Democrats' Lies and Evasions on Iraq

Presumably more hate mail will roll in from NY Times' readers. Of course they approve of this lying and vicious article. Bill Kristol, "The Democrats' Fairy Tale" on the war:

Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

No. It’s apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her “willing suspension of disbelief” insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, “That’s right.”

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar.

Recall AQ serving murdered little baked boys to their parents for lunch. (Look back to AQ's desperate appeals, before the election, even back in March of 2006 the Sunnis were turning our way.) Our troop surge gave them the opportunity to win the fight against Al Qaeda.

Our finest in uniform, not the Democrats, are winning Iraq, where now political progress has come as well.

UDPATE: Scott at Powerline gives us Thomas Lipscomb, Heartland Institute's Letter to the NY Times on their trashing our troops. Read it all, but this is how it starts:

Last week there was a fine investigative report in The National Journal analyzing the shaky figures and phony conclusions of a study largely funded by leftist billionaire George Soros out of a Johns Hopkins center founded by Mayor Bloomberg. It was directed by an admittedly anti-Iraq war professor who gave it to The Lancet on the specific condition they rush it out before the 2006 elections.

This bizarre and professionally unethical statistical construct, alleging more than a half million Iraqi civilians had died up to the time of their report in the Iraq War, ducked the normal peer review and made headlines in a respected journal that gave credence to propaganda masquerading as a scientific report.

Now The New York Times puts out “Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles” which is at the very least badly supported by facts and lacks any intelligent context. What it is full of is anecdotal color and tear-jerking prose.

Apparently violent veterans are streaming home “across America” from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. So far, out of hundreds of thousands of service personnel who have served there, The New York Times has decided to devote more than 6,000 words beginning with three columns out of five and a color montage above the fold of its Sunday front page to “At least 121” veterans, who happen to be, at best, a fraction of 1% of those who have served.

And the Times piece shows the same carefree contempt for statistical validity Soros’s Johns Hopkins hirelings just got nailed with.