Stories to Watch: 3/11/12

Welcome to "Stories to Watch" -- brought to you by Barney's Butt-Crack Balm and the Syrian Tourism Board. Now here's the news...


John McCain thinks it's unfair that President Obama would be mean to people who want to charge headlong into war with Iran. Keep in mind that this is a guy who's never voted against any type of military action ever. Someone needs to be mean to you, Senator. Your foreign policy toolbox is a little spare.


Also from McCain, he claims that Sarah Palin was "the best qualified" to be Vice President.


Kathleen Geier, who covers Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog on weekends, makes on observation on the gusher of advertisers leaving Limbaugh's show; it demonstrates that our poisonous national discourse is not beyond repair.


Even the hardcore Libertarian, Koch-funded Cato Institute says that President Obama isn't to blame for high gas prices. The words "supply" and "demand" pop up in their report. Note to Republicans and Fox News: you might want to look those two words up. They're really important in economics.


Some American psycho goes on a shooting spree in Afghanistan, killing at least 16 people -- including children. In response, Newt Gingrich calls for the withdrawal of troops from that country. You read that right.


Team Obama moves quickly to capitalize on the GOP's War on Women, which is bleeding women voters from that party.


Finally, a proposal for a new rule for legislators: if it's too gross to be printed in a newspaper, you shouldn't pass laws do it to a woman. Deal?

Related articles

• Greg Mitchell: Game Change As It Happened: When Tina and Amy Nailed Sarah Palin (huffingtonpost.com)
• Super Tuesday leaves McCain worried about November (cbsnews.com)
• Lauren Brown Jarvis: My Live Blog of Game Change (huffingtonpost.com)
• Mark Joseph: John McCain's Game Change (huffingtonpost.com)

News Roundup for 5/3/11

Whew!

-Headline of the day-
"Public 'Relieved' By bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises."

After going to Afghanistan and personally beating Osama bin Laden to death with a lamp, President Obama is only seeing a mild bump in the polls. Then again, it's still early. Pew took a look at public's reaction and finds that "relieved" is the most common emotion attached to the event, with 72% using the word to describe themselves.

Overall, the president's approvals stand at 56% approving and 38% disapproving, compared to a 47%/45% split last month. Not surprisingly, Independents make up most of that, with approvals rising 10 points to 52% from last month.

But here's the weird thing: Repblican number have shifted in a way I can only describe as goofy. In April, 16% approved of Obama. In May, 16% approve of Obama -- identical. But last month, 81% disapproved, while today, 79% disapprove. So you can not get a Republican to switch from disapprove to approve. You can only get them to switch from disapprove to no opinion.

Kind of makes them seem like stubborn jerks, doesn't it? (Pew Research Center)


-No comment-



(Reddit)


-Bonus HotD-
"Rep. Peter King: We Should Still Use Waterboarding Because That's How We Captured Bin Laden."

Except it's not. (ThinkProgress)

Stories to Watch: 4/3/11

I made a deep dish pizza last night which was just insanely good. I used this recipe for the crust, then just winged the rest. Seriously, this was the best thing I've made in a while and I'm a good cook. Breakfast today? Cold pizza. Now here's the news...


Just a reminder, the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuke plant is still an ongoing crisis. I can't be the only one detecting western media getting bored with the story, can I? It'd be interesting to see a poll tracking how many Americans think the problem's been solved.


New and shameful rightwing fad: apologism for Terry Jones, whose burning of the Quran left 12 UN workers in Afghanistan dead.


Obama weighs in on the budget standoff, displaying -- as he did with the healthcare debate -- his strategy of letting things spiral completely out of control before grabbing the yoke and trying -- too late -- to pull the whole thing out of a tailspin. Leaving everything up to congress didn't work when both chambers were Democratic -- why on Earth would anyone expect it to work any better now?


The GOP's big budget plan: slash entitlements for you, keep the insanely low taxation for corporations and the wealthy. Because that's been working so well for everyone.


For example: GE infamously paid no federal income taxes last year, which is apparently too large a tax burden. Ask Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), he'll tell you.


Finally, Donald Trump hates on America. At least, that'd be the spin if Barack Obama had said the very same thing.

Not This Crap Again...

Greg Sargent supplies us with the DNC response to Michael Steele's statements on Afghanistan:

RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE BETS AGAINST OUR TROOPS, ROOTS FOR FAILURE

"Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

"And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences."

This statement is getting some pushback from the left -- specifically, in regards to it's Bush-like neocon tone. For example, "undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement" is pretty much the same argument the Bush administration and the Republican Party used against Democrats and liberals committed to ending the war in Iraq. Worse, "his words have consequences" echoes back to Bush's first press secretary Ari Fleischer's ominous warning; "all Americans... need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

"Clearly, Dems are opting for strong language to break through on a Friday before a holiday weekend in the belief that this does raise real questions about Steele's candor," Sargent wrote. "But this is Karl Rove's playbook. I don't care how often Republicans do it -- this blog is not on board with this kind of thing from either party."

"I haven't forgotten the Bush/Cheney years," Steve Benen agreed, "and the disgusting rhetoric Republicans used to attack any American who voiced disagreement over the war(s). Dissent was equated with disloyalty. Words like 'treason,' 'traitor,' and 'fifth columnists,' weren't just thrown around casually, they were literally a daily part of the public discourse.

"But Republicans were wrong at the time, and such tactics are still wrong now. If the DNC wants to exploit Steele's remarkable comments for all their worth, that's more than fair. But once the DNC starts equating opposition to the war with 'rooting for failure' and 'undermining the morale of our troops,' the party is reading from the wrong script."

Democrats could've focused on the idiocy of saying that Afghanistan was "Obama's war of choice" and been fine. They could've even written the same hyperbolic statement they released -- after adding appropriate irony by sticking the words "Republicans under Bush would've said..." in there someplace.

But they didn't. They opted for the same idiotic "Shut up or you hate America!!" rhetoric that's brought our country to a level of stupidity that fosters teabaggers. Our national dialogue has been poisoned enough with phony flag-waving and militant grandstanding, thank you very much, we really don't need any more. Leave the "hate America!" stuff to bloggers like me, who wield it as a tool of poetic justice (and do the people who find themselves on the other end of that tool ever deserve it) and a source of humor. We're able to make it clear we don't really mean it or -- in the cases where we fail on that point -- it doesn't matter anyway.

One party having lost its mind through a sort of zealotry of military worship is plenty, I think. Someone's got to stay sober enough to drive this country.

Afghanistan Speech Word Count

Over at Huffington Post, Sam Stein breaks down Obama's Afghanistan speech with a word count. You see these sort of posts after every major speech and sometimes they're less enlightening than others. Stein's conclusion; "Low On Democracy, Heavy On Security."

A look at the text of the president's speech, as provided by the White House, however, suggests far less neoconservative idealism and thinly-veiled religiosity than what George W. Bush brought to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In its place, words were chosen that emphasized foreign policy pragmatism and acknowledgments of shades of gray in times of war.

On Tuesday night, the President said the words:

Democracy: 2 (once to talk about the U.S. Capitol building the other to describe Pakistan)
Freedom: 3 times
Terrorism: 0 times (though three mentions of "terrorist")
Extremism: 4 times


By contrast, the President uttered the words:

Security: 28 times
Allies: 11 times (one mention of alliance)
Responsibility: 7 times
Resources: 6 times
Diplomacy: 3 times
Clear: 16 times
Goal: 6 times.

We even get a handy word cloud:


Click for larger image

The under-emphasis of democracy in Afghanistan probably has a lot to do with how badly the Afghan government has failed to guarantee it. Am I the only one who noticed a little hitch in his voice when the president spoke this paragraph (emphasis mine)?

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

It didn't sound like a stumble to me. It sounded like he choked on it a little. On the bright side, it sounds like we've finally got a president capable of a modicum of shame.

Griper Blade: Expecting More of Obama

Big night last night. The president's announcement of an escalation of the Afghanistan war managed to make few people happy. On the right, this can be explained -- to a large extent, anyway -- by kneejerk partisanship. For them, Barack Obama can do no right. They don't like that the president set a 18-month timeline to begin withdrawal. But it's not hard to imagine that, had he gone with an Bush-like open-ended commitment, they would be criticizing him for not having an exit strategy.

With the media stuck in the 2008 presidential campaign, it should be less surprising that they keep running to John McCain for reactions to Obama's actions. They don't seem to realize that there is now no way that McCain/Palin can still win it (it's over, guys). But they keep doing it and I keep wondering why. Still, McCain gives what we can call the unofficial Republican response on ABC's Good Morning America today:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said while he agrees with the president's decision to up the number of troops, setting a timeline for withdrawal will only allow the Taliban to regroup and emerge stronger when U.S. forces leave Afghanistan.

"I support the president's decision to have a properly resourced counter insurgency strategy," McCain told "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts today. "My only difference... is setting a date for return... Dates should be determined by success on the ground not by the calendar."

Remember that whole "commanders in the field" thing Bush used to pull? He'd basically argue that the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and, as such, he couldn't do anything that the Pentagon didn't agree with. It didn't make any sense then and it doesn't now, but McCain seemed to buy it at the time. You wonder why he doesn't buy it now... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: 'The Only Solution Given is Pills'

The Army has a bit of a problem. Despite efforts to curb suicide among troops, Army suicides continue to rise. "One week after the U.S. Army announced record suicide rates among its soldiers last year, the service is worried about a spike in possible suicides in the new year," CNN reported yesterday. "The Army said it already has confirmed seven suicides, with 17 additional cases pending that it believes investigators will confirm as suicides for January.

"If those prove true, more soldiers will have killed themselves than died in combat last month. According to Pentagon statistics, there were 16 U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq in January."

In fact, the Army has seen a rise in suicide every year for the past four years. To combat the problem, the service has created a "battle-buddy" program, which is basically the buddy system for suicide, but this has turned out to be as ineffective as you might have thought it would be.

In 2005, in testimony to a House Appropriations subcommittee, the Army’s surgeon general placed the blame squarely on the troops. "That’s still part of our culture: Real men don’t see [mental health counselors]…" said Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley. "I would like to see a culture that resets the force mentally." Macho, tough guy culture was killing troops, but it seems a pretty safe assumption that this culture had been with the Army longer than its suicide problem. I don't remember the Army having a previous reputation as being a place for sharing and emotional support. Clearly, this "real men" culture -- which, of course, includes real women -- may be aggravating the problem, but it couldn't possibly be the cause.

For their part, the Army seems at a loss to explain the real cause of the suicides. "This is terrifying," Col. Kathy Platoni, chief clinical psychologist for the Army Reserve and National Guard told CNN. "We do not know what is going on." She speculated that maybe it was winter blahs.

"There is more hopelessness and helplessness because everything is so dreary and cold," she said.

"But Platoni said she sees the multiple deployments, stigma associated with seeking treatment and the excessive use of anti-depressants as ongoing concerns for mental-health professionals who work with soldiers," CNN reported.

Now we're getting someplace... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Obama's Night

It’s a dangerous road, but we have no choice. If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose.
-McCain campaign aide, on the campaign's choice of focusing on negative campaigning rather than the economy.

If you ever needed proof of that assessment, you only need to look at the second presidential debate. It's bad news for McCain, since the economy hasn't just become the top issue in people's minds, but the only issue.

McCain, whose negative campaigning was largely -- but not entirely -- missing last night, seemed to have lacked the courage to do his "let's all hate Obama" schtick in front of anything other than an entirely friendly audience. No William Ayers, no Rev. Wright, no claim that Obama wants to kill babies and teach sex ed in kindergarten. Maybe McCain is ashamed of his own campaign and tried to hide it from the audience last night. Here I thought that Baghdad Johnny had sold so far out that he was beyond shame. I thought he'd entered into the Bushian version of enlightenment, where shame and conscience are shed the way a Zen master sheds material attachments. Maybe there's still a shred of decency left in John McCain.

Then again, he probably calculated that it wouldn't work in that hall -- not that it's working anywhere else. If McCain's campaign has decided they can't win if the conversation's about the economy, then they're quickly learning that they can't win by ignoring it either. McCain's losing that argument badly...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Not Even a Bump in the Road

I had to go to Fox News to find the headline, but I knew someone out there must've written one. I ran "Palin won debate" through Google News and came up with "Sarah Palin, McCain’s Secret Weapon, Wins the Debate," from Andrea Tantaros -- billed as a "Republican Political Commentator."

There, we learn that Sarah Palin is a "Lazarus in lipstick," who "won the debate because she exceeded expectations and connected with the American people on a personal level."

"Governor Palin breathed life into the McCain campaign and rectified public opinion about her competency, which was crucial," Tantaros writes. "Republicans, heave a sigh of relief." In other words, all she had to do was avoid drowning in a glass of water and the right would declare it a triumph of statesmanship. Low expectations do that for a candidate. But isn't this a confused metaphor? If Sarah Palin "breathed life into the McCain campaign," then she's Jesus -- McCain is Lazarus. You've got to be careful with those biblical references.

After watching the debate, I scored it to Biden. I wasn't alone. Early polling from CBS gave it to Biden, as well -- 46%-33% among undecided voters. In fact, that polling showed Biden nearly twice as successful as Palin at recruiting converts to the cause; while 10% said Palin convinced them to back McCain, 18% said that Biden brought them over to Obama. Still, 71% didn't commit either way...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Bush to Keep Afghanistan Report Secret Until After Elections

clipped from rawstory.com A secret US intelligence report which says the political and military situation in Afghanistan is "grim" will be withheld from the public until after the election, a new report says. Intelligence officials are finishing up the National Intelligence Estimate on Aghanistan, according to ABC's Brian Ross, "but there are 'no plans to declassify' any of it before the election," an official said. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen told Congress last week the US is struggling to retain control. "I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan," he said, adding, "we're running out of time."

So, what he's basically doing here is putting a war on hold until after the election. Bush will leave the nation in danger, by their argument, so that John McCain will stand a better chance of winning the election.

Remember that "country first" stuff McCain's been talking about? Time to put up or shut up, John. Time to do the right thing and pressure Bush to release the news.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though. "Country first" is, after all, only a slogan.

Afghana-What-Now?

I came across this after writing a morning post about how little talk there was about the future at the RNC last night.

Matt Yglesias makes an interesting observation regarding another ignored issue:

clipped from yglesias.thinkprogress.org Tuesday night’s three GOP headliners — Fred Thompson, George W. Bush, and Joe Lieberman — all get through speeches that don’t mention the war in Afghanistan at all.

Study: Risk of Alcoholism High in Returning Combat Vets

clipped from ap.google.com National Guard and Reserve combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to develop drinking problems than active-duty soldiers, a new military study suggests. The authors speculate that inadequate preparation for the stress of combat and reduced access to support services at home may be to blame. The study, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, is the first to compare Iraq and Afghanistan veterans' alcohol problems before and after deployment. The research is one of the first major studies to emerge from the Pentagon's landmark "Millennium" study, launched in 2001 because of concerns about possible health effects from the first Gulf War. It includes tens of thousands of military personnel and is designed to evaluate the long-term health effects of military service. The Millennium study will continue to track veterans' health and may determine whether drinking problems among returning combat troops are long-lasting, Boyko said.

The article includes this statement:

Alcohol abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression make up an "unholy trinity" that haunts some combat soldiers, said psychologist William Schlenger of the consulting firm Abt Associates Inc. in Durham, N.C. He was a principal investigator of the influential National Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Study, but was not involved in the new research.

"They have intrusive recollections: 'I keep remembering it, I have nightmares about it, I can't escape it,'" Schlenger said. Vets try to escape the memories through alcohol or drugs, he said.

This is a lasting damage to the country that we'll pay for for decades.

Griper Blade: "I Know How to Win Wars"

I've written before that a good way to spot a bad argument is to look for declarations. When someone throws out a claim without any proof, then there's a good chance that they're pulling stuff out of their butt. FOX News offers an excellent example with their reliance on the term "some people say." It allows them to cite a source for their assertions that's so vague that it might as well not exist -- in some cases, it doesn't. "Some people say Barack Obama's not patriotic," a foxbot will tell us and we're up in the air over how reliable these "some people" are. Are these "some people" the guys around the FOX watercooler? Show me an argument that hinges on a declaration and I'll show you a poorly crafted chunk of BS.

Keeping that in mind, we can look at a speech John McCain gave yesterday to a crowd in New Mexico and conclude that he was shoveling it deep. "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars," Baghdad Johnny told an audience in Albuquerque. "And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that."

There's a slight problem with this declaration of competency on McCain's part -- we haven't actually won the war in Iraq. McCain's big idea was the surge. Now he apparently has nuthin'. That's it. If this is how you win a war, where's the big win? When it comes to Iraq, McCain hammers the argument that "the surge worked." Fine, for the sake of argument, let's let him have that one. The surge worked.

Now what?...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

In Speech, Obama Calls Iraq a Distraction

clipped from ap.google.com Obama said his White House rival, Sen. John McCain, "has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." "Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world," he said. "This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe. "I will end this war as president," he said, speaking from a podium that said "Judgment to Lead." Obama addressed the crowd with a line of American flags behind him.

He's right and he's also right to point out that McCain seems to be running for the position of President of Iraq. For the right, Iraq isn't a pointless sidetrip, but the be-all and end-all of fighting terrorism -- to the detriment of addressing terrorism anywhere else.

At this point, the only real reason we're fighting is to preserve George W. Bush's reputation. That's a pretty crappy cause to ask people to die for.

Report Slams 'Striking Lack of Recollection' in Tillman, Lynch Cases

clipped from thehill.com A proposed report on the misleading information released following the fratricide of ex-NFL player Cpl. Pat Tillman and the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch slams the administration’s “near universal lack of recall” on the issue. “Cpl. Tillman and Pvt. Lynch are the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,” the proposed report of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said. The document, which will be voted on Thursday, called the “misinformation” in both cases an “unconscionable distraction from their actual service and heroism.” Following Tillman’s friendly-fire death in Afghanistan, his family and the public were led to believe that he was killed by enemies. It was also revealed that the first version of Lynch’s capture had been embellished.

The article goes on:

“On the key issue of what senior officials knew, the investigation was frustrated by a near universal lack of recall,” the proposed report stated. “The committee interviewed several senior officials at the White House, including communications director Dan Bartlett, press secretary Scott McClellan and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson. Not a single one could recall when he learned about the fratricide or what he did in response.”

It's weird how politicians always develop amnesia when they're in trouble, isn't it?

June Deadliest Month Yet for US, NATO in Afghanistan

clipped from rawstory.com June was the deadliest month for foreign troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 fall of the Taliban and the second in a row in which casualties exceeded those in Iraq, official figures showed Tuesday. Forty-nine soldiers from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the separate US-led coalition died in combat, attacks or accidents in June, according to an AFP tally based on military statements. June accounted for more than 40 percent of the 122 deaths of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan during 2008, according to the independent website icasualties.org. Most were killed by roadside bombs hitting their convoys or patrols.

In related news, things haven't been great for Afghan civilians, either.

60% Increase in Afghan Civilian Deaths

clipped from www.theglobeandmail.com The number of civilians killed in fighting between insurgents and security forces in Afghanistan has soared by two-thirds in the first half of this year, to almost 700 people, a senior UN official said Sunday. The figures are a grim reminder of how the nearly seven-year war has failed to stabilize the country and suggest that ordinary civilians are bearing a heavy toll, particularly from stepped-up militant attacks. John Holmes, the world body's humanitarian affairs chief, said the insecurity was making it increasingly difficult to deliver emergency aid to poor Afghans hit by the global food crisis. “The humanitarian situation is clearly affected and made worse by the ongoing conflict in different parts of the country,” Mr. Holmes told reporters in Kabul during a multi-day visit.

"Most of those casualties are caused by the insurgents, who seem to have no regard for civilian life, but there are also still significant numbers caused by the international military forces,” Holmes said.

Griper Blade: McCain's Stand on Veterans is to Stand on Veterans

The ABC News blog, Political Radar, summed it up this way; "Obama Tells Veterans: 'I WIll Not Let You Down'." Speaking to a town hall in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Obama told vets:

We should make sure that today’s veterans get the same benefit that my grandfather got when he came back from World War II. It was a good investment not only for him, but it was a good investment for the country, built our middle class. So we're gonna make sure that that get's passed. Because we gotta have outstanding educational opportunities for our veterans when they come home.

"I will cede to no one the ability to talk about veterans’ issues," Obama said. "John McCain will have to decide whether he thinks that the current level of benefits is sufficient. If he does, then that’s a substantive debate that we’ll have in November."...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: A New Low

In the Iraq war, nothing is sacred. The Bush administration, deeply entrenched in their failed adventure, has always been shameless -- the lies that led us here is proof enough of that. For the Bush administration, there have always been two enemies to fight; whoever happens to be shooting at US personnel at the moment and those who'd dare suggest that maybe this big invasion wasn't such a good idea. Luckily for those of us who belong to the latter group, Bush can't get away with shooting us too. So other methods, both hamhanded and subtle at once, have to be used to defeat the danger we pose to their war.

Being shameless, nothing is too low, too exploitative. There is no lower limit, other than what they can get away with. The Bush administration actually fights three wars -- Iraq, Afghanistan, and the propaganda war against the truth. It's that third war that this administration has fought the hardest and invested the most time waging. Truth is a rare commodity in the White House.

Being shameless, the neocon dreamers who started this whole thing are above nothing and the tragedies of the other wars become ammunition for the propaganda war. There is no grief that can't be exploited, no fear that can't be fostered, and no loss that can't be turned to political gain. With an administration that politicizes everything, no exploitation is too crass.

In this war against the American people, there's no such thing as "too low." We have an example...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Every Four Years, the World Disappears

Hillary, Barack, Johnny Ed, Rudy, Johny Mac, Mitt, Ron... The primaries seem to be sucking up all the air in the media. The primaries are fun, infuriating, and goofy all at once. We wait for someone to do something stupid, wait for someone to say something wise (sadly, a rarity), and wait for Rudy to say 9/11 -- then we all do a shot.

But there's still a war on. Two in fact. Candidates talk about war a lot, but lately that's been about all the coverage of it we've been getting. Once again, the mainstream media drops the ball. You'd think that in a 24 hour news cycle, they'd be able to jam a little war news in there.

In Iraq, it wasn't all that long ago that we got this good news -- October 15th, 2007, in fact:

Many U.S. military commanders in Iraq believe they have dealt a large enough blow to al Qaeda in Iraq to declare victory over the group, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The Iraq franchise of Osama bin Laden's terror network has been deemed the deadliest threat facing American forces and their allies since shortly after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

U.S. generals tout recent successes against the Sunni militants as evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq, known by the acronym AQI, may have been dealt a blow from which it cannot recover.

That's right, we were winning Bush's Global War on Terror in Iraq. Never mind that there wasn't an AQI before we showed up. We had them on the run and out. A total rout. Beaten. Defeated. Gone forever. Boo-Ya!

One of the underreported news stories, pushed off to the side because Hillary "cried" maybe, is that those triumphant "Al Qaeda Defeated in Iraq!" headlines were a little premature...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]