The language of the GOP

Josh Marshall made a brilliant post on the President's latest press conference.

Kerry's stab in the back!

It's true. Kerry is trying to stab America in the back while we fight abroad!

Bush campaign aides on Wednesday unleashed their harshest critique yet of Kerry's stance on the conflict, accusing him of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq.

Fun with John McCain

Here is Campaign Journal from today:

McCAIN'S GRATUITOUS BUSH-BASHING: On "Meet the Press" yesterday John McCain once again said he wouldn't accept an offer to be John Kerry's running mate. By now this is old news, but somehow no matter what else McCain says coverage of him always focuses on the "McCain Continues to Rule Out Veep Slot" angle. What's really interesting about every McCain appearance is how critical he is of Bush. Here's a summary of his velvet-gloved Bush-Bashing from yesterday's Russert interview.

Bush steadfastly refuses to contemplate a tax hike despite hundreds of bilions of dollars in costs that were unforseen when he first penned his tax plan in 1999 as a campaign strategy to fend off Steve Forbes. McCain said this is crazy and endorsed John Kerry's tax plan:

MR. RUSSERT: Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?

SEN. McCAIN: I would have--I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep.

In October Bush testily told reporters at a Rose Garden press conference that the White House had nothing to do with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner:

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.

Bush's spokesman later confirmed that the White House did indeed produce the sign. Yesterday McCain went out of his way to point out that what Bush said in October was untrue:

I didn't think we needed to have "Mission Accomplished" banner, which by the way the crew doesn't decide what banners go up on aircraft carriers.

If there is one thing Bush hates, it is press conferences. He's done fewer than any modern president. McCain's advice to Bush?

MR. RUSSERT: Should the president address the nation?

SEN. McCAIN: If not an address to the nation, certainly a press conference, I would recommend.

(Bush has apparently taken the advice. He will hold a press conference tomorrow night at 8:30.)

One of Bush's mistakes that he most stubbornly refuses to acknowledge is that he failed to send enough troops to Iraq to accomplish our mission. McCain says this error is costing American lives:

MR. RUSSERT: Did the administration underestimate the length and intensity of the resistance and put too few troops in Iraq from the very beginning?

SEN. McCAIN: I was over there last August, and I talked to sergeant majors and captains and colonels and others, and there was no doubt in my mind when I came back that we needed more troops in Iraq. And I had a breakfast with Secretary Rumsfeld and reiterated that as passionately as I could. And it's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having had enough troops there from the beginning.

Finally, given an opportunity to praise Condi Rice, McCain actually obliged. "I thought Dr. Rice's performance was very good before the 9-11 Commission," he said. But, being McCain, he just couldn't resist adding, "Did she answer all the questions? No."

UPDATE: Somehow I missed McCain charging that Bush should have been a little more curious about what was contained in the August 6 PDB:

Should it have raised more of an alarm bell than it--rang more of an alarm bell than it did? I think in hindsight that's probably true.

Good news from Iraq

It looks like Sadr has withdrawn his militias from key Iraqi cities. That's good news for the people of Iraq. But what's to stop him from defying the US again? He did suffer massive casualties during the mini-insurrection. Perhaps that swayed him.

Silver Lining reporting

You don't have to search google and type in "silver lining Iraq" to find a pundit who thinks the escalating (and I emphasize that word) violence in Iraq has a silver lining. Here are various theories (accompanied by my rebuttal):

1. We now know who the enemies are.
Who? The Shiites and the Sunnis? The Iraqis? This is a broad based rebellion. I still call it a rebellion because I think we'll put it down.

2. Sadr has played his cards too early. He should have attacked after we handed power over.
I've toyed with this idea. But think about it: Were we ever going to hand over power on the 30th of June? Of course not. No self-respecting person in America believes that, let alone Iraq. So why wait? He chose a perfect moment - we had just shut down his newspaper (in a Saddam-esque move) and the time seemed ripe.
Of course, I'm skeptical as to how much Sadr has to do with this insurrection. I think there are other forces at work here. I just can't put my finger on what they are. I think Iran is involved. I also can't help thinking that unless our intelligence officers in Iraq are monumentally incompetent (couldn't be), we should have seen this one coming.

3. A civil war will sort out the factions
This isn't a civil war. Right now the two sides are begrudgingly working together. Civil wars generally don't "sort out" problems like this - they exasperate them for generations. If we don't want Iraq to turn into a wasteland of ethnic and tribal war, we'd better do everything in our power to keep the two sides away from war (not to mention the well armed/organized/funded Kurdish militias).

Sistani

This is hilarious. Sistani has a website. On it, you can ask him questions about...well...anything...

Worth a read

Healing Iraq is an Iraqi's daily journal. Today's post is well worth a read.

Is the Left gleeful about the deteriorating situation in Iraq?

Some are. And they really need to knock it off. I don't care how much you hate George W. Bush, it's inexcusable to root for a calamity in Iraq.

That's the main problem I have with the Democratic campaign for President this year. It's married to the horrific failures of Bush's policy. And while we have no one to blame but Bush for those failures, I don't fell comfortable rooting for the failures. But I acknowledge that it will be those failures that propel Kerry into office.

Sadr

Is it just me or is Sadr an idiot? If I was planning to disrupt Iraq and thrust myself into power, wouldn't I wait until AFTER the June 30th (supposed) transition of power? Once that occurs (in theory) we will draw down our troops and leave security to the Iraqis. Wouldn't that be the best time to stage a Shiite uprising? Sadr's movement is destined to fail. We'll crush it and crush him. But if he waited until June 30th, he might have succeeded.

That's not to say there aren't more like Sadr (surely there are) who will do what Sadr should have done after we relax control.

No one could have done anything

No one could have prevented 9-11. Not Clinton and certainly not Bush. The 9-11 commission is POLITICALLY interesting, but it's not going to help protect the country. Anyone who claims that Bush or Clinton could have stopped the terrorists from grabbing some box cutters and taking over some flights is a partisan hack.

Like I've said before: if the terrorists want to kill us, they will. How hard would it be for a terrorist to put heavy explosives in his backpack, attend a minor league baseball game (with zero security but high attendance) and blow himself up? Not hard at all. Besides border control, there is little we can do about it.

Here's another example. A terrorist could walk into my Monday/Wednesday lecture and blow themself up, killing roughly 500 people. There's nothing we could do about it.