Jay Reding.com

Rep. John Murtha, one of the most vociferous opponents of the Iraq War is now saying that the surge is working:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the “surge is working.” This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.

Murtha’s latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge “is not working” and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq.

Murtha told CNN on July 12, following a Bush speech, that the president’s views on the success of [the] surge in Iraq were “delusional.”

Apparently it’s no longer as “delusional” as it once was. The reality on the ground in Iraq has now reached a point where it’s no longer deniable. This puts the Democrats in a bind: they’ve argued all year that the “surge” was doomed to failure, that Iraq was going to collapse into civil war, and that the only thing we could do was go home. Now, all those predictions have proven to be wrong—the “surge” did work, violence is down, and Iraqi refugees are returning to home.

Of course, the narrative has already changed that the “real” goal of the surge was to get the Iraqi government to make political concessions rather than simply laying the groundwork for those concessions to be possible. However, that’s a transparent attempt to try and ignore the very real progress that’s been made: and the more obvious that progress becomes, the harder it is to change the subject—especially when the word “quagmire” was used so capriciously.

It will be interesting to see what Rep. Pelosi’s reaction will be as more members of the House start backing away from the defeat-at-any-price coalition, it’s going to be harder and harder to play political games over war funding. When even John “Redeploy to Okinawa” Murtha is forced to admit that the military goals of the surge are being met, it’s clear that the line that the surge was a failure and it’s “delusional” to think that it could work just won’t fly anymore.

Had last night’s CNN/YouTube debate in Florida had any more planted questions there’d be a government farm subsidy involved. One of the questioners, a retired General who was openly gay, was a member of a Hillary Clinton campaign task force. Another was an activist for John Edwards. Another was a union activist. Another was an Obama supporter. CNN apparently did very little to vet the questions to make sure that real uncommitted voters got a chance to ask their questions. Even Grover Nordquist, whose question was perfectly fair, still doesn’t really belong in a “citizen” oriented debate.

CNN truly dropped the ball on this debate, and it ended up hurting them even more. Had Fox News planted Republican questioners at a similar event, the left would be out for blood. Even if you ignore the questions by the union activist and the Obama supporter on the principle that they’re voters who have a right to question the candidates, having a Clinton campaign advisor on the debate demonstrated a major lack of forethought by a network that’s already been nick-named the Clinton News Network.

I managed to catch the CNN/YouTube debate tonight, and it certainly was different from most others. The problem was that the questions that weren’t planted tended to be questions based more on Republican stereotypes rather than on substantive issues. Yes, it’s somewhat interesting to know whether a candidate believes in the Bible or not—but is it the sort of question that should come up at a national debate?

The Good

I think this debate was “won” by Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Huckabee came off as the candidate I’d most like to have a beer with some time, and John McCain came off as the elder statesman. McCain put Ron Paul in his place (which is always a good thing for a Republican to do), and he spoke with great moral authority on torture against Romney’s non-answer. Huckabee’s answer that Jesus was too smart to run for public office was a great line. Huckabee came off as very natural and very personable. McCain came off as a man of integrity and honor.

Mitt Romney was also confident and poised. He confidently failed to give a clear answer with great poise. Both he and Giuliani hurt themselves by fighting over abortion—neither one of them are strong on that issue, and both hurt themselves there. Romney’s a very poised candidate, and he has an impressive business background. His honesty on the abortion issue was questioning. It’s nice to have a candidate willing to come out and admit his mistakes.

There were some decent questions that wouldn’t normally be asked in a Presidential debate. As a space exploration fan, I liked the question about the candidate’s vision for space exploration. NASA consumes a very small amount of the federal budget, and the candidates missed the opportunity to talk about private space exploration. Huckabee’s answer wasn’t bad, but it could have been better.

Fred Thompson was very poised and gave very responsive answers. He didn’t knock it out of the park, but he showed the best mastery of the issues. The problem is that he needs to do better—it’s a crowded field and he needs to stand out more. He’s got the substance, but he needs more flash. He has some great ads out that would have done much better than the attack ad he used.

The Bad

First of all, I think Rudy hurt himself with his exchange with Romney. He’s the front-runner (at least nationally), so he doesn’t need to go on the offensive. Hitting Romney below the belt won’t help him, and made him look like a bully. Overall, his answers weren’t a strong as they could be. Rudy needs to get a boost, and this wasn’t it. While he’s still ahead nationally, he’s vulnerable.

The same applies to Fred Thompson’s attack ad. While all the others talked about themselves, Thompson’s offensive seemed out of place. Not only that, but Romney came back with a very human answer that helped him. Huckabee also had a good response. The other campaigns are calling the video an act of “desperation”—and while I don’t think that’s the case, it wasn’t the right call. I’m in Fred’s corner, but even I don’t think that running an attack ad at that point helped him at all.

Ron Paul is a nut. When given a question that basically asked him whether he believes in a bizarre conspiracy theory, he basically said “yes.” I’ll give him some credit for eschewing an independent run, but he’s still the sort of paleoconservative on national defense issues that we don’t need now.

Rudy also hurt himself with his Second Amendment answer. This was not the right crowd to split hairs on regulating guns. This was not a good night for Rudy, and it may hurt him.

This was a solid and substantive debate (at least on the part of the candidates, if not CNN), and it could end up changing the dynamics of the race. Rudy and Romney, the two frontrunners, engaged in a fight that ended up making them both look bad. Mike Huckabee demonstrated once again why he’s gaining the most traction—he was confident and had a decent command of the issues. Fred Thompson did nothing to take him out of the race. John McCain’s campaign was on life support only a few months ago, but he’s not out of the race by any chance, and many may be willing to take a new look at him after tonight.

The biggest loser: CNN. Having a Clinton campaign advisor not only be allowed to ask a question, but then to follow up live demonstrated incredibly poor judgment. At the very least CNN could have Googled the people they were having speak. Either they were trying to bias the debate or they were simply asleep at the wheel—either way it reflects badly on them.

This race is still entirely up in the air, and even with weeks left until the Iowa Caucuses the rankings could change dramatically. Fortunately, the Republican Party has a solid group of candidates to pick from. The problem is that eventually the field must be narrowed to one—and who that may be is anyone’s guess.

Don Surber argues that the war in Iraq has been won as the US and the Iraqis work together on a bilateral accord that would see the majority of US troops out of Iraq by the beginning of 2009.

I think that the changes in Iraq are sustainable and that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been largely driven out of the country. What we have achieved in Iraq this year is one of the most crucial and least understood military victories in history. It’s easy to think that the war is over.

Unfortunately, it isn’t. Another attack like the one against the Golden Mosque in Samarra could launch another set of recriminations. AQI is beaten, but there are still “dead enders” who won’t go without a fight. We are entering a new phase in this conflict, but it won’t be the sort of victory we saw at the end of World War II in which the belligerent power is forced to sign an unconditional surrender on the deck of an American battleship. There won’t be a V-I day like there was a V-E Day and a V-J Day in World War II. There won’t even necessarily be a signal like the fall of the Berlin Wall to note the monumental nature of this change.

The war in Iraq isn’t necessarily over, it’s just entering a new phase. In this phase, Iraqis will be doing most of the work, with the help of the US when requested. The Iraqis will have the make the political compromises necessary to bring Iraq forward. They will be on the front lines against terrorism for some time, and they will still face attacks by those who are threatened by the very idea of a representative democracy taking wing in the Arab world.

Our troops are still at risk, and the situation in Iraq remains far too fluid to call this a victory. We won the first war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled, and what has followed is part of a global war on terrorism that will more fade into a series of police actions than end in the conventional sense.

We should be extremely proud of what has been done in Iraq, by the Multinational Forces – Iraq and the people of Iraq, all of whom have put their lives on the line to give Iraq a chance. The battle isn’t yet over, and too many false victories have been declared as it is to repeat the same mistake. Iraq is stabilizing, and we are making more progress than ever, but it is simply too soon to declare victory in a war that is still ongoing.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are soon to meet in Annapolis and there have been comments indicating that there’s hope for a settlement by the end of the year. Unfortunately, even if that does happen—and there’s good reason to be skeptical—that agreement will no more bring peace than the Oslo Accords or the Camp David Accords before that. The problems in the Middle East are far more complex than anything solvable by mere diplomatic agreement.

The problem boils down to this: so long as the reprehensible anti-Semitism that is endemic in the Palestinian Authority persists, there will be no peace. So long as Palestinian children are indoctrinated to hate Jews, there will be no peace. So long as the Palestinians support acts of barbarity and terrorism against Israel, there will be no peace. So long as the Palestinians think that their end goal is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, there simply can be no real settlement. The best that can be hoped for is a cold peace with both sides under constant tension. That may be possible, but it’s not going to be much different from the status quo.

Groups like Hamas don’t want peace: they seek the destruction of Israel. Their terrorist forces rain crude home-made missiles on Israeli border towns like Sderot. They continue to force-feed their population with crude propaganda. They continue to say one thing in English and then the opposite in Arabic.

Golda Mier had it right: there will be no peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel. Sadly, that is not the case. While Palestine continues to slide into anarchy and remains mired in poverty, the leaders of the Palestinian Authority (such as it is) continue to misappropriate funds for terrorism and their personal enrichment. A wise set of rulers could have turned Gaza into a seaside paradise rather than the war zone it is.

The Palestinians may talk peace, but until they start living like they want peace with Israel, the best that Annapolis can bring is another stalemate.

Erick Erikson gives us a look into his thought process in endorsing Fred Thompson. I’ve been wary of making it official who I’m supporting here, but rather than pretend to be neutral I’d rather come out in favor of full disclosure.

I’m officially supporting Fred Thompson in the Republican primary. There are two basic reasons for this endorsement: the first is that Sen. Thompson is a consistent conservative. The second is that he has a record of fighting governmental corruption and he is someone who has spent time in the Beltway but is not a creature of the Beltway. There are two issues I care about personally: winning the war and reducing the size of government. Sen. Thompson is strong on both.

The Importance of Judges

There’s a reason why Sen. Thompson has such strong support from the legal community. When President Bush needed someone to guide Chief Justice Roberts through his Senate hearings, he turned to Fred Thompson. In the next few years there is likely to be at least one Supreme Court vacancy, and this country needs a Supreme Court that recognizes the limited role of the judiciary and respects the Constitution as a document that expressly limits the power of the federal government. Stare decisis is undoubtedly important, but it doesn’t mean letting one bad case pile on top of another. Roe v. Wade, as a matter of law, was wrongly decided. The Supreme Court’s decision in Casey was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of the Court not only in terms of its effect, but in terms of its poor reasoning and bad jurisprudence. As a law student and future member of the bar, it is crucially important to me to know that this nation has qualified judges who respect the rule of law and the constitutional order. I know that Fred Thompson will appoint such judges. I can’t say that with certainty with any of the other candidates.

Economic Policy

I’ve already given praise to Sen. Thompson’s plans for Social Security reform, and for good reason. Entitlement reform is absolutely critical to the future of this country. We cannot sit idly by while entitlement spending threatens to consume more and more of the national fisc. We need to reform entitlement spending now before it matures into a full-fledged crisis. Sen. Thompson has a plan on the table to do that, and the other candidates are behind the curve.

On taxes, Sen. Thompson also has a realistic pro-growth tax plan. We need to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, or risk destabilizing an already shaky economy. While I’m for a flat tax in theory, the question is how it would be implemented. The genius of Sen. Thompson’s plan is that the flat tax would be voluntary. It’s difficult to push through major tax reforms like doing away with the IRS—there’s too much bureaucratic inertia in effect. However, creating a secondary system is easier than full-scale reform, and provides a reasonable stepping-stone towards switching over to a flatter, fairer tax system. Sen. Thompson’s tax plans aren’t based upon pie-in-the-sky promises, but actually stand a chance of being enacted. It’s that kind of incremental approach that helps shift policy in the right direction rather than making promises that are virtually impossible to keep.

Sen. Thompson has also been strong on earmarks and limiting the rapacious growth of government. His commitment to reducing government waste and increasing transparency is absolutely crucial towards the end of reforming the culture of corruption in Washington. His record on these issues makes it clear that his talk of reform is sincere and that as President he would enforce a policy of fiscal discipline that has been lacking in recent years.

National Defense

Sen. Thompson has called for a much larger military, and that’s the right call. We cut back as part of the post-Cold War “peace dividend” and now that events have shown that we live in a much less stable world than we thought, it’s time to rethink that policy. The situation in Iraq has demonstrated that we still have a 20th Century military. We need to continue the process of changing our military for one geared towards fighting Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap to fighting a modern counterinsurgency. That means changing strategic doctrines, training more soldiers, and learning the lessons of Iraq. Sen. Thompson’s plan for a million-man Armed Forces is the right plan to ensure that we can fight the conflicts of tomorrow.

These are just a few of the issues that justify this endorsement. On the issues that matter—substantive issues of policy—Sen. Thompson has the right positions. While Thompson’s poll numbers have declines, my support is not about hitching my wagon to whatever horse happens to be in the lead, but on which candidate has the strongest policy and the right temperament to lead. Sen. Thompson is that candidate, and while there are many strong Republican candidates in this race, in the end Sen. Thompson has demonstrated that he has the strongest mastery of the issues.

Sen. Trent Lott is stepping down at the end of the year.

This is probably good news for the GOP at large. What the Republican Party so desperately needs is a break from the status quo. Sen. Lott, for all his service, represented the kind of Beltway politics that are causing the GOP to lose both its principles and its electoral prospects. His vigorous defense of Strom Thurmond caused him to lose credibility, but his vigorous defense of pork-barrel spending and earmarks were nearly as bad.

The Republican Party must be a party of governmental reform. It’s much harder to do that when someone like Trent Lott is part of the GOP leadership. Sen. Lott deserves credit for his years of service, but it’s time for a new face in that position.