Faced with intense criticism from the left for acknowledging the success of the surge, Hillary swiveled back to a different position in just 48 hours according to the Boston Globe.

""The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution. It has failed. . . . We need to . . . start getting out now."

Well.  Hmmm.

Oh, but very bad news followed the latest pronouncement of failure.  Particularly since it was aimed at the Iraqi government: 

This from USA Today on 8/27

BAGHDAD — Iraq's top Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday that they had reached consensus on measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.

The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political developments in Iraq in months and was quickly welcomed by the United States.

Guess any conflict with her at the helm would be an exersize in scorecarding.

Good to know who you can trust....

..and who you can't.

One more thing.  Al Sadr just announced that he's suspending attacks by his militia on government and American targets for six months.  It seems they had been infiltrated by the Iranians and other murderous thugs and he's going to purge it.

Ouch.  More good news for America/bad news for Democrats.

sharp 

Ok, I think we can all appreciate the odd bribe-taking politician. He's around shiploads of money and he's making about what a junior VP at a typical business might make. It absolutely doesn't excuse it - they're called to a noble role and are given an enormous trust, but I can see how it can happen to an otherwise decent individual.

But what's up with this page-chasing, airport bathroom soliciting creepy stuff?

Who does that?

Not that we know all the details, but just the insinuation is icky (best word I could think of). 

Well, at least they're Republicans which means they won't be reelected.

What the heck.  A good purge of our Washington representation is like a summer shower.  It washes away some of the impurities.

sharp

The NYTimes printed a letter from troops in the 82nd airborne about the bad situation they are in within Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, primarily.  Seven soldiers painted a grim picture of reality there.  It was no doubt precise and accurate and without exaggeration.

However, when another group of seven soldiers sent a reply to that article to the NYTimes, they refused to print it.  Anyone who denies the agenda or hard-core liberal bias of the Times cannot be taken seriously.

There is no clearer letter to the editor that screams to be printed than the one from the troops in Baghdad responding to the one they DID choose to publish.  It's tone is greatly respectful and logical, unlike many emotion-laden tirades that do make print.  The only logicial conclusion is that the NYTimes is doing what college liberals do continually - censoring other voices.

Here's what the Times didn't want you to see.

  Troop response to NYTimes letter

sharp

Hillary, along with several other Democrats recently, has come out to say that the surge is working. So what are Democrats to do about this? It will be very interesting to see.

The highest elected Democrat, Harry Reid, has already declared the war lost and the surge a failure (though it hadn't begun when he said that, which should cause us all to realize that the Democratic party's strategy is to politicize the war and guarantee a terrorist victory thereby guaranteeing a Democratic Party victory).  The highest elected House member, Nancy Pelosi, is now being challenged for not being anti-war enough, and her district is rabidly, militantly anti-war.  They're furious that she hasn't broken her promise about her leadership NOT being about impeachments and subpeonas. 

Now, if the surge is working, what are Democratic politicians to do?  They were elected to surrender.  So far, not so good.  And if Al Qaeda is being fought by not only us but the Sunni tribes who once fought alongside them, then what does a retreat say about their seriousness about fighting Al Qaeda?  Only that it is far less serious than fighting George Bush.

As Democrats begin to see their party headed towards the cliff of "can't be trusted on foreign policy", the smart ones are peeling off.  Joe Liebermann was first, now Hillary and Carl Levin and a handful of war-opposing members of the House who see the success (and the risk to Democrats political fortunes). 

The rock they're against is being seen as the party that can't be trusted in this critical period of threat.  The hard place is the guarantees to end the war.  They can't please both masters. 

It's a lot tougher for them now as leaders than it was as back-bench snipers.  The lesson is, be careful what you wish for.

sharp

Republicans made filthy use of earmarks (surely not all, but plenty of them did) and spent like drunken sailors with no restraint or oversight. It would be good if we could look back and say that some good came of it all, but I wonder.

And now Democrats, who promised an end to earmarks, have rather embraced them.  It's like asking an addict to outlaw cocaine.  It ain't gonna happen.  Democrats and Republicans all got where they are the same way - giving favors and building alliances. So now we ask them to stop the practice?  They just can't.

So the Democrats have proven dishonest in their first "ethical" government test.  This should not be surprising.  Nor is it a reason to toss them out with the bathwater as they suggested the Republicans be done in 2006.  The Democrats blood-lust was aimed at tarnishing all Republicans with the sins of some (though not completely unreasonably) as they sought to taint Republicans with everything from earmarks to the crooked handful to the creepy (the sicko in Florida that chased pages).

So how should Americans respond to the Democrats?  They've proven addicted to the crime they blamed Republicans for, they've expanded warrantless wiretapping, they've passsed on the chance to end the Iraq war and they've passed zero meaningful legislation so far.  That record, taken together is so bad they should be flatted and fired. 

Not just earmakrs alone, but being untrustworthy in all the things they promised.

sharp