Blogito, Ergo Sum - 9 April 2008

While all eyes are on Petraeus and the senators, the deputy prime minister of Iraq writes a Washington Post Op-ed:

Al-Qaeda, the great spoiler in Iraq and the region, is on the run. Al-Qaeda remains a major threat but is now fighting to survive, not to win. The setback that Iraqis, with coalition assistance, have inflicted could well become the genesis of al-Qaeda's defeat across the Muslim world.

Putting the terrorists and militias on the defensive has enabled some economic progress, and the government's competence is growing. We have managed to reduce annual core inflation from 36 percent at the end of 2006 to 14 percent this month. Iraq now funds almost all of its reconstruction and the lion's share of the costs for its security forces. Budget execution is improving: In 2006 the government spent just 24 percent of its investment budget; in 2007, that spending rose to 63 percent and is on track to be even higher this year. Per capita incomes, which were the equivalent of $465 in 2003, passed $2,100 in 2007. Yesterday, our cabinet endorsed plans for a $5 billion supplementary budget to finance an expedited program of major public works. If approved by Parliament, this will be added to the $14 billion already allocated for investment this year. Further, our economic growth rate is expected to top 7 percent this year.

Sadly, our politics has not kept pace. Baghdad has done much but not enough. We have passed crucial laws for national reconciliation. Parliament has voted on laws regarding pensions, de-Baathification, amnesty, a budget and provincial powers for elections later this year.

Iraq's political challenges have been exacerbated because of disputes among and within the partners in its governing coalition. The government's recent confrontation with armed gangs and militias, particularly in Basra, may have changed that dynamic. The government showed leadership and a willingness to combat outlaws regardless of their sectarian affiliation. Few appreciated that politicians of all sects and ethnic groups rallied to the government. If we manage it well, we can build on that momentum of national unity to resolve political problems that have stalled effective governance in recent months. ...

A year ago many were willing to concede defeat in Anbar. Today, Anbar has been won back and al-Qaeda is on the run. Iraqi unity in confronting outlaws in Basra offers hope that we can transcend the sectarian divide. These are important benchmarks, and they should be recognized as credible affirmation that success is possible in Iraq.

My highlighting. I don't think the MSM even begins to appreciate how significant Basra may have been. People who think it shows evidence that the surge did not work only act to reveal their own ignorance about Iraq, because Basra was occupied by the British forces, not the Americans, and the British did the exact opposite of "the surge" there...they withdrew, instead.

But more importantly, the Shia militias of al-Sadr which had taken over Basra really did, in fact, represent an insurgency and a civil war against the Maliki government of Iraq. What they had done in Basra would be like if the KKK took over New Orleans after Katrina, say, keeping the federal and state government officials out.

Others point to Basra as evidence that violence was still out of control in Iraq. On the contrary, this was actually a police-action whereby the elected government moved to remove criminals from control. Think of it more like when the FBI regained control of Chicago from rule by the Mob under prohibition, when Chicago criminals used automatic weapons against them.

Maliki's action was really a significant step for a number of reasons. For one thing, Maliki came to political power perhaps largely because of the support of al-Sadr, so this meant putting the Iraqi government interests ahead of Shia politics. This would be like John Edwards being president and passing tort reform which cut the legs out from under trial lawyers.

And more than that, it showed the Sunni that Maliki was not going to act along sectarian lines.

People complain that Maliki acted hastily, but these are the same people who have complained for months if not years that Maliki has not been acting at all on this matter. And who knows but what al-Sadr was in the process of growing so strong in Basra that it wasn't a now-or-never type of thing?

They tell me that Iraqi politics is complicated. At the same time, these same people seem to think that they know and understand Iraqi politics sufficiently well enough to be able to tell Maliki what he's doing wrong. Yeah, I know.

She can thank herself, among other high-minded Democrats, for the fine mess she's in. The Obama lead in delegates is not so much a lead fairly won as the result of undisciplined democracy, wrought by a bizarre formula of allocating delegates. A complicated primary-and-caucus system in Texas, for example, gave Hillary most of the popular votes and Sen. Obama most of the delegates.

A close look at what's happened, measured by Wesley Little of the Rasmussen polling organization, shows that if the Democrats had employed the winner-take-all method of the Republicans (and once their own), Hillary would now have a comfortable cushion of delegates heading into the final round of primaries. Democrats in 30 primaries would have awarded 1,260 Obama delegates. Hillary's 14 primary victories would have yielded 1,427 delegates — maybe more if the party could figure out what to do about disenfranchised Democrats in Florida and Michigan.

In fact, she has to feel quite a lot like Algore did in 2000...the real winner, denied the election by the system; Algored. Hillary doesn't want to give up, under these circumstances, any more than Gore did.

But the Obamaniacs are nuts if they think all the news is good. With a mortally wounded Hillary limping toward Denver, full attention is turned to the great journey of discovery of who Barack Obama really is. His oldest and dearest friends — his crazy preacher being merely the first — are only now crawling out of the dark places in the woodwork. There was never a prettier candidate to burst onto the scene, a man who looked and sounded too good to be true.

"The man has too much tail for his kite," Albert Sidney Johnston said of the fancy-feathered general Lincoln sent to oppose him in "the West" in the early months of the Civil War. Events made quick work of him. Getting a kite into a fair wind with too much tail was difficult then, and it will be difficult now.

What could be better than watching Obama humble Hillary, and then deconstruct after he has the nomination? Would the party then resurrect Hillary, or opt for Algore in a savior role?

Two rather amusing WSJ pieces this morning. The first is written by a former DNC public relations type, who used to promote the Gore/Lieberman ticket and defend President Clinton, and he writes about Hillary's problem:

As small as these errors were, at that moment everything changed. The Bush campaign and its allies systematically started calling Mr. Gore a serial exaggerator at best and, implicitly, a fabricator at worst. The media latched onto it, the label stuck and, thereafter, every word Mr. Gore uttered was scrutinized through the lens of whether he was telling the truth or exaggerating. The cartoonists outfitted him as Pinocchio, and he never could shake the characterization.

I believe that this negative branding, more than the hanging chads, led to his defeat. Four years later, John Kerry fell into the Swift Boat trap, was painted as a liar and a flip-flopper and too lost a campaign he might otherwise have won. ...

Recently the Clinton campaign released a portion Sen. Clinton's White House daily activity logs. These logs provide the first independent means to evaluate her claim that her White House years provided her the relevant national security/commander-in-chief experience to be president.

A preliminary analysis of these logs has begun to reveal Mrs. Clinton's claims of experience to be overstated. If these logs continue to bear out that she is less experienced than she has claimed, she will, at best, be branded as an exaggerator. She then will face an onslaught that will make the Gore and Kerry attacks look like a walk in the park. ...

From what is available presently, Mrs. Clinton may prove to be the most vulnerable Democratic candidate in the last three election cycles. ...

It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There are warning signs that Democrats may be walking down that same path with Hillary Clinton.

He's an Obama supporter now, of course. But I like the way he describes Algore's errors as small and virtually meaningless until the mean old Bush campaign got hold of them, and likewise Kerry was "painted" as the liar and flip-flopper he, in fact, was. And as for Hillary...branded as an exaggerator? Ha!

I have tried to get over my unease surrounding Barack Obama's response to the sermons and writings of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the unanswered questions remain.

I am a strong supporter of and a substantial fundraiser for Hillary Clinton for president (though in this column I speak only for myself). I still believe she should and will be the Democratic nominee. But if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, he needs to understand that this issue goes well beyond Clinton partisans. Now is the time to address these questions, not later. ...

Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election.

One thing is for sure: If Mr. Obama doesn't show a willingness to try to answer all the questions now, John McCain and the Republican attack machine will not waste a minute pressuring him to do so if he is the Democratic Party's choice in the fall.

It looks like McCain is going to enjoy meeting up with either one of his Democrat opponents.

Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Obama...can't the Democrats find anyone who can tell the truth when they campaign?