McCain Wins Two More

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee won two more nominating contests.

The nine delegates to a national Republican convention from the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas will all be supporting McCain.

The American Samoa Republican Party announced Saturday that all nine of the delegates of the American Samoa Republican Party will also support John McCain.

The delegates from American Samoa and the Northern Marianas give McCain 976 of the 1,191 delegates required to secure the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee remains far behind with 254 delegates.

Huckabee continues to reject calls that he drop out of the race.

New York Times Slanders McCain

This is so pathetic. The New York Times holds a story for months, endorses McCain to be the Republican Presidential nominee, and when he becomes the presumptive nominee the so-called newspaper publishes a gutter story implying that Senator McCain has engaged in some sort of impropriety.

Shout out to the Times - WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Fred Endorses McCain

WE SHOULD TOO

Fred Thompson, said late Friday he was endorsing McCain:

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement.

John McCain, in his new status as the presumptive Republican nominee has reached out to Conservatives. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., he was introduced by former Virginia Senator George Allen and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, a not so subtle blessing from respected Conservative leaders.

McCain offered to meet disaffected Conservatives halfway. He vowed to lower taxes, appoint judges "of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito," and reject "big government" solutions to health care, reminded the audience of his continuing support for the war, declaring, "I intend to win the war."

What is most important, for those of us who have quibbles over some of McCain's positions, McCain promised to listen:

"We have had a few disagreements," McCain said. "And none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in accord."

We should follow Fred's example and respond to McCain's olive branch by also meeting the presumptive nominee halfway.

Sure, we all have at least some quibbles with McCain. We have some quibbles with everyone. But my quibbles with McCain, recede past the level of insignificance when compared to the enormous disagreements I have with either possible Democratic nominee.

We need not go through the list, issue by issue. It is more than enough to just briefly consider what the two possible Democratic presidential candidates, those darlings of the Liberal/Progressive left wing, promise they will do every time they recite their stump speeches: Retreat from Iraq, even as we are making significant progress in the longterm effort there; collect and spend billions an billions more in taxes expanding the big government nanny state so that it controls more and more of our lives; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

To those who say they think they would rather sit out the election than meet McCain halfway, I respectfully ask that you reconsider. Is such a course of action responsible? Does leaving the field to your opponents ever help your cause to prevail? I think not.

I'm not suggesting that you change your mind and advocate or support positions with which you disagree. The discussion on those points can continue until some common understanding is reached. No, all I ask is that you respond to the olive branch offered by John McCain and just meet the presumptive Republican presidential nominee half way.

Huckabee Wins West Virginia

Mike Huckabee wins the West Virginia Republican convention, getting all 18 of the state's delegates.

Romney led in the first round of voting but failed to achieve the majority required to win. Huckabee was projected the winner in the second round.


Huckabee - 52%
Romney - 47%
McCain - 1%
Giuliani - 0%
Paul - 0%

Republicans are holding nominating contests in contests in 20 other states today, while. Democrats are competing in 22 states.

UPDATE:

Marc Ambinder has the inside scoop on how Huckabee won:

After the first round of balloting in West Virginia, Mitt Romney was solidly in the lead with 41% of the votes, followed by Mike Huckabee with 33% and John McCain with 16%.

[. . .]

But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot.

Missing Fred

A little nostalgia for the Fred Heads.

Quibbling with McCain

I Will Vote For Romney. For Now.

I've been writing about the 2008 presidential campaign since April 2005. During that entire time I have been determined to remain uncommitted. I thought that would make for more objective observations about the campaign. It is also an admission that no candidate came along, whom I felt compelled to support.

As the number of possible nominees has dwindled, especially with Fred and Rudy proving that you can't leave the field to opponents and still prevail, I tried to warm up to Senator McCain. After McCain's South Carolina and Florida victories, it is clear he has again attained the dreaded status of front runner.

Embracing McCain ought to be easy for a security voter like me. If your main issue is victory in the War the Islamic Extremists are waging against us, supporting McCain should not be a difficult thing.

Yet I have quibbles with Senator McCain. And they're not going away, even with the Florida results and the Giuliani and Schwarzenegger endorsements.

There are the usual policy quibbles, which have been repeated so often they have become cliche. Yet like all cliches, they are based on truth:

I continue to wonder if President Bush's tax cuts would now be permanent if only Senator McCain supported the tax cuts in 2001.

I object to the 2002 McCain/Feingold so-called campaign finance reform, which I still consider an abominable infringement on my constitutional rights, even though the Supreme Court says it isn't.

There is also the McCain/Kennedy so-called immigration reform, both versions -- the 2005 edition and the 2007 McCain/Kennedy II -- amount to little more than a dressed up amnesty that like the failed 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act will encourage additional illegal immigration.

More recently, we have been forced to grapple with the McCain/Lieberman Gore-like energy tax that is somehow suppose to magically reverse global climate change.

Even so, as I said, a week ago I was thinking I could set these quibbles aside and support Senator McCain's presidential candidacy. Then the Senator went Hillary -- telling lies about Mitt Romney's position on Iraq. Even in the face of Romney's objections and denials, McCain repeated this criticism in the Reagan Library debate the other night.

Senator McCain, on NBC's "Meet the Press," said that last year Romney wanted to set a secret timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. That plan, similar to what Democrats have proposed, would lead to a victory for al-Qaeda. Romney, on CNN's "Late Edition," said McCain's description of his position was "dishonest." I'm going to rely on upon Paul Mirengoff's "Did he or didn't he?" post to resolve this dispute between the two presidential contenders:

McCain apparently is referring to a statement Romney made last April in which he assumed President Bush and the head of the Iraqi government might discuss timetables and troop levels in Iraq. I don't think Romney's statement fairly can be construed as advocating setting a date for our withdrawal.

I take Mirengoff's post to mean Romney was saying let's see if the surge works and be prepared for it not to. He also says Mitt was definitely less gung-ho than McCain on the surge. Mirengoff's conclusions are also supported by Byron York's "McCain, Romney, and Timetables" post. This presents me with yet another quibble about McCain. This one about my most important issue -- achieving victory in the war the Islamic extremists are waging against us.

There is more to Mirengoff's post, and he credits McCain for being right about Iraq and advocating an approach to Iraq that is "essentially the one that’s working now." So I thought maybe I could overlook this quibble as well. Then I started to think seriously about McCain as Commander in Chief. The more I look into what Senator McCain has actually advocated in Iraq the more quibbles I have about supporting his presidential candidacy.

I may vote for Governor Romney on Tuesday. But I understand the reality of the situation, and that pretty soon my choice will be not between Romney and McCain, but between McCain and Hillary (or Obama). So I hereby pose my quibbles to Senator McCain in the hopes that he will rise to this challenge and make his case to this security voter as to why Senator McCain should be Commander in Chief.

Senator McCain has consistently advocated the deployment of many more troops into Iraq. The Senator's version of a surge envisioned some 100,000 additional troops, and he has been all over Donald Rumsfeld for failing to deploy such a large additional force as early as 2004. Here, I have another problem with McCain's position. We simply don't have enough combat brigades and Marine equivalents to throw into the fight in the numbers the Senator insistently says we should have.

With troops tied down in Central European bases, Bosnia and South Korea, and still others fighting in Afghanistan, the combat units required to make the deployments advocated by Senator McCain don't exist. He has advocated increasing the size of the armed forces, but the additional troops such increases might have produced would not have been available at the time Mr. McCain wanted to deploy them.

The 30,000 or so troops that were used for the surge pretty much used all the available forces. Note that Army Chief of Staff George Casey recently declared that the surge has "sucked all the flexibility" out of the system in a year. General Casey predicts that much of the lost flexibility will be restored if the troops can be drawn down over the next six months, but the current enhanced deployment level is not sustainable for a long period of time. In an encouraging sign, the New York Times quotes Defense Secretary Gates as saying by next summer the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be reduced to 15.

Senator McCain has opposed the redeployment of troops out of Germany and South Korea. In doing so he ensures that those forces cannot be used in the current war. I know Senator McCain has called for increasing the armed forces, but given the time it would take to recruit, train and deploy these still on-paper troops, how does he answer the quibble of how he would have staffed his enhanced version of the surge?

I'm willing to give Senator McCain credit for advocating a change in strategy in Iraq. Perhaps he can make an argument that we should have done it sooner. I'm not sure that he can, it seems to me that the key to the success of the surge was a lot of hard work -- blood sweat and tears -- in the years leading up to the surge. More Iraqi forces had been trained to a level where they could be effectively used to support counterinsurgency strategy being used by General Petraeus. The Anbar awakening occurred before the deployment of the surge troops making it more likely the surge would succeed. Plopping down another 100,000 or so troops, even if such numbers were available, years earlier as advocated by Senator McCain may not have had the same effect in 2004 as did the 30,000 troops surged in 2007.

I also have a problem with Senator McCain pinning the perceived lack of instant success in Iraq on Rumsfeld. He has come up with a very simplistic story that Rumsfeld was bad and Petreaus is good. But successful counterinsurgency campaigns take time. A lot of time. More than a year. Everyone, including Senator McCain is willing to credit General Petraeus with the success of the surge. But maybe we should look at the General's first two tours in Iraq for the secrets of his success, and maybe we should consider who promoted General Petraeus, more than once, and who recommended General Petraeus to be the Iraq commander--the very same Donald Rumsfeld that McCain vilifies.

I could go on here, but I think I've made my point, which is that McCain takes too much credit for the surge, especially since I'm not sure he was as involved in the strategy shift as he says he was. This makes me wonder about how he will behave as Commander in Chief. Will the military appreciate his eagerness to grab the limelight and denigrate the long, difficult and frequently unpopular work that leads to success in a mission like Iraq?

I certainly admire the Senator's service during Vietnam, and I respect him as a hero. Nevertheless I don't think he has demonstrated that he is more qualified to be the civilian commander in chief than has Romney. Nor do I think his decades in the Senate and his experience leading a naval air squadron is the type of executive experience I want to see in a president.

Therefore, as things now stand, when I step up to the voting machine on super Tuesday, I will be registering my vote for Mitt Romney. He has executive experience, both in the private sector, where he made a fortune turning around troubled companies, in the public sector as a successful governor and don't forget his rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics.

I don't find the Governor's positions on Iraq objectionable. Nor do I find the fact that he has changed certain views over the years to be a bad thing. I tend to prefer the newer views and appreciate that he saw the need to change. But I will also give John McCain his fair shake, and I would like to know how he would answer my quibbles, should he chance to see them.

State Of The Union Preview

Courtesy of the White House, here is a preview of President Bush's 2008 State of the Union address:

The President will reaffirm his belief in the power of freedom and in policies that trust the American people to make wise choices. He will present new ideas and identify key areas where the Administration and Congress can come together to complete important unfinished business to protect Americans and to ensure that our country continues to prosper. This includes:


* Keeping America's Economy Healthy: To help keep our economy growing in the short-term, President Bush will ask Congress to quickly pass the $150 billion economic growth package agreed upon in bipartisan negotiations between the Administration and House leadership. President Bush will also ask Congress to make sure the tax relief that is now in place is made permanent - this is the most important action to ensure the long-term health of our economy.

* Expanding Opportunities For America's Workers: President Bush will call on Congress to open markets to American workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs by approving free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. The President believes Americans can compete with anybody, anywhere as long as the rules are fair, and these trade agreements will ensure open markets and new opportunities for U.S. business and agriculture. The Administration is also working for a successful Doha Round of trade talks, and the President is committed to completing a good agreement this year to expand opportunity for Americans and millions struggling to escape poverty worldwide.

* Eliminating Wasteful Federal Spending: President Bush will issue a pledge to veto any appropriations bill Congress sends him that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. He will also issue an Executive Order on Tuesday, January 29, directing Federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress.

* Saving Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid: The President will challenge Members of Congress to come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital entitlement programs for future generations. He has laid out several proposals to reform these programs, and now he calls on Members of Congress to develop their own ideas.

* Caring For Our Nation's Veterans And Their Families: The President will call on Congress to expand support for military families by expanding their access to childcare, creating new hiring preferences for military spouses across the Federal government, and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children. He will also ask Congress to ensure our returning wounded warriors effectively and efficiently receive the services they need by completing work on the remaining Dole-Shalala Commission recommendations that require legislation.

* Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind And Expanding Education Options: President Bush will call on Congress to pass bipartisan legislation reauthorizing and strengthening No Child Left Behind. He will also ask Congress to support a new $300 million "Pell Grants for Kids" program to help poor children in underperforming schools afford the schools of their choice and announce a White House Summit on inner city children in faith-based and other non-public schools that will be held this spring.

* Keeping America Competitive In The 21st Century: The President will ask Congress to continue on the path to double Federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on earth. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting full funding of research under the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, an agenda to strengthen our scientific education and research, improve our technological enterprise, attract the world's best and brightest workers, and provide 21st century job training. Unfortunately, Congress has not provided sufficient funding. This funding is necessary now for American entrepreneurs and workers to maintain a competitive edge.

* Increasing Energy Security And Confronting Climate Change: President Bush will call on Congress to build on the success of the energy bill he signed in December and take the next steps to improve our energy security and confront the challenge of climate change without undermining economic growth. He will reaffirm the United States' commitment to work with the other major economies and through the UN toward an international agreement on climate change that can slow, stop, and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions through actions by every major economy. He will also call for the creation of a new $2 billion international clean technology fund.

* Empowering America's Armies Of Compassion: President Bush will call on Congress to help ensure equal treatment for faith-based organizations seeking Federal funding by permanently extending Charitable Choice provisions guaranteeing their participation on equal footing in certain Federal programs. In addition, the President will honor the resilience of the people of the Gulf Coast, and the contributions volunteers have made to the region, by announcing that the United States will host the annual North American Leaders' Summit in New Orleans this April.

* Improving Border Security, Immigration Enforcement, And Assimilation: President Bush will review the steps his Administration is taking to improve our border security and address immigration challenges within the boundaries of existing law. Although Congress has not passed legislation to address the immigration challenges our Nation faces, the Administration continues to build upon progress we have already made in strengthening our borders, enforcing our worksite laws, prosecuting criminal aliens, keeping our economy well-supplied with vital workers, and helping new Americans successfully assimilate into our society. Without legislation that creates a lawful way for foreign workers to support our economy, however, we cannot fully relieve the pressure on the border.

* Empowering Americans With Affordable Options For Health Care: President Bush will lay out elements of his health care agenda to promote accessible and affordable health care and leave medical decisions in the hands of patients and the doctors that treat them. He will call on Congress to eliminate the unfair bias in the tax code in order to make basic private health insurance more affordable for millions.

* Confirming Qualified Judicial Nominees: The President has submitted qualified judicial nominees who will interpret the law instead of attempting to make new laws. Many of these worthy candidates' nominations are being unfairly delayed, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote.

* Increasing Federal Support For Ethical Stem Cell Research: President Bush has directed Federal agencies to provide funding for stem cell and medical research that does not harm human embryos. In November 2007, several new studies reaffirmed the President's commitment to support this type of research by showing the potential of reprogramming adult cells, such as skin cells, to make them function like embryonic stem cells. President Bush will also call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life.

President Bush will ask Congress to work with him to advance the freedom agenda abroad and continue to fulfill his top priority of keeping our Nation safe. This includes:

* Keeping Our Nation Safe From Terrorism: President Bush will remind Congress that one of the most important tools we can give the men and women who protect us from attack is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning. Last year, Congress passed legislation to help us do that, but it is set to expire on February 1. This means that if Congress does not act this week, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened --and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must act now to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted and to pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted our nation following the attacks on 9/11.

* Supporting Our Troops As They Make Progress In Iraq And Afghanistan: The President will call on Congress to fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they get the equipment they need as soon as possible to do the job they have been asked to do. While much work remains, U.S. and Iraqi troops working together have achieved significant results, and as we are seeing more success, some of our forces in Iraq are returning home and not being replaced. He will also announce the United States is adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan to ensure the gains this nation has made toward democracy are not reversed.

* Keeping America Safe By Advancing Freedom Worldwide: President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to support those in other countries who are advancing freedom and justice as hopeful alternatives to the violent extremism embraced by America's enemies.

* Supporting A Compassionate Foreign Policy: President Bush believes freedom can only be advanced if the United States does its part to eliminate the hunger, disease, poverty, and illiteracy that creates despair and allows violent extremism to take root. The President will ask Congress to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, consistent with the program's successful founding principles, and to double the Plan's historic initial commitment with an additional $30 billion over five years. He continues to support the President's Malaria Initiative to combat malaria in 15 African countries, and the President will also ask Congress to support an innovative proposal to provide food assistance by purchasing crops directly from farmers in the developing world.

Sunday Show Video Roundup (Jan. 27)

Like last week, this week's video roundup from Sunday's talking head shows is all about Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama:




Bill Clinton needs to listen when Democratic party leaders tell him to shut up.

Bill Clinton Tried To Stop Kennedy's Obama Endorsement

Former president Bill Clinton tried hard to convince Ted Kennedy not to endorse Obama over Hillary.

The Washington Post calls the Kennedy stamp of approval "one of the most sought-after prizes of the Democratic nomination battle." Both the Hillary and the Obama campaigns sought the Kennedy prize:

Obama had cultiBill Clinton Tried To Stop Kennedy's Obama Endorsementvated Kennedy's support for months. So had Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who along with her husband, former president Bill Clinton, had pressed Kennedy in recent days to at least remain neutral.

In the end Bill Clinton's failure to listen to warnings that his attacks against Obama had gone too far cost Hillary:

Kennedy's decision came after weeks of his rising frustration with the Clintons over campaign tactics, particularly comments by the couple and their surrogates in South Carolina that seemed to carry racial overtones. Kennedy expressed his frustrations directly to the former president, but to no avail. He came to his endorsement decision over the past week, after speaking to numerous family members, especially younger ones, and gave Obama the word on Thursday, people familiar with the endorsement said.

The New York Times reports that the "discussions " between the Clintons and Kennedy became "heated:"

Both the Clintons and their allies had pressed Mr. Kennedy for weeks to remain neutral in the Democratic race, but Mr. Kennedy had become increasingly disenchanted with the tone of the Clinton campaign, aides said. He and former President Bill Clinton had a heated telephone exchange earlier this month over what Mr. Kennedy considered misleading statements by Mr. Clinton about Mr. Obama, as well as his injection of race into the campaign.

The Kennedy endorsement is further evidence that Bill Clinton’s over the top attacks on Obama have gone too far and have hurt Hillary's candidacy. That's a fact the Hillary campaign subtly acknowledges:

Campaign officials, without acknowledging any faults on Mr. Clinton’s part, have said they will change tactics and try to shift Mr. Clinton back into the role he played before her loss in the Iowa caucuses, emphasizing her record and experience.

At Politico, Mike Allen and Carrie Budoff Brown also write about the Clinton's efforts to prevent the Kennedy Obama endorsement and call the rejection of Hillary as least as embarrassing as her 28-point loss in the South Carolina primary on Saturday.

Has the Clinton's race baiting boomeranged? We won't know the answer to that question until after the twenty-odd February 5, contests. We do know that Bill Clinton should learn to listen when party leaders tell him to shut up.

More On Obama's Kennedy Prize

NBC Nightly News reports on Obama's huge Win in South Carolina, and the Kennedy endorsements of Barack Obama:



I agree with Andrea Mitchell that the Ted Kennedy endorsement is huge. She makes the point that Kennedy and other Democratic Party leaders are very unhappy with Bill Clinton's negative campaign against Obama.

Bill should have paid attention when Kennedy told the former president to shut up.

Happy "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" Day

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

On January 26, 1998, then President Bill Clinton went on national TV and brazenly announced lied to the American people claiming he "did not have sexual relations with that woman:"



Context

After repeatedly denying an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton finally acknowledged the affair in grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998.

On September 11, 1998, Kenneth Starr's four-year investigation into the president was made public in a 445-page report.

As a direct result of the Starr report, Bill Clinton became only the second president in American history to be impeached, when the House Judiciary Committee proposed articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

The Senate voted to acquit Clinton of the impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on February 12, 1999.

Thanks to Marc Parent for the reminder.

Don't Short The Surge

Kimberly Kagan looks at the success of the surge and notes it may have a surprising result:

We won more than we had hoped, and now we may need to defend it more than we had planned.

Kagan's sobering analysis concludes we can't reduce American combat forces in Iraq below 15 brigades this year:

By the best estimates now available, 15 brigades is the absolute minimum force required to accomplish the mission that has brought us success in 2007. Any further reductions -- even by a single brigade -- may make that mission impossible.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' recent hope that the U.S. could cut its combat forces in Iraq from 20 to 10 brigades this year now appears overly optimistic.

Nevertheless, the progress in Iraq is real and the progress is political as well as military. American brigades in Iraq not only oversee combat, the brigades are also responsible for training, and governance missions in their area of operations:

Since the end of 2006, brigades have overseen the Military Transition Teams that train and advise the Iraqi security forces operating in their area, dramatically improving the coordination of Iraqi and American forces.

[. . .]

Since spring 2007, the brigades have housed the Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams that have jumpstarted local and provincial Iraqi government. The brigade helps these teams move through the area. The brigades have been instrumental in the Iraqi population's rejection of al Qaeda.

We need patience to attain victory in Iraq. Counterinsurgency is inherently a long-term proposition.

Last week, Micheal R. Gordan wrote about the "parallel universes" he experienced in his military reporting assignments in Iraq and tracking the campaign debate in the United States:

The American officers I met were hardly of one mind on how to proceed in Iraq, but they were grappling with decisions on how to try to stabilize a traumatized country with a hard-headed sense that although there have been significant gains, a long and difficult job still lies ahead — a core assumption that has frequently been missing on the campaign trail.

The politicians, on the other hand, seemed more intent on addressing public impatience with an open-ended commitment in Iraq, either by promising prompt withdrawal (the Democrats) or by suggesting that victory may be near (the Republicans).

Anthony Cordesman, a military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who regularly visits Iraq, put it this way: “You have to grade all the candidates between a D-minus and an F-plus. The Republicans are talking about this as if we have won and as if Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, rather than Afghanistan and Pakistan and a host of movements in 50 other countries.

The Democrats talk about this as if the only problem is to withdraw and the difference is over how quickly to do it.”

Iraq is one theater in the War against Islamic Extremism. Al Qaeda's two principal leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, have repeatedly called Iraq the "front line" in their war against Western civilization. We have no choice but to find the patience to give the military the time it needs to complete the job we asked them to do. The alternative, advocated by the liberal/progressive left wing and the Democratic Presidential candidates, is to admit defeat, surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq after so much sacrifice and battle an emboldened enemy in other theaters until we tire there as well.

Lies, Misrepresentations and More Left-Wing Extremist Propaganda

To paraphrase President Reagan, there they go again.

Associated Press writer, Douglas Daniel has written an article promoting more lies, misrepresentations, and left-wing extremist propaganda trying to revive the loony left's thoroughly debunked fiction that we were "misled" into war in Iraq by "false statements" and "lies."

On Yahoo the Douglas article is titled "Study: False statements preceded war." But CBS News, the ever accurate former employer of Dan Rather, originally carried the article under the headline "Study: 2 Years Of Lies Led To Iraq War. That was too much even for the President Bush hating propagandists at CBS, who toned it down to "Study: 'False Pretenses' Led U.S. To War."

I am so very tired of this propaganda. Mr. Douglas does not acquit himself well as a reporter here. Perhaps that is why he is identified as a writer. He does little, other than regurgitating the misleading talking points put forth in the press release posted on the Web site of the cleverly named Center for Public Integrity. According to wikipedia, despite its claims to be a nonpartisan news organization "the Center has been accused of bias toward left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes."

At the New York Times, John Cushman Jr., doesn't do much better, but the headline is more restrained.

Even though Douglas and Cushman put forth the press release talking points claiming that President Bush and other administration officials made hundreds of "false statements" leading us to war in Iraq, they both fails to do any fact checking. Oh they note that journalists and news organizations have issued mea culpas, saying their pre-war coverage was "too deferential and uncritical." But they fail to mention that no less than three exhaustive studies have concluded that there is no justification for the false allegation that the administration lied about the WMDs.

Everyone was convinced that Saddam had WMDs. It remains a fact Saddam used WMDs against Iran and his own people. The intelligence and common wisdom that Iraq still possessed such weapons at the time we liberated Iraq proved to be wrong, but that doesn't equate to a lie.

So lets go over the facts again. The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Besides that report, two other independent investigations came to the same conclusion.

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states:

Treatment of intelligence material

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

The effect of departmental policy agendas

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq.

President Clinton::

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright:

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

Is it so much to ask that news service "writers" and reporters do a little fact checking?

Romney Wins Nevada

Mitt Romney wins the Republican Nevada caucuses. Ron Paul is running second. No surprise here.

South Carolina Republican Primary Prediction

In South Carolina we have another very close race among the Republican candidates.

Rasmussen Reports finds John McCain and Mike Huckabee tied. But Rasmussen also finds a lot of uncertainty:

Perhaps the most significant finding of the survey was that, as of Wednesday night, 41% of voters indicated that they might change their mind. That includes 7% who have not decided on anyone, 10% who said there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and another 24% who said they could change their mind. Such uncertainty just three days before an election is extraordinary.

Two other polls find McCain with a narrow lead.

A new McClatchy-MSNBC poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research has McCain leading with 27%, followed by Huckabee, 25%; Mitt Romney, 16%; Fred Thompson, 13%; Ron Paul, 6%; and Rudy Giuliani, 5%.

A new Zogby International poll has McCain leading with 27%, followed by Huckabee, 26%; Romney, 15%; Thompson, 12%; Paul, 4%; and Giuliani, 3%. The Zogby and Rasmussen polls show McCain slipping and Huckabee rising.

McCain is thought to lead among South Carolina's large veteran population, while Huckabee is favored by evangelical voters. Then there is the weather. Up to 3 inches of snow is forecast in the portions of the state and heavy rain is expected throughout the rest of the state.

My guess is that Huckabee's supporters are more passionate than McCain, and will carry Huckabee to victory.

Huckabee - 30%
McCain - 29%
Romney - 17%
Thompson -13%
Giuliani - 5%
Paul - 5%
Hunter - 1%

Michigan Primary Prediction 2008

I'm going to take another shot at exposing myself to unnecessary ridicule and predict guess what I think will be the result of the Michigan primary

Once again, the Republican race is a toss up between McCain and Romney. Michigan, like New Hampshire is an open primary, which means and any registered voter can vote. That again leaves us wondering whether independents will turn out and vote for McCain?

Republicans
Romney - 31%
McCain - 30%
Huckabee - 17%
Thompson - 10%
Paul - 7%
Giuliani - 4%
Duncan Hunter - 1%

The Democratic primary doesn't count because the Democratic National Committee voted to disenfranchise Michigan Democrats by stripping Michigan of all of its 156 delegates to the party’s 2008 nominating convention in Denver.

The Democratic Party leaders are punishing Michigan Democrats for scheduling their presidential primary earlier than the national party leaders think they should. Democratic Party rules allow only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to hold 2008 primary contests before February 5.

The Democratic candidates all agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Edwards and Obama withdrew their names from the ballot. A whisper campaign is under way to get Edwards and Obama and supporters to vote for uncommitted, thereby embarrassing Hillary.

Democrats
Hillary - 56%
Uncommitted - 41%
Kucinich - 2%
Gravel - 1%

You can find more New Hampshire at predictions at Election Projection.

Sunday Show Video Roundup (Jan. 13)

This video roundup of sound bites from Sunday's talking head shows sums up recent developments in the presidential campaign. It's all a about the race card.

Primary Winners Gain National Status

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Hillary and McCain leading nationally following the New Hampshire primaries:


Republicans
McCain - 33%
Huckabee - 19%
Giuliani - 13%
Romney - 11%
Thompson - 9%

The Gallup poll documents the impact of winning the early states on national preferences.


The impact is similar among the Democrats.

Hillary - 45%
Obama - 33%
Edwards - 13%

Gallup's Dr. Frank Newport explains the trends:

Ron Paul Forgets About The USS Cole

At the Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Ron Paul forgot that in the October 12, 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole a small craft approached the U.S. warship, exploded, and blew a 40-foot hole in the side of the Cole. The attack killed 17 sailors and wounded 39 more.

Watch the following video from the debate:



That Ron Paul statement received the most negative rating ever recorded by a Luntz focus group.

Luntz's Focus Group Likes Fred

Luntz's Focus Group says Fred Thompson won the Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.



I guess the focus group liked Fred calling Huckabee on his liberal economic foreign policies. I know I did.