus' September report.

Update: Okay, Baath Party denies al Douri flippage. Too bad.

Update: Another sign the Democrat's talking points are crumbling - OpenLeft directs netroots fire at conservative Democrats. H/T Instapundit.

"We must remember the words of the enemy"

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror — but it's the central front — it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating.

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America.

~ President Bush this morning, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention.

Update: Surprise, surprise, creative media headlines as Bush gives his speech. Check the link to The Hill on the bottom... Democrats blast bush for comparing Iraq to Vietnam. John Kerry:

"Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars,” said Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.

But hasn't Kerry's fellow Senator from Massachussetts made the Iraq/Vietnam comparison before? From 2004: In an impassioned speech, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., declared Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam."

Senator James Webb has drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

As a matter of fact, Kerry himself made the Iraq/Vietnam comparison... just last month!

"Vietnam was based on misleading the American people and so is this," Kerry says. "Vietnam was based on a kind of cultural arrogance and ignorance and so is this. And the same capacity for self-deception that led to prolonging the war in Vietnam is leading to some of the self-deception and wishful thinking that is prolonging this war."

Vietnam was a civil war that required a political solution, he says, and Iraq also requires a political solution.

Washington is rife with hypocrisy... as usual.

Update: Newsweek flips out on Bush's Iraq/Vietnam war analogy.

Careful, Fred - Updated, Thompson Camp Clarifies

I like Fred Thompson, I really do. If I had to vote for a Republican nominee right now, he would probably be the one I'd cast my ballot for.

But this:

Showing his conservative stripes, Thompson said he would push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and would overturn Roe v. Wade.

...will probably cost him more centrists than it will win him conservatives.

And another thing. For a "Federalist," who has written about excessive legislation by the government, does he really need to be advocating more legislation (on social issues, no less), and even a constitutional amendment?

I am not gay, nor am I particularly supportive of the idea of abortion, generally. I suppose Fred's angle is to built momentum and solidify his conservative credentials before he announces his candidacy. He probably also knows a constitutional ban on gay marriage would almost certainly never pass, just as overturning Roe v. Wade would be daunting to say the least. So he can declare his intentions, knowing neither will likely ever get past Congress.

But still... come on, Fred.

Update:

Hey, this is Jon Henke, from the Fred Thompson team. I'm afraid CNN has mischaracterized Thompson's comment.

For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.

The Thompson camp just issued this statement:

In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.

Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Conservative Blogs Accused of Hyping Islamic Terror Threat

The CarpetBagger Report throws in quite a bit of hyperbole to suggest that the right, notably the conservative blogosphere, has been baselessly hyping the Islamic terrorist threat:

Islamists are not going to take over the world

Quoting from Glenn Greenwald, the Blogger greatly exaggerates the degree by which conservative blogs perceive the threat from Islamic fundamentalism, and simultaneously downplays the very nature of the threat. Greenwald calls out Pajamas Media, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, and the right-wing blogosphere as "actually believing Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law."

The CarpetBagger Report then chides Dr. Sanity for having the audacity to point out examples from radical Islamists (e.g., a stadium filled with screeching true-believers calling for a worldwide Caliphate).

One commenter even compares Bush to Islamofascists:

3. On August 13th, 2007 at 2:37 pm, JKap said:

Yes, yes, we’ll all have to submit to “Islamofascists” if we do not submit to Dear Leader and His Infallible Judgment, Constitution be damned.

The only guiding principle in the Reich Wing Authoritarian Alternate Reality (RWAAR) is that 9/11 happened. Questions? Questions are for Islamofascists, surrenderers, defeatists, commies, terrorists, cut-n-runners, hippies, and traitors.

9/11 happened. Raise flag, repeat.

One would think we need scarcely be reminded of the many examples violent radical Islam has provided to us, exemplifying the vicious, determined spirit of its acolytes:

The 9/11 Terror Attacks perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists
The USS Cole Bombing
The Khobar Towers Bombing
The 1988 United States Embassy Bombings
The Iran hostage crisis
Torture and beheadings in Iraq
Torture and beheadings in Thailand
Torture and beheadings in the Philippines
Torture and beheadings in Afghanistan
Torture and beheadings in Pakistan
Calling for the destruction of Israel
Iran Calling for the destructin of 'the great satan' (The United States)
Looking re-establish the Caliphate and claim Europe through a terror campaign
Terror plots busted in the U.S.

The list is endless.

The point is not that Islamists may or may not take over the world. Rather, by conceding our Western Judeo-Christian values, and giving into the steadily growing radical Islamic fringe groups in the United States and Europe, our freedom is slowly being undermined and subverted.
Mark Steyn has written about this extensively. So has Christopher Hitchens (Londonistan Calling). Little Green Footballs supplies a steady stream of proof from the world of Islamic hate, murder and vitriol. Robert Spencer's intellectual pursuit of the darkest sides of Jihad is unmatched. One has to wonder... has Greenwald, et al. even read these superior intellectual arguments?

It is interesting, the way in which CarpetBagger and Greenwald argue their point. The smokescreen is quite evident in that their tactic is to demonize the severe critics of Islamic fundamentalism.

That they do not challenge any of the ideas, facts, attacks (planned or executed), writings or speeches by said Islamofascists speaks volumes. The best they can muster are a few ad hominem attacks, which do nothing to enlighten their own readership. It only breeds pusillanimity among their lot, unfortunately.

Neville Chamberlain, anyone?

Update: It really doesn't get much more ironic than this: Ahmadinejad said today 'that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is." In other words, as LGF put it, Islam Must Rule The World. Want to take your foot out of your mouth now, CarpetBagger? Greenwald?

Congress at 14% Approval Rating

POWERLINE:

This is not what the Democrats had in mind: after five months in control of Congress, they have driven the institution's approval rating down to the lowest point evermeasured by Gallup: only 14% of respondents expressed "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress.

That's much lower than the President.

Bloomberg Quits... the Republican Party

Well, he did it when he ran for Mayor in 2001 to the Democrats, and now he's done it to the Republicans: Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P.

“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches. “Although my plans for the future haven t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city.” The full text of his announcement is on the new City Room blog.

Although Bloomberg's announcement is newsworthy, it should hardly be a surprise given the way he has governed, and the hints he has dropped regarding his distaste for partisan politics.

I give him credit for his audacity, and for sticking to his principles... even if there is some measure of political calculation (2008 Presidential Election) involved.

Third Party Time

Congress Hits 10-Year Low Popularity Rating but GOP Gets No Boost; Time for a New Party?

The need for a third party is long overdue...

Democrats without the foreign policy pusillanimity,

Republicans without the religion,

Both parties without the pork and corruption.

Courtesy Pajamas Media.

Lawrence Wright on Iraq

The perspicacious Lawrence Wright, spoke to WNYC's Brian Lehrer.

Wright:

It was a tragic mistake to go into Iraq.

If you read the memoirs, the internal documents of al Qaeda - their own leaders talk about how 80% of the al Qaeda membership was captured or killed after Tora Bora in November/December, 2001, and the leaders - the survivors who did get away - were scattered, destitute, unable to communicate, and repudiated all over the world. The movement was essentially dead, the war on terror was over, and it was the invasion of Iraq that brought that movement back to life.

Lehrer:

So... knowing al Qaeda as you do, let me put you on the spot and ask you what you think about the central political debate that our country is having now over continuing the Iraq war, because Republicans, like the president and Rudy Giuliani, say withdrawal would hand al Qaeda the victory they're seeking over the United States, which would then leave us more vulnerable to attack here at home. How much do you agree?

Wright:

Well, I'm in a real miserable spot, Brian. I was opposed to going in, and now I'm opposed to getting out. I've been looking at the world through al qaeda's lenses for more than five years now, and I can see how in many ways they're in the cat bird seat. If we stay, they continue to attract young Jihadis to fight against us, and they can prosper over the fact that they're fighting against this 'imperial power' and it's a very attractive recruiting tool for a lot of young Jihadis.

But if we go, they'll be incredibly emboldened, and they'll have a sanctuary in Iraq where they can train future Jihadis.

...

It may well be that we'll create as many monsters by staying as we will by leaving, but I think we've got to leave as little victory on the table for al Qaeda as possible.

"Empty Headed" BBC Reporter

A BBC interviewer unabashedly revealed his blatant disregard for principled, even-handed journalism with former Ambassador John Bolton.

This is truly nonpartisan reporting, if I've ever seen it. Not.

Hot Air and Little Green Footballs have links to the audio.

Fred Thompson History Lesson

He obviously reads Hitchens:

...Congress refused to act directly against the Barbary pirates for years. Eventually, between 10 and 20 percent of U.S. revenues would be paid annually without ever buying actual safety for Americans. In the end, Thomas Jefferson acted on his own, sending forces into harm’s way. America entered into its first and protracted foreign war. From beginning to end, in fact, the conflict lasted approximately 14 years. I couldn’t tell you, by the way, if the Barbary wars were ever described as a “quagmire” or "lost."

More here.