The tide may be turning now with glimmers of good news emerging out of Iraq. On Thursday’s Today, Matt Lauer’s questions to John McCain signaled that success in Iraq won’t be an impediment to Democrats sticking with the doom line and demanding rapid "redeployment." Suddenly, the once-crucial Petraeus report in September is now developing into a so-what moment:
LAUER: "You, you've been in Congress a long time, in the Senate for an awfully long time. You now which way the wind is blowing. There are some people who say, Senator, that the momentum, right now, in Congress is so strong to pull the troops out of Iraq that it doesn't matter what's in that report, in the middle of September from General Petraeus, or even in reports that follow that. Even if we start to change momentum in Iraq and start to see more success, the momentum in Congress is already so strong that it's unstoppable. How do you feel about that?"
McCAIN: "We are, we are winning there. The strategy is succeeding. It's only been in place for a short time. The previous strategy, which I bitterly opposed and, and proposed this strategy caused Americans to be very frustrated and angry and sad at the sacrifice that's been made. This strategy is winning --"
LAUER: "But is it going to matter? Is it going to matter? Is Congress going to wait for it to take hold and, until we see true success?"
McCain said victory is essential, but it’s clearly not essential for Russert’s pundit stable. Lauer asked weird questions all over, not just these. He asked McCain to run down Mitt Romney’s sons for not serving in the military, asked if Barry Bonds had a tainted home run record, if Don Imus should be allowed back on the radio, and if McCain would steal glimpses at his teenage daughter’s diary or Facebook page. It almost made YouTube snowmen look like better interviewers.
On his national radio show Thursday night, Mark Levin was highlighting an interview on CNN’s American Morning with Senators Dick Durbin and Bobby Casey early on Wednesday. The senators acknowledged military success on the ground – and then shifted into saying the only thing that mattered was political and parliamentary progress. MRC’s Matthew Balan showed me this transcript, and it's worth noting that CNN anchor John Roberts draws out the point that the Dems are acknowledging military success:
ROBERTS: "Certainly, no one is questioning the dedication of the troops. What they are questioning is whether or not the troops are making any progress. Senator Durbin, Brookings Institution scholars Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack were over there recently, wrote an editorial in ‘The New York Times,’ in which they said, yes, there is progress, and the progress is significant enough that U.S. troops should stay on the ground at least until the beginning of 2008. Did you see any of the progress that they were talking about?"
DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: "There were two important parts of this story, the military part as Senator Casey said, where men and women were doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base, in an area that for, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time that we're putting troops on the ground to intercept al Qaeda. But I have to tell you there's another side to this story that the Brookings Institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, the political scene is very discouraging. We have seen this al Maliki government, which was once branded a government of national unity, coming apart. We see Shias leaving, Sunnis walking out. It’s not the kind of promise that we want, in terms of bringing stability to this country."
ROBERTS: "But hold on. Let me back you up there. You said you did see military progress?"
DURBIN: "Well, what we find is that the surge has troops going into areas, where for four and a half years, we have not seen our military in action. And naturally, they are routing out the al Qaeda in those areas. That's a good thing. But there is no evidence of the government of Iraq in these areas. There are no Iraqi policemen, no Iraqi soldiers. These are Americans."
ROBERTS: "I understand all of that. But Senator Durbin, everybody in the Democratic Party is saying that the surge has failed. Senator Casey, do you agree with your colleague that there are some signs of military progress here?"
BOB CASEY, JR. (D): "Sure, there are, John. And we have said from the beginning that our troops are doing their job. The problem here is that the President of the United States continues to insist on stay the course policy, no change in direction, no sense that the American people can determine that there's a light at the end of the tunnel. That's why I think there's a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people."
Levin said a lot of what the Democrats said was hooey, especially Casey Junior’s insistence that the Democrats have said from the beginning that the troops are doing their job. Their job is to win the peace, and Democrats have never acknowledged that they are doing that.
But the CNN interview was fascinating, because the Democrats admitted military success, and then changed the subject. The media/Democrat complex used to smirk and say President Bush stubbornly ignored the facts on the ground and was not a member of the "reality-based community." Who’s looking stubbornly against facts now as the facts on the ground improve?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Democratic heresy
August 9, 2007 - 22:29 ET by AjtlawyerFor any Democrat other than now-independent Joe Lieberman to claim that there's been actual military progress in Iraq would result in excommunication for heresy. For Dems like Reid, Feingold, et al, it will make absolutely no difference what Gen. Petraeus reports in September. He could show proof that if we held on another 6 months that Al Qaeda would be routed and the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to Mutqada Al Sadr and it wouldn't make any difference. The Dems want out and they don't care what the consequences are.
What would Groucho do?
August 10, 2007 - 12:52 ET by Tom PaineI am reminded of a scene in a Marx Brothers movie. Groucho was locked in an embrace with a woman when her husband suddenly entered the room. Without missing a beat Grouch said “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes”. Get ready for a Groucho response from the Congressional liberals. They will not abandon their cut and run strategy and they will be aided and abetted by the MSM.
Lauer has read Lenin?
August 9, 2007 - 22:58 ET by jmtSo, in true Leninist fashion, when you're losing - make sounds like you're winning. Since Lauer wants there to be a cut and run juggernaut in Congress, he tries to get McCain to say it for him.
What was that about the first casualty in war?
jmt
http://www.jmichaelt.org
Maybe they should start
August 9, 2007 - 23:00 ET by rob6677Maybe they should start reading stuff like this and not just what their "friends" in the MSM keep reciting.
"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens
Mr Graham, I know how you feel about "colorful metaphors".....
August 10, 2007 - 00:44 ET by Dave RAs such, I shall attempt to restrain myself here. I hope this still makes sense.
The British have a saying, "...three metres beyond the end of my tether." I don't know about the rest of you here at NB, but I am about ten miles beyond the end of mine, with both the America-hating Marxist Democrat Party and their mindless dog-washers in the liberal MSM.
These people are doing everything they possibly can to undermine our efforts in a war that we didn't start. This war was, essentially, forced upon us due to this nation's "leaders" displaying weakness during the very critical times when they should have been demonstrating strength. Jimmy Carter is the primary one I am referring to here, but there have been others since.
I am sick to death of MSM morons such as Matt Liar, Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric and the rest, constantly talking up those elected that are supposed to be helping to protect us, such as Dick "the turban" Durbin, Nancy Pelussolini and Harry Give 'em up Reid, who not only support our enemies in this war, but are, IMHO, actively working to bring about our defeat in this conflict.
Therefore, there are two things I would like to see take place:
1) Bring back the sedition laws, and require very stiff penalties for those who operate against this country in a time of war. That means Dick Durbin and the rest of the treasonous politicians are arrested and put on trial, along with their media accomplices, like Lauer and his fellow traitorous vermin.
2) It may very well be getting close to a time where the First Amendment, as it applies to the media, might need to be seriously re-evaluated.
If some of you think I am going over the wall here, just wait until we flip on our TVs and see the remnants of a mushroom cloud hanging over a major US population center.
Maybe then our elected leaders will get serious about this war, and those who are acting as agents for our enemies, like Matt Lauer, will be tried, found guilty, then thrown up against a wall and shot.
I'm sorry, Matt Liar, but it does matter. It matters for reasons far beyond your limited comprehension.
"The problem here is that
August 9, 2007 - 23:35 ET by RESTLESS 1"The problem here is that the President of the United States continues
to insist on stay the course policy, no change in direction, no sense
that the American people can determine that there's a light at the end
of the tunnel." -Bob Casey, Jr
First of all, what, they can't even say President Bush's name any more?
Secondly, I was under the impression that the surge was a change in policy. It was more than just adding troops. The surge was going to secure previously unsecure areas and root out insurgents, al-quaeda and others. There was a change in not only the number of military personell there, but a change in how they were being used. They were to establish the peace in order to allow training of Iraqi security forces and police.
Thirdly, I have heard a great deal in the past few weeks how the Iraqi poeple, Shia and Sunnis alike, have turned against al-quaeda and other insurgents commiting terrorist acts in their country. Both sides have been cooperating with American forces, turning in terrorists and giving up locations of weapons caches.
The democrats can no longer say we are losing on the ground, so they have swithced to painting the political situation in Iraq as untenable. It is the perfect bait and switch tactic.
They don't get it
August 10, 2007 - 00:33 ET by KC MulvilleThey can’t see a change in policy when it’s staring them in the face. Isn’t it obvious that the surge is an example of a policy turned completely upside down?
The original policy was based on the assumption that the military resistance was in its last throes, and that what really mattered was the political progress they negotiated in Baghdad. So, when all those Iraqis pointed their purple thumbs at the cameras, the administration figured that success was close at hand. In that model, the provinces were expected to follow Baghdad.
Instead, the surge turned the policy upside down. The surge depends on the idea that political progress follows security, not vice versa. The provinces will lead, and Baghdad will follow.
Look what’s happening. The Maliki government no longer matters. The American media will treat that as a bad thing, but they have it exactly wrong.
The provinces themselves are haggling out political progress, from the bottom up. My guess is that if we continue to establish security, we won’t have to impose a top-down “reconciliation” from Baghdad … instead, the people will have forged their own working arrangement.
It won’t be a question of the provinces “buying in” to the solution imposed from above. Instead, the provinces will be forcing the central government to “buy in” to the solutions they hammer out in the field.
It seems that Bush has learned the essential lesson of democracy. You can’t impose it. It rises from the people. The surge was a change in the political imagination. The media is still working on old assumptions. They don’t get it.
The following is an honest
August 10, 2007 - 00:47 ET by tracheostomyThe following is an honest question. I'm trying to figure this out.
So, the purple finger isn't what makes you a political revolutionary, but rather just use of force? Does that make sense?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ink dries
August 10, 2007 - 03:37 ET by KC MulvilleI'm not sure I understand your question. However, my point was that democracy can't be imposed from the top down. Ordinary people have to want it on their own.
Until now, the lack of security allowed the terrorists to exploit fear, and the locals resisted any political reconciliation because they hated their rivals so much. Each terrorist act stirred up the hatred, and made reconciliation impossible. But while the terrorists prevented any reconciliation, they also treated the locals savagely. Because of that, the locals now had a motive for reconciliation. Suddenly, the locals wanted to end the violence, for their own sake. All they needed was protection and security so they could pursue it. Now that a minimal level of security seems to be holding, the people are more and more willing to consider reconciliation, and political agreements won't be far behind.
All of that is happening because the people want it. They're not doing it out of obedience to any government in Baghdad, nor because of airy tributes to the nobility of the democratic ideal. Democracy becomes a reality only if the locals themselves see the advantage of reconciliation. Iraq is never going to be a western-style democracy, but it may become democratic in the sense that the people take ownership of the country. That comes from the ground up. In my opinion, that's the only way democracy ever really succeeds.
I agree KC, for us to go to
August 10, 2007 - 08:06 ET by RESTLESS 1I agree KC, for us to go to a country, expecting the people of that country, who have been oppressed for decades, to not see Democracy as being forced down their throats was a bit short sighted on our part. I think that Iraqis, with no other frame of reference, would see Democracy as just another oppressive form of government. They themselves had to come to this realization, and the surge has provided the security for them to resume somewhat normal lives, and the time to ponder on what has happened in Iraq since 2003. Their eyes are starting to open, and they are seeing who the real enemy has been (insurgents, al-queada) and they are coming together and cooperating with our forces to have these terrorists eliminated and their country become safe so that they can move forward.
Btw, I think the purple fingers were a true sign of bravery on the part of Iraqis, and a sign that they truly want a chance to have a fair government that will allow them to prosper and be free.
Yes indeed
August 10, 2007 - 09:14 ET by KC MulvilleYou make the point far better than I did. And I certainly meant no insult to the bravery of the Iraqis who voted. Well done!
Stay the course
August 10, 2007 - 10:38 ET by pbanks7Stop stubbornly staying the course! Do something different! Do something different! You added troops!?! We meant the other different!
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
And BINGO was his
August 10, 2007 - 10:44 ET by TheDeuceAnd BINGO was his name-o...
Iraq
August 9, 2007 - 23:24 ET by pocomocoThe mantra coming out of the Democrat camp is that “yes, our troops are now being successful, but the Iraq government is not.”
This will be their battle cry when Petraeus makes his report to justify their increasing opposition to the war.
They can huff and puff and pass all the resolutions they want, but it is meaningless because only the President, by his Constitutional powers, can conduct a war.
The only thing Congress can do is defund it as they did in Viet Nam, but they haven’t got the guts to do so.
Personally, I would have
August 9, 2007 - 23:32 ET by RESTLESS 1Personally, I would have more respect for the dems if they did defund the war. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least they would be putting their money where their mouth is. If so many people are for surrendering and pulling out of Iraq, then it shouldn't take any guts at all for them to do so, as there shouldn't be any fallout from voters. Alas, they don't vote to defund, so I can only assume that even they don't believe their own BS.
They're not going to defund
August 10, 2007 - 11:01 ET by misterbee241They're not going to defund the war. It's the only thing they have to run on. Make it a failure and make it look like Bush's fault.
Would it be different if
August 9, 2007 - 23:29 ET by balboaWould it be different if Neil Cavuto asked this question of McCain?
No. It would however be
August 9, 2007 - 23:34 ET by RESTLESS 1No. It would however be somewhat surprising, imho.
Although Lauer is a
August 10, 2007 - 07:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberAlthough Lauer is a cheerleader of the 'Defeat at all costs" faction of the Left, I side with my friend Bal on this one. There IS a faction of congress that feels this way, and Cavuto would probably ask the same question, leaving out that last line of BS about the momentum being unstoppable. I am offended more by that comment than the "it doesn't matter" comment...
All right, I guess you and
August 10, 2007 - 08:20 ET by RESTLESS 1All right, I guess you and Bal have a point. The tone of the question from Lauer is what irks, but the question itself is probably a pretty good one. Lauer probably should have just asked if minds in Washington would be changed by a favorable report by Gen. Patraeus, but it seemed to me that he just wanted McCain to agree that the report had no relevance at all as to whether we keep troops in Iraq. I would still be surprised if Cavuto went that route.
I agree with you that Lauer
August 10, 2007 - 08:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree with you that Lauer almost, unintentionally, came close to asking a good question. But, goshdarnit, just like Hater, could not resist from slipping up and revealing himself....
Of course it doesn't matter,
August 10, 2007 - 08:22 ET by dscottOf course it doesn't matter, the debate is over... We make the decisions here not the POTUS, do as we say, after all we are smarter than George Bush. Never mind that he supposedly won two elections and we didn't have the mettle to do this ourselves, that's besides the point because he stole the elections anyway. <sarcasm>
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Best line of the day
August 10, 2007 - 07:18 ET by ThisnThat"It almost made YouTube snowmen look like better interviewers".
Tim, gotta love it. Apply this to all those talking airheads. I would remove the word "almost", though.
Snowmen Unite
August 10, 2007 - 08:10 ET by Sergeant ROCKI think that the YouTube 'Snowman' show anchor the CBS Nightly News. Can't hurt.
As we laugh at this idea,
August 10, 2007 - 08:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberAs we laugh at this idea, one network exec is hurriedly jotting this idea down to throw out at the 10am marketing meeting....
Giddy-up..
August 10, 2007 - 08:33 ET by Sergeant ROCKHmm.. the horse is out of the barn I suspect.
But in the interests of
August 10, 2007 - 09:53 ET by Jack BauerBut in the interests of diversity it will be a Yellow Snowman.
}}---> youtube snowman
August 10, 2007 - 09:57 ET by Cool ArrowI don't remember ever seeing Mr. Bill and Youtube Snowman together, do you.
Coincidence?
ooooooh nooooo
Mr Bill
August 10, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Sergeant ROCKDid Mr. Bill have a son too?
Mr. Bill's wife
August 10, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Cool ArrowI think Mr. Bill was once married to Jane Pauley, wasn't he?
Nanook a-no-no
August 10, 2007 - 10:59 ET by pbanks7Don't be a naughty Eskimo.
But I turned around and said, "Ho-ho."
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
the call of the mild
August 10, 2007 - 11:53 ET by Jack BauerWatch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow.
Thank you Frank Zappa.
August 10, 2007 - 21:05 ET by BlondeThank you Frank Zappa. :)
No probs Moon Unit! Check
August 10, 2007 - 21:08 ET by Jack BauerNo probs Moon Unit!
"...the momentum in
August 10, 2007 - 08:51 ET by Senior Chief"...the momentum in Congress is already so strong that it's unstoppable."
What momentum Lauer? Congress' approval rating at 3% is...yes a momentum for dissaster! Initial report, even from his fellow leftoid "journalist" is looking positively. What is he talking about?
Josef Goebbels of NBC
August 10, 2007 - 09:02 ET by Sergeant ROCKIf you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.
As long as he keeps getting
August 10, 2007 - 21:00 ET by fitzfongAs long as he keeps getting Vieira's coffee and picking up her drycleaning Matt Lauer will have a job at NBC.
Republicans want the
August 10, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Jack BauerRepublicans want the pro-troop Surge to win.
The Socialist Democrats want their anti-troop Dirge to win.