The president will outline his strategy for winning in Iraq today in what is being billed as a major speech to be delivered at the US Naval Academy. According to information being released by the White House, the president will say that victory in Iraq comes in three parts:
*Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
*Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
*Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
More later on this. The biggest and most obvious problem with this is that almost nothing is said about the wider war. The president is making the same enormous mistake he has made since 2003 by implying that once Iraq is over, the war is over. It is essential to lay out our goals for Iraq. But to do so without saying that they are only one step in the war — and in the context of defining victory in the global war on terrorists and the nations that support them — weakens the case on Iraq.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online