Bush WAS Right

In late 2006, when President Bush was planning the surge with General Petreaus, the situation in Iraq was tenuous at best. And many Republicans, having just lost a bitter election to partisan Democrats pretending to be "moderates", were losing the will to perservere. On election night, Bill Whittle tried to cheer up the few of us who continued to stand with the President:

Remember one thing before you go. The most important election we are ever likely to see in our lives was not this evening's election. Bush's re-election in 2004 was the one we HAD to have, and we got it. Be grateful for that, acknowledge that this loss is no one's fault but our own, congratulate the Democrats on their impressive wins and start figuring out how we can make sure this never EVER happens again.

I was not convinced, but history has shown that to be a correct prediction--although I think next year's election is much more consequential than even the election of 2004. In any case, when Bush raised the ante with the surge, he took an enormous risk. If the surge had failed, as many predicted it would, the Republicans might have faced an overwhelming defeat next year. Now things are looking up.

But the secret is out now, although barely: the surge didn't fail. It worked. Not that you would know it unless you looked really hard for it. The defeat of Al Qaeda was not in six inch headlines on the front page of the New York Times or the Washington Post like the end of WWII in Europe or Japan. But just because Big Media does not want you to realize that it happened, does not mean it did not occur. It did. Al Qaeda in Iraq is DEAD. Morte. Finis.

Just ask Don Surber:

President Bush was right. Deal with it

Douglass Birch of the AP reported that life returned to a normal not seen in 30+ years to Amariyah. Women shop. Men sip tea. American soldiers receive smiles.

His report makes Page 4C of this morning’s Charleston Gazette. On 4A its editors rail against an “unnecessary war” as if it is still 2002 and we are still debating whether to go in.

The New York Times has an upbeat report of its own — “Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says” — page A19.

Damien Cave in Baghdad wrote, “American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the ‘surge’ to depart as planned.”

Victory, man, it is spelled V-I-C-T-O-R-Y.

I am not saying that this is the end and everyone lives happily ever after. It took the French 10-15 years of going through a few republics to get it right — or at least to their satisfaction.

The reluctance of the American press to embrace victory is understandable. We all got burnt in April 2003 when the statuary was coming down. In January 2005, the purple-fingered majesty of an election also was a false start.

Maybe this is too.

But what is not false — what is for sure — is that eventually Iraqis will establish their own democracy. It will have its ups and its downs. But they will have 1 man to thank for giving them that shot.

Gabor Steingart writing for Der Speigel captured what is happening in Washington — what the American press is not admitting. Bush was right. His critics were wrong.

The 33.6% who approve of his job performance (current RCP averages) got it right. The 60.6% opposed got it wrong.

Wrote Steingart: “He may be America’s most unpopular politician, but George W. Bush is no lame duck. As a wartime president, Bush dominates the political agenda. He is discreetly influencing his party’s choice of presidential candidate while committing his country to an aggressive foreign policy, the effects of which are likely to continue well beyond his term in office.”

It is called perseverance. It used to be considered an American virtue.

Steingart captured the American spirit at the end of this paragraph: “First, there has been noticeable improvement on the Iraqi war front. Unless the Pentagon statistics Bush recited on Friday in a speech to soldiers at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, are made up, the new Iraq strategy appears to be working. The number of weekly bombing attacks on US troops has dropped by half, and the number of US military deaths is the lowest in a year and a half. At the same time, US forces are arresting or killing more than 1,500 terrorist “thugs,” as Bush called them, each month. If the military successes continue, public opinion toward Bush and his Republicans could soon improve. Americans are not against war itself, they just don’t like losing.”

Exactly. Steingart gets it. Reid, Pelosi and Obama do not. They are guided by political expediency. History guides Bush.

Read the rest of Surber's piece. Then get your mind around what the New York Times feels is only newsworthy enough for page A19 (and why...): Al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq. By the United States Military and the Iraqis it has equipped to fight for themselves. It's a "W" baby. And that rhymes with Dub-ya, and that stands for: Bush.

Are we completely out of the woods with the Shiites or interference by Iran and/or the Turks? No, not completely. Will the Mosul Dam break? It may. But the surge has accomplished precisely what it was designed to accomplish, against the Democrat partisan naysayers: Iraq, the Democracy now has a fighting chance, and it can fight for that chance without the presence of Al Qaeda. (That is if the Democrats are not allowed to resussitate AQ by pulling American War funding...). And that, my friends, is HUGE.

If it were not for one man, standing against the current, risking everything including the future of his Party, none of this would have happened. That man was President George W. Bush. For this alone, and for his leadership after 9/11, I believe that history will look very kindly upon this President.

And so, as Mr. Surber put so well: President Bush was right. Deal with it.

Thank you, Mr. President. This country owes you more than you will probably ever know. But I have no doubt that your descendants will.