Usually, I start this type of story out with “I bet you think this was found in the Credentialed Media” or “I wonder if the CM will cover this,” or something to that effect, and the story comes from a source such as Operation Iraqi Freedom. In this case, THE main newspaper component of the Credentialed Media, The New York Times, actually is the one writing the story. When these stories do appear in the Times, it is usually Saturday, and I have the theory that that happens because all the editors start their martini weekends early Friday after a long week of bashing Bush, America, McCain, Republicans, etc. But, to appear in the Sunday edition? Impressive

The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.

Would we have seen a story like that just 6 months ago? Certainly not on page A-1. And certainly not describing the Mahdi Army, which the Credentialed Media seemed to be rooting for, as a criminal enterprise later in the article.

It is a remarkable change from years past, when the militia, led by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, controlled a broad swath of Baghdad, including local governments and police forces. But its use of extortion and violence began alienating much of the Shiite population to the point that many quietly supported American military sweeps against the group.

OK, so the Times can’t quite give credit to the United States military and The Surge. Liberals are still liberals.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki struck another blow this spring, when he led a military operation against it in Baghdad and in several southern cities.

He did? While I do not want to take credit away from Maliki, has the Times heard of The Surge?

It is part of a general decline in violence that is resonating in American as well as Iraqi politics: Senator John McCain argues that the advances in Iraq would have been impossible without the increase in American troops known as the surge, while Senator Barack Obama, who opposed the increase, says the security improvements should allow a faster withdrawal of combat troops.

It is fun how clueless Liberals are. I guess it is only John McCain who says The Surge, which the Times cannot even capitalize, has been the main cause of the decline in violence and the Mahdi Army. Sigh. Reality Based Community.

And Barry, like any good liberal worth his weight in arugula, uses the security improvements as a means to call for redeployment.

The changes are not irreversible. The security gains are in the hands of unseasoned Iraqi soldiers at checkpoints spread throughout Baghdad’s neighborhoods. And local government officials have barely begun to take hold of service distribution networks, potentially leaving a window for the militia to reassert itself.

The Iraqi’s are almost there. Very close. Just a little more time. After all that we and the other Coalition forces have done, isn’t it worth it to give just a bit more time to the endpoint, rather then washing our hands of it? Or do Democrats really want a replay of our exit from Vietnam?

But, getting beyond the biases of the Grey Lady, the Times should be shown a little bit of kudos for printing an article that shows that The Surge has worked, things are coming together in Iraq, and the end point, ie, a stable Iraq, with a democratically elected government, and a military and police force which can stand on their own, is almost here.

Even The Associated Press thinks the US is winning a war that was once lost (at least lost in their minds.) And Michael Totten defines victory in Iraq.

While the article does end up attempting to make some dumb comparisons to the look of the McCain campaign to the Obama campaign during the past week, I can’t imagine that cBS/AP would have gone ahead with this piece just a few short months ago, which highlights the media’s diminishing love affair with Barry

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, ridiculing Barack Obama for “the audacity of hopelessness” in his policies on Iraq, said Friday that the entire Middle East could have plunged into war had U.S. troops been withdrawn as his rival advocated.

Speaking to an audience of Hispanic military veterans, McCain stepped up his criticism of Obama while the Illinois senator continued his headline-grabbing tour of the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona Republican contended that Obama’s policies - he opposed sending more troops to Iraq in the “surge” that McCain supported would have led to defeat there and in Afghanistan.

“We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right,” McCain said, a play on the title of Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope.”

John McCain understands that we cannot just run away from problems, and hope they go away. Especially in the case of Iraq, and fighting the war on radical Islam. Barry would rather redeploy - and how soon will he move off the position of sending troops to Afghanistan? - and leave what has always been considered the lynchpin nation in the Middle East to its fate, good or bad. Washing his hands of the whole affair. If we want to make Vietnam comparisons, how well did that work out for the region? The millions slaughtered.

If Iraq is overrun by the Islamists, do not expect it to be a nation we can start normalizing relations with 20-30 years later.

At the end of the article, the comparisons are of the modern Jesus to a guy running for mayor

For the most part, the side-by-side images weren’t pretty:

Obama meeting with leaders in Iraq, McCain on a golf cart in Kennebunkport, Maine, with the first President Bush.

Obama before a sweeping Mideast landscape, McCain holding a news conference in a supermarket in Bethlehem - Pennsylvania, that is - and narrowly escaping an attack from a tumbling stack of apple sauce jars.

Obama delivering his trip’s keynote speech at Berlin’s Victory Column, McCain eating bratwurst and chatting with reporters at a German restaurant in Columbus, Ohio.

The only thing missing were some XXX’s and OOO’s in the story. But, American’s do not want a rock star or a guy who can turn water into wine as president. They want a guy who you can sit down with and talk to. Which is why Obama cannot pull way ahead, despite the fawning adulation in the media, and, in fact, McCain is making inroads in key battleground states. American’s want a leader, not a messiah.

Dare I say, McCain’s strategy looks to be getting up close and personal with the American people he wants to lead as President. He is appearing as one of us.

Interesting video accompanying the article

The Associated Press gives it the old college kindergarten try: Iraq War’s Price Tag Nears Vietnam’s

The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War’s expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it.

The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

All estimates, adjusted for inflation, are based on the costs of military operations and don’t include expenses for veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts or assistance to war allies, according to the nonpartisan CRS.

“Doled out.” I wonder how much money has been doled out in the war on poverty, now in it’s 5th decade with no end in sight, no progress, and no exit strategy.

You have to know that the AP was thrilled when it saw the figures “hey, we can compare Iraq to Vietnam again! Maybe people on the Left will buy a few newspapers. We’re getting killed here!”

Have we spent too much on Operation Iraqi Freedom? Yes, I think we have. There were a couple fundamental flaws in the initial plan. We should have understood that the Iraqi military units would say “screw this, I’m outa here. I’m not dying for Saddam,” based on what happened during the Gulf War.

And, we should have secured the borders of Iraq, putting the word out that we would kill anyone crossing into Iraq at anyplace other then approved checkpoints, and followed thru. Regardless, and whether on purpose or by accident, Iraq has become the central focal point in fighting the war on terrorism. It is a much better place to draw the jihadis in and kill and capture them then Afghanistan, one of the worst places to fight on the planet.

But, really, the whole point of this exercise by the AP, which includes the costs of America’s wars and their percentage of the GDP, is to compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war that the Left forced the USA to lose. Which is what they still want for Iraq. As does their candidate.

I’d also say they are attempting to link McCain, who served in Vietnam, with the cost of Iraq, but, I don’t think the AP is really that smart. Do you?

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Allie is Wired, third world county, 123beta, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Phastidio.net, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Gateway Pundit noted one particular paragraph in Barack Obama’s campaign speech in Berlin, Germany on July 24th. Here’s the quote from Obama’s speech:

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

(emphasis mine)

Wonderful words. Socially conscious words. However, they’re words. Obama offers only words. John McCain offers words, too, but he backs up those words with concrete action. He has already literally lifted a child in Bangladesh from poverty. I wrote about Bridget McCain a few weeks ago. Bridget McCain is the adopted daughter that the McCains lifted from poverty from Mother Teresa’s orphange in Bangladesh.

Meghan McCain kissing sister, Bridget McCain

Here’s the story from Gateway Pundit:

In 1991, John and Cindy McCain adopted a beautiful young girl from Bangladesh.
The Wall Street Journal reported:

(I)n 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. “I hope she can stay with us,” she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

…(T)here was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.

“We were called at midnight by Cindy,” Wes Gullett remembers, and “five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport.” Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, “I never saw a hospital bill” for her care.