Bush in Iraq

President Bush is in Iraq on a surprise visit. In a symbolic gesture, the Commander in Chief did not go to Baghdad and confer with the government there, opting instead to visit Anbar province. Bush's team hopes that local government and leaders will emerge as the best agents of progress in the war torn country.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki was part of the delegation that met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates before the President's arrival. As the AP reports, having the Prime Minister, who is a Shiite, travel to Sunni- dominated Anbar also sends a powerful message to war critics: al- Maliki is indeed capable of reaching out to Sunnis, and uniting Iraq's religious factions.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told the AP that the trip was decided on 6 weeks ago to coincide with Congress' return to Washington, and the heating up of the war debate. Hadley said there has been marked progress in Anbar, making it a good place to show the administration's strategy.

The next week is very important for the administration, and pivotal for the war effort overall. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will testify before Congress on progress against the sectarian violence that has been steady since the US overthrew Saddam Husein in 2003. Support for troop withdrawal has gained steam over the Congressional break, especially in light of a critical GAO report leaked in the media last week that said little to no political or infrastructural headway was being made. The time for al- Maliki to broker a solution among Iraq's politicians appears to be at hand.

February's 30,000 troop surge has seen some increase in stability, but opponents argue such stability will be fleeting, so long as Iraq's political factions fail to build any kind of power-sharing consensus.

Report: Outlook Not Good

The Government Accountability Office has leaked its report on the progress in Iraq into the news media, before it's given to Congress on Tuesday. It seems to undermine next month's White House progress report, which, in all likelihood, will present a rosier picture.

On the surge in Baghdad, the GAO says that although sectarian attacks against American forces have dropped, violence against Iraqis is unchanged, and "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised.

So, when the White House's report comes out in September, it should probably taken with a grain of salt.

For the full story check out The Washington Post.

Quote of the Day 7/17

"If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq...
Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president."

- Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, founder of the Project for a New American Century, and "Godfather" of the Neo Cons presents his case for a successful Bush presidency in an Op-Ed here

And Ariana Huffington offers her view here

Notable Items, July 16, 2007

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has threatened to force the Senate into an all night debate Tuesday night if the Republicans continue to refuse an up and down vote for the Reed-Levin Troop Redeployment Bill that seeks provide for a reduction and transition of United States forces in Iraq. "Now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end," said Reid. "They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down – yes or no – vote on the most important issue our country faces." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-16-iraq-all-nighter_N.htm

Senator David Vitter's (R-LA) phone number turned up on New Orleans escort service just recently. Normally I don't like to acknowledge these incidents, but this is the same David Vitter who claimed in 1998 that Bill Clinton was morally unfit to be president. Well, at least Slick Willy didn't have pay for his (oh, that's right, I went there). Maybe its time for David to step down. He may be morally unfit.

With the September dead line for the Iraq escalation review and report approaching, the White House and Pentagon are preparing for negative review. I know what your thinking, but don't worry they have a back up plan. AN EVEN BIGGER SURGE! Brilliant! http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul16/0,4670,IraqPace,00.html

68% of Americans now disapprove with the Iraq War; according to a new Newsweek Poll and 64% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats in congress, probably because they are maintaining their reputation of getting nothing done.

Another special note: While American Soldiers continue to fight for Iraqi freedom, the Iraqi Parliament has considered it pertinent to take the entire month of August off, even though they are not even close to reaching any of the benchmarks established. The American Congress, not wanting to be left behind, has also elected to take the month of August off. Our soldiers, regrettably, will not be taking any time off.

Busy Sunday for Times Op-Ed

The New York Times, paper of record in the US, published an editorial in the Opinion Section of its Sunday edition calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

It wrote:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

I don't want to slam the Times for being late to the party on this, because I was as well. As the Times put it:

...we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created... we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

Because I agreed with that sentiment I figured it would be unfair for me to criticize the Times. But then I remembered, they're the The NY Times and supposed to be smarter and more savvy than me and everyone else.

With that, here are more headlines from this Sunday's Opinion Section:

In Superbowl XLI, smart money on Colts

For good of Country, President Nixon should resign

For good of Career, during Oprah interview, Tom Cruise should sit quietly

Jackson 5 Lead Singer headed down creepy, creepy road

Message to Dean: Avoid Weird Shrieks

Britney Spears won't look hot much longer

Times warns Kennedy: Don't campaign in Dallas

Iraq Invasion probably bad idea

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin