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.

The McCain Family, 1999

And THERE is the choice this election year. On one hand we have Barack Obama, a gifted speaker who has absolutely no history or accomplishments to back up his rhetoric. He is untried. He is inexperienced. He has a proven history of questionable associates. He has a proven history of questionable judgment concerning foreign affairs. He is all about words.

On the other hand we have John McCain - a statesman with a long history of service, accomplishments and sacrifice for our country. He has proven himself repeatedly to be a man of character, a man of good judgment, and a man of thorough knowledge and experience in both domestic and foreign affairs.

I pray that when American voters are alone in the voting booth in November, the majority will see the clarity of choice - they’ll see beyond the pop prince of words and know that action is what is needed - not pretty words - and they will vote for John McCain.

To illustrate the absurdity of all the Obama irrationality we have this from Gerald Baker at TimesOnline:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

There’s more - click the link at the beginning of the post to read it all.

Send a trackback to this post, but don’t forget to link it.

Barry may be losing the media here in America, but he sure has Der Spiegel in the bag

Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin’s Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States. He is more than ambitious — he wants to lay claim to become the president of the world. (massive snip)

George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today — the “everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world” utopia. As for us, we who sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words — words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.

Let’s allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column. Then we’ll take a further look.

The editorial by Gerhard Spörl, chief editor of DER SPIEGEL’s foreign desk, has it all. The idolatry of the Messiah as the savior of all the world, Bush Derangement Syndrome, insulting the South, the Barry Love, and, to end it off, a realization that Barry is all talk, and “what the hell does he really stand for?”

And the New York Times notices Barry’s sweeping rhetoric in a piece entitled Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe

But he was vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy that currently divide Washington from Europe and are likely to continue to do so even if he becomes president — issues ranging from Russia, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan to new refueling tankers and chlorinated chickens, the focus of an 11-year European ban on American poultry imports.

That’s what Barry is about. He’s the kind of guy giving a presentation in a meeting who keeps going on and on and on, and everyone is thinking “can we get to the actual action plans, please?”

I have to mention this bit of slightly off subject BDS foolishness, if you will induldge me

Europeans admire Mr. Obama’s political skills, and welcome his apparent readiness to respect opposing points of view. For many here, that raises the prospect of a sharp break with the policies of the Bush administration, especially in its first term, when the United States chose to ignore the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rejected the Kyoto accord on global warming and invaded Iraq, starting a war that some of America’s European allies opposed.

Um, no. Clinton rejected it, as did the Democrat led Senate. Is it possible for the Credentialed Media to get it right? Also, most Americans were against the two massive wars started by Europeans, where we had to come and rescue Europe once they started.

But the Gun Toting Liberal says that Barry blew it.

But, let’s not forget, as Six Meat Buffet puts it, “A taxpayer funded Benetton campaign ad culminating in ditching a visit to US forces stationed in Germany.”

But, good news! Sister Toldjah reports on the Obama campaign using the Berlin stop to raise cash. I recieved the email myself this morning. But, Berlin wasn’t a campaign stop.

But, why did Barry snub the troops? No photo op allowed.

More: It gets better, as David Brooks chimes in on Barry’s sweeping rhetoric and vague ideas

When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.

But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.

Kumbaya, baby, kumbaya. Perhaps this could explain why so many of the younger crowd is not so thrilled and excited for the elections in November. Even the young folks, who are more entranced by yap yap then actual issues, are starting to get fed up.

Happy Friday! The Surrender Monkey is thrilled with his buddy Barry’s redeploy to Afghanistan talk, because he knows that sooner or later, the kook fringe surrender base will force the Messiah to change and once again call for cut and run. But, in the meantime, Ralph Peters writes about antiwar hypocrites

AM I the only one who’s noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week.

Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won’t bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan - expanding that war. (He’s discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.)

And the left’s quiet as a graveyard at midnight.

Where are the outraged protests from MoveOn or the DailyKos? I thought the extreme left felt sorry for our service members in harm’s way and wanted to reunite them with their families.

What happened?

We all know exactly what happened. The left has nothing against foreign wars (as long as they don’t have to fight in person). They just want to pick our wars themselves.

Also, they don’t really have a problem with wars, as long as the they are clean and neat, because as soon as something goes wrong, they want out. See the actions in Somalia that freaked Billy Jeff out, made him pull the troops out, with the upshot being that Osama Bin Laden called America a paper tiger.

The Left will turn on Obama soon over this, since many do not want want to be in Afghanistan, either. And, to use a port sider talking point, was it not Al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11? And Barry wants to go after the Taliban. Hum.

Woops! Here come the surrender in Afghanistan folks, who are not happy with Barry.

Heh. Just caught this one on local TV here in Raleigh