How Long/Short is Congress's Institutional Memory?

Whereas the Republican-controlled 109th Congress was derided as the "do-nothing Congress," Pelosi & Co. seem determined to make the 110th the "do-something Congress" - even if nothing would be better. Lately, these do-something efforts in the House are aimed at undercutting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been conducted with a surprising amount of cleverness. To begin with, they've split the war funding into three parts: the funding itself, a much-hyped GI Bill, and the obligatory sop to the far-left mandating withdrawal.

On the funding portion, Republicans too showed that they could play cute, and borrowed a play from the Audacity of Hope (or at least Obama's play book): 132 Republicans voted present, protesting the fact that they had not been permitted to offer alternative legislation.

But the real cute part of this whole legislative mess is the benefits for veterans, a new "GI Bill" extending educational benefits for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. To fund these programs, an estimated $52 billion over ten years, Democrats could have slashed discretionary spending elsewhere - the farm bill, for example. Instead, they chose to further burden their favorite target: the successful. Thankfully, unlike Obama's bone-headed conception of wealthy, they set the bar at a reasonable (though still outlandish in principle) $500,000 for individual filers and $1,000,000 for joint filers. The tax hike is also a relatively insignificant .47 percent.

But it's the principle of the matter. Congress has used taxes on the wealthy before to fund wars. Perhaps most notably, in 1898 Congress passed a 3% excise tax on telephone usage. In that day and age, such a tax was a tax on the wealthy. Unlike this tax, the Spanish-American telephone tax was likely proposed without the "screw the rich" intent - after all, no one can dare claim that the country's elite sat out the war (just look at the roster of the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry Regiment). But the telephone tax holds a lesson for Congress, and questions its institutional memory, as it wasn't repealed until 2006.

Now I dare not expect too much of Congress; it's unlikely that most remember when the Spanish-American war was fought, or where - though I do hope they can name our opponent and perhaps (though it may be a stretch) the conflict's casus belli. But they should clearly remember that such taxes outlive their usefulness by years, decades, even centuries, and should be levied carefully. Some enterprising Republican in the Senate (Gordon Smith or Susan Collins, perhaps, who are both moderates and facing stiff reelection battles) should attach an amendment putting a sunset on this tax, or perhaps even an annual renewal.

Democrats also engage - shocker - in some martial relativism here. While all wars are no doubt hell, as Sherman said, they aren't all the same. Congress enacted the GI Bill after the war to reward a whole generation of American men, many of whom had been drafted into the service (though the vast majority went willingly). In contrast, all of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are volunteers. I know, not a distinction I expect 435 of our not so bright and hardly best to grasp, but still.

32 Republicans voted in favor of the bill; many of those are facing tough battles for reelection and represent moderate districts where supporting the troops likely outweighs fiscal responsibility. Some of those 32, however, are just asshats such as Don Young, who no doubt understands that the revenue raised by this tax is fungible and could be diverted to...a bridge to nowhere? If it survives the Senate in its present form (where it'll put McCain in a hell of a bind), Bush will likely veto in the name of fiscal responsibility and urge Democrats to find the money elsewhere. Whether or not the veto gets overridden will likely be a result of two things: whether Boehner and the Republican leadership chooses to whip the vote and keep their party in line, and if not whether individual Republican representatives put fiscal responsibility over a vulnerability to cheap attacks that they don't support the troops (by Democrats and the media who keep twisting the knife in the back of the troops at every opportunity they get).

What of al-Sadr?

Moqtada al-Sadr is one of the biggest players in Iraqi politics, a Shiite cleric with plenty of influence and a private army to boot. Yet he's been out of the limelight in recent months. A must-read article from the Journal explores the man and the present situation.

More on Mac's Missteps

The tempest in a teacup continues over McCain's true-in-the-real-world/fake-in-liberal-la-la-land statement that Iran is supporting al Qaeda. The Weekly Standard's got more evidence supporting the Senator here, here; HotAir adds their two cents as well.

Meanwhile, as noted by HotAir, the McCain campaign is standing by their candidate's statements;; for their part, Obama & Co. just keep digging. Elsewhere on the Left, Think Progress is so addled by their fantastic version of events that, as Michael Goldfarb points out, they actually agree with McCain. The Boston Globe does their part, and Threats Watch calls them out for this egregious statement:

Iran and the United States have a common interest in a stable Iraq. Tehran does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas. Before cooperating to stabilize Iraq, however, Iran wants assurances that the United States will not use it as a base for covert action and military attacks against the Islamic Republic and will gradually phase out its combat forces.

Really? Really? Start by playing the peaceful Iran card, move on to accusing the US of being aggressive bullies seeking to start a war with Iran. Also, let's play fill-in-the-blank: "______ does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas." I'm not entirely convinced that they didn't confuse Turkey and Iran...

Finally, I know Brendan Nyhan; I like Brendan Nyhan. But with regard to this particular story, his partisan blinders are on snugly. Nyhan conflates a truly egregious story from 2006, when the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Democrat Silvestro Reyes, couldn't say whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, with McCain's comments. To Nyhan, the so-called gaffe suggests that McCain "apparently doesn't understand the most basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shiites (i.e. Iran is Shiite, Al Qaeda is Sunni)." It's getting to be a tired old meme that Sunnis and Shiites won't put aside their sectarianism in the face of a common enemy, and it shows a disturbing close-mindedness on the part of its adherents.

McCain's Alleged Misstep

The Left has their collective (unisex/un-gendered) panties in a bunch over John McCain's comments while on tour in the Middle East that Iran was supporting Al Qaeda. It's not clear whether his comments were made thrice over two days - as some allege - or simply twice in a single day. The "he said it thrice" argument centers on a statement from the campaign, which is interesting and, if you believe the Lefty spin on things, potentially damning because he and his campaign must be chugging the neocon kool aid.

Their spin, sold as indisputable truth, is simply that Iran can't be funding, or in any way supporting, Al Qaeda. Why? Because Iran's Shiite and Al Qaeda's Sunni, duh. It's a simple redux of the old Saddam can't support Al Qaeda argument because he was a secularist (though a man of faith when it fit his needs) and they were zealots. Same story, new characters. Stephen Hayes took that one to town, pretty conclusively I'd say, back in 2006.

But what about this new one - is there any reason to believe Iran is backing Al Qaeda? As Ed Morrissey demonstrates with a variety of sources, yes, yes indeed there is. Morrissey draws primarily on "untrustworthy" conservative sources - the Standard and New York Sun to name two, but if you like your media more mainstream, try this one from the Post ('04 instead of '06/'07, so based on the 9/11 Commission instead of sources in Iraq).

So why'd McCain say it? Was it sleep deprivation and jet-lag? That was my original thought, based in part on the fact that that Times piece claims he only came back onto the PC reservation when "he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman." They go on to quote a McCain spokesman who says the Senator misspoke; at the time the Senator himself made a clarification of sorts, saying that “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.” Of course, Al Qaeda would be extremists of a sort, so it's an interesting walk-back.

The DNC immediately fired a salvo at McCain; I'll quote at length from the Times:

“After eight years of the Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

The bold highlights are my own; it goes without saying that that statement contradicts evidence presented by the US military, facts on the ground so to speak.

Obama, in a campaign stop here in North Carolina, also pounced on McCain, saying that "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Again, Obama's statement stands in contradiction to a considerable body of evidence on both the alleged AQ/Iraq and AQI/Iran ties.

The Democratic/media (Democratic media?) narrative is that McCain's misstep was a serious gaffe, contradicting his experience and foreign policy credentials. Perhaps, and if so, it'll take some damage control - though it'll also get somewhat buried given the preponderance of the news coverage being devoted to Obama's speech yesterday.

But instead, indulge me in the product of a heavily caffeinated mind. Perhaps, just perhaps, McCain's "misstep" was intentional. I imagine that for him, the reports of Iran's ties to Al Qaeda are credible. Indeed, who's to say that there aren't more reports to that extent coming out in the near future? He might be privy to them, either from his recent trip in Iraq or his stop in Israel. If so, he just drew both the DNC and Obama way out, essentially invited themselves to put their own necks on the block. If there is more compelling evidence about those ties, if the other shoe's about to drop, their gooses may be up in smoke. Obama proves himself to be inexperienced. A devastating ambush, convincingly set by the wily old Senator, right down to the "correction" by Lieberman and the nuanced "extremists" walk-back with its avenues of wiggle room. Perhaps. Am I crazy? Perhaps not.

Two exhibits in my defense, if you please. First off, McCain's trusted adviser (and coauthor) Mark Salter has already fired back at Obama: "Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of." Your move, Barack - dig in deeper, or go look at that evidence? Second, and perhaps more telling, Hillary's been mum on this. Maybe she wants McCain and Obama to throw a few punches at one another - if they hurt each other, she wins. But maybe, just maybe, she's aware of the evidence that Salter cites, the evidence that Obama (and the American public) seems oblivious to. If so, she's quite content to say nothing and let Obama hoist himself by his own petard.

An additional exhibit, though of a less proximate nature: McCain's hammering Obama a few weeks ago for saying that he would reenter Iraq "if al Qaeda was forming a base" there. McCain slapped him around for suggesting that Iraq wasn't already there, and rightly so.

Another intriguing thing: who is McCain's audience on this present trip; who, outside of devoted Democrats, is most likely to note his apparent "misstep?" Israelis and American Jews, two groups who have plenty of reason to worry about Iran, and who fear the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not saying all Israelis or American Jews, mind you, but substantial portions of each population. I suspect that many American Jews were already starting to feel a bit alienated from Obama, given the raging anti-Semitism present in some of the Reverend Wright's sermons (for example, the revelation that in one of his bulletins, Wright republished an infamous LA Times editorial penned by a Hamas member). On the heels of that mess, McCain sends a strong signal of his support for Israel. Call me crazy?

So to recap, and I may be crazy: McCain "missteps." McCain's correction doesn't actually withdraw the allegedly incorrect statement, only one part of it. Democrats call him crazy, media claims he's tarnished his foreign policy credentials. Salter fires back at Obama, Hillary says nothing. Obama's just been drawn out and shown up again on foreign policy, twice in a month. Was it an accident, or is the old man that good?

Obama and Clinton Bicker...

...while John McCain not-so-subtly demonstrates that he's got experience and leadership ability.

Meanwhile, Hillary, in a classic Clintonian balancing act, goes after both McCain and Obama on the war. I especially like this bit of verbal jujitsu: "Withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years." So on the Hillary Clinton SAT, withdrawal : victory :: staying there : defeat? Please, someone enlighten me on this one...

UPDATE: McCain, of course, isn't buying her BS for a minute. He fired back (via Ambinder) in an interview with CNN's John King. He gets it, she doesn't. End of story.

Favorite Article of the Day (yesterday)

Apparently Democrats are a whopping 0 for 40 on votes pertaining to surrendering in Iraq; the one that passed both chambers was vetoed and the override failed. The growing consensus seems to be that Democrats have waited too long and been too impotent and that the surge's success in recent months has cut the ground out from under them.

There's a scene in the second season of West Wing wherein Communications Director Toby Ziegler berates a Knick for going 1 for 27 from the field, noting that "that's one better than my grandmother could do. And she's dead."

Democrats Fearing Victory?

For a while now, I've thought (and perhaps blogged?) that the latest round of Democratic shenanigans, attempting to force a pullout from Iraq without waiting for Petraeus's September progress report, was driven by fear. Fear that the good news coming out of Iraq (and if you're not hearing it, you're simply choosing to ignore it) is a harbinger of things to come, a sign that the tide has finally turned and that the definite potential for victory exists. If so, Democrats are going to look pretty damn stupid. Their solution? Short-circuit things to avoid that outcome. If true, I will again overflow with disgust for this party - that they'd throw our troops and the Iraqi people under the bus for short-term political gain.

And I'm not alone in thinking this - Thomas Sowell agrees. He notes, and I agree (and they understand) that victory in Iraq likely means a Republican presidential victory in 2008. Here's hoping.

Barbarism Bites Back

A heartening bit of news: Iraqi associates of al-Qaeda, disgusted by the organization's brutality, are turning against it, informing on its activities to Coalition troops. While this still seems somewhat anecdotal, it is heartening. I also think that it's probably also being affected by the surge (and the article almost says as much). The presence of US troops and the increasing desperation of AQ's measures, means that those who have become disenchanted have a way out. I really do think things are looking up, but we have to give our armed forces the time they need.

Iraq: Slightly Less Unpopular

Or so says a pair of recent NYT/CBS polls. Yes, it took two polls to be certain - when the first set of numbers came out, the Times and CBS were apparently in such shock that they had to make sure. Janet Elder noted that they looked for other explanations, that perhaps the ordering of the questions had influenced the results; while this is good statistical practice, I wonder if there weren't other motives.

Anyways, the second poll found that 42% of respondents believed that we did the right thing in going into Iraq and that 51% think we should have stayed out; it also found that "only" 66% think the war is going badly, though that's notably down from 76% in May.

Another analysis from the Times sifts through responses to other questions (such as whether we'll be safer if we stay out of the Middle East - not likely), but is worth a read.

Elder also claims that these findings were an aberration, that at the same time no other metric on the war including the president's approval numbers showed any change. While that may be true, over at Political Arithmetikic Professor Franklin notes an up-tick in the President's approval numbers. As always, the Professor's insightful analysis is well worth reading; I don't know of anyone else out there who does such interesting work with polling data.

Clinton and the War

Conventional wisdom holds that among members of the Democratic Party's base, Hillary Clinton's "support" for the Iraq war (or at least her refusal to apologize to the wild-eyed peaceniks for her vote for it) is something of an albatross. Conventional wisdom and polls collide. Hard data crushes fuzzy conventional wisdom. Both Chris Cillizza and Ben Smith responded to the findings in the latest WaPo/ABC poll, which suggests that HRC is the favored candidate among respondents who favore immediate withdrawal. Cillizza has the more substantive analysis, including an intriguing paragraph which notes that

when presented with potential negative consquences of that withdrawal they become more circumspect. Seventy-Three percent say they would support legislaton to set a deadline of next spring for withdrawing combat forces, but that number falls to 65 percent when an "increased chance of Iraq going into full-scale civil war" is floated and down to 60 percent if withdrawal "increased the chance that Al Qaeda could establish terrorist bases in Iraq."

That is to say when people stop and think about it, more realize what a dumb idea a withdrawal is. Put it another way: Washington shouldn't be listening to the fickle mob.

Smith also has this to say, which itself shatters conventional wisdom: Clinton "does better the farther left you go, and that the Democrats with the most doubts about her are the ones in the middle." This despite her attempts to reposition herself as a moderate, suggesting that the only ones buying into that farce are the media, who would like voters to believe in her moderation. Of course I find Smith's argument contradicted by those damned polls again (though of the less scientific variety) at places like DailyKos, where Edwards is always the favorite. In any case, if Smith is right, two conclusions can be drawn: first off, it helps explain why 52% of respondents in another recent poll said they could never vote for Hillary and second of all it suggests that the Edwards love-fest at places like DKos are aberrations, that Hillary's lefty credentials (however un-trumpeted) are what's putting her in first in almost all primary polls.

Obama: Genocide? So What?

Bill Clinton said "Never again" in Rwanda; today's Democrats are hardly so principled. And Barack Obama is bordering on downright crazy. Today in New Hampshire, Obama said that "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there." Really? I'm glad you're bright enough to realize that. But (brace yourself for this bit): "It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions." I don't even know how to respond to that. He also has the "wisdom" to claim that we haven't lost in Iraq - no Senator, but you want us to - and that a withdrawal would leave troops in the region to intercede (with international help). Where have we heard this before? Maybe Murtha's proposal to redeploy to Okinowa?

This is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and truly does abandon America's position of leadership in the world (as well as our credibility in opposing genocide).

Congressional Democrats Get Really Serious About Surrender

Seventy Congressional Democrats have said enough is enough, they really want to surrender; or as they euphemistically state, they "will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

It would seem to me that in the space of two paragraphs, Politico succeeds in contradicting itself; they first cite the last fight over Iraq appropriations, in which a defeatist revolt almost undercut Pelosi. They then claim that this sets the stage for a battle royale between them and the President. Sorry but I think it's one or the other. If Pelosi offers a bill similar to the one she offered last time, and they rebel again, it's a battle between factions of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, Pelosi follows her heart and supports them. But if reports from Iraq continue to improve, she may be hard-pressed to do so. This could be fun...

Pentagon to HRC: Shut Up!

The Pentagon, or at least Undersecretary Eric Edelman, gave Hillary Clinton a piece of its/his mind; it/he had enough of her Iraq rhetoric, specifically in regards to plans for withdrawal. Edelman's response is worth quoting at length:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,"

While I entirely agree with Edelman's sentiments, I don't believe they should be coming from anyone at the Pentagon. That being said, Clinton shouldn't have been asking such questions to begin with.

Edelman's comments, and the fact that he is a protege of Cheney's, will no doubt stir up a hornet's nest on the left; unsurprisingly, the Senator's staff responded very sharply.

Hyperbolic Harry and Other Fun

I missed Majority Leader Harry Reid's absurd comments on the Democratic Senate blog yesterday, but Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House didn't - and now Harry's hearing about it. Check it out. Oh and Carl Levin rightfully gets an earful as well.

I'm reading this after watching Band of Brothers last night, specifically the episode where Easy Company is ordered to Bastogne with limited ammo, no winter clothing, etc.; would Harry have cried about them lacking the proper equipment? Probably, if he could have scored political points in doing so.

More Congressional Harassment

Veterans for Freedom, a group that understands that the blood of Americans spread in Iraq cannot be in vain, is launching a push of their own to give our troops the opportunity to win. Check out their ten-week plan here. If you're a veteran, I'd urge you to get involved; they're doing great work and they rightly note that their strength is their numbers. And again, feel free to give a piece of your mind to your Senators, especially if they're spineless cretins like Reid (apologies to honest invertebrates everywhere).

The Senate Votes

Of course referring back to my previous post on the consequences of our withdrawal, that day may not be coming as soon as the fools on the (Capitol) hill might wish. The Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment went down in defeat today, with 52 voting for cloture (and thus seeking to raise the white flag) and forty-seven showing some evidence of spine. The yeas and nays are below (or here); if your Senator refused to second-guess Petraeus, call him or her and give your thanks; otherwise call and give them a piece of your mind (Invertebrate Republicans in bold). Find their contact info here (phone and email).

YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)	Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---47
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)	Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 1

Johnson (D-SD)

[Oh and for the record, Surrender Harry had no change of heart - unsure whether he's got one - instead, he voted against it on procedural grounds.]
UPDATE: As someone commented, I forgot Hagel the first time through; Freudian slip?

The Consequences of Quitting Iraq

A stark statement of the facts: we can't flee and let utopian idealism convince us that everything will turn out for the better. We did that in Southeast Asia and two million Cambodians are dead.

From (of all places!) the Boston Globe!

Yon on Strykers

Michael Yon has another worthwhile piece, though this one is substantially different from some of his other dispatches to which I've linked in the past. He continues to cover what most of the media ignores, but instead of terror or barbarism, it's something more mundane to troops on the ground: their Stryker combat vehicle. Recently introduced, the Stryker was plagued by criticisms during its development and its baptisms by fire. The story Yon tells is fundamentally different: whatever bean counters and pundits may think, troops love the Stryker and it returns the love, getting them home alive despite situations which seem unsurvivable. On a personal note, last fall I spoke to an officer who served with the first Stryker brigade in Iraq (and who will be returning to command them in his third tour). When I queried him, based on those criticisms I'd heard in the media, his response was largely similar to what the troops told Yon. He loved the things.

I also think I overstated Yon's feelings towards the media in an earlier post. The more of his dispatches I read, the more I realize the depth of his ambivalence. I think he's got a love/hate relationship with both embedded reporters and everyone stateside because although they often surprise him with the fairness of their coverage (a topic he touches on in a Glenn & Helen podcast from March), at other times their willful ignorance seem to anger him (as when no one really picked up the massacre he reported). It's all part of the complexity that makes him one of the best (if not the best) people reporting from Iraq.

More Orwellianism

I've become increasingly suspicious of Democratic usage of words like "choice" and "fairness." Time to add "responsible" to the list. As in the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq" act that the House passed on Friday. Why include it? Because there's no such thing as a responsible redeployment. And if they were to be linguistically honest, it'd be called either the Iraq Retreat act or the Iraq Surrender act.

The Surge is Working

Or so says Kim Kagan. Democrats across the country cover their hears and scream "nah nah nah I can't hear you." But even the media has slowly been coming around to Kagan's perspective, that the surge is having an effect, and only weeks after it reached full-strength. This isn't to say that their coverage is always good, just that they're grudgingly admitting an improved scenario (and not all of them, it goes without saying).

But why do Democrats continue to ignore these developments, both in Congress and across the country? In both cases, I think there's the underlying fact that their psyches are so set against this war and this president that information that doesn't fit into this framework is rejected out of hand. (I'm pretty sure there's a technical psychological term for this, I've just forgotten it). In Congress, given the intelligence reports I'm sure they're getting, it must be somewhat harder to ignore. Their response? Launch another anti-war offensive, cut things off before the surge's progress can be digested by the public and so that General Petraeus can't make a good report in September. In other words, they're determined to declare defeat despite developments to the contrary, out of spite for the president, their own close-mindedness and that of their constituents.