Muqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shiite cleric in control of a militia in Iraq, has once again extended a ceasefire for an additional six months.  This has long been considered one of three necessary steps toward bringing down the death toll in Iraq - the other two being the surge strategy in U.S. forces, and Sunni Iraqis turning against al Qaeda and aligning with U.S. and Iraqi government forces.

This extension of his August 2007 pledge of honor to halt attacks is an important commitment that can broadly contribute to further improvements in security for all Iraqi citizens," the military said in a statement. "It will also foster a better opportunity for national reconciliation and allow the coalition and Iraqi security forces to focus more intensively on al-Qaida terrorists."

"Those who continue to honor al-Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's pledge will be treated with respect and restraint," it said. "Coalition and Iraqi security forces will continue to work closely with the Iraqi people to protect them from these criminals who violate the law and dishonor the commitment made by al-Sayyid Muqtada."

In the face of continuing signs of success from the war in Iraq, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post writes that liberals remain "dug in for defeat."

No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

-- Anthony Cordesman,

This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

The New York Post is taking The Times to task today for what it calls "drive-by journalism" regarding The Times' coverage of an alleged inappropriate relationship between John McCain and a female lobbyist. 

John McCain says he's "disappointed" with yesterday's front-page New York Times story alleging - with out offering an iota of proof, or even actually saying so - that he had an affair nearly a decade ago with a much-younger corporate lobbyist.

Disappointed? Obviously, the de facto GOP presidential nominee believes the Times has high journalistic standards.

He's wrong. This was no failure to live up to high standards. It was a drive-by shooting masquerading as a newspaper story.

Indeed, the 3,000-word piece - written by a team of four reporters after months of "work" - was long on innuendo, thick with anonymous sources and shockingly short on substantive facts.

The Post joins the near universal condemnation of The Times for running this article, just days after McCain appears to have the GOP nomination in the bag.  While The Times claims it ran the story "when it was ready," it seems convenient for one of the most liberal papers in the nation to slander the presumptive conservative nominee just days after he appears to have clinched it.