Just five days ago, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued that the “main objective of the surge – Iraqi political reconciliation – has not been achieved.  Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for progress – including… the passage of de-Baathification laws… are far from reach” in a release titled “One Year After President Bush Announces Surge, Iraqi Political Progress Remains Elusive.”   

However, just two days after Rep. Hoyer made his dire assessment, the Iraqi Parliament passed a national de-Baathification law.  This law is an important first step to political reconciliation and while it may not be perfect, it is a significant achievement for Iraq and should be recognized as a major boost for reconciliation. 

Rep. Hoyer is certainly not the only politician who is stuck in a state of denial on the success of the surge and the progress being made in Iraq.  Speaker Pelosi argued for a change in strategy because the surge didn’t “create a secure environment in which the Iraqi government would have the opportunity to make the political change.”  When asked if she stood by her claim that believing in the success of the surge requires a "willing suspension of belief," Hillary Clinton answered, "That's right."  Let’s not forget Senator Obama, who spoke so eloquently against the new strategy in Iraq nearly a year ago, arguing that the policy had already been tried and failed and that a phased redeployment would be the “best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's warring factions.”

Pete Hegseth, of Vets for Freedom, yesterday morning highlighted the political progress marked by the de-Baathification legislation and offers Democratic leaders in Congress some advice that they should really listen to.

The Iraqi government still has a great deal left to achieve, but today they’ve shown us what real political reconciliation looks like. Democratic leaders in Congress — and on the campaign trail — should take a lesson from the Maliki government. Swallow your pride, admit you were wrong about the surge, and get behind our courageous military.

Some courageous Democrats will do just that, others will continue to trumpet MoveOn.org talking points. The members who embrace MoveOn should remember that the American people may not like the war in Iraq, but they hate losing. Now that we’re winning, they won’t stand for talk of defeat.

Despite the recent political gains in Iraq, we can expect that many Democrats will continue to live in a “fairy tale” world on the issue of progress in Iraq as Bill Kristol explained yesterday in his weekly column in the NY Times.        

Another New York Times Controversy

Once again, the NY Times liberal bias is on display for Americans to see.  Yesterday, our good friends at Move America Forward, exposed erroneous and false reporting by the paper.  On Sunday, Deborah Sontag and Lizette Alvarez wrote a piece about killings committed by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and falsely claimed that they  amount to a “quiet phenomenon.”   The article irresponsibly ignores the fact that the murder rate they highlight is far lower than the murder rate for the general population.  While each of these crimes is an atrocity, it is outrageous that the Times has attempted to invent a problem that is not supported by the data.  The left has a long history of portraying veterans as deranged killers or walking time bombs.  The NY Times has, sadly, done so here.  With the war now going well, this is a pathetic case of the NY Times reverting to type.

The same NY Times also had trouble keeping its own message consistent.  On Sunday, The New York Times editorialized:  

Mr. Bush has nothing to show in the way of political progress, which is even more important for ending the war.… Mr. Bush’s troop buildup was sold as a way to buy Iraqi politicians breathing room to finally address the tensions driving sectarian violence, including an equitable division of oil wealth and strategies to bring more Baathists and Sunnis into the Shiite-led government. Those goals have not been met, and the administration has virtually abandoned them.

However, on Sunday, The New York Times reported:

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Parliament passed a bill on Saturday that would allow some former officials from Saddam Hussein’s party to fill government positions but would impose a strict ban on others. The legislation is the first of the major so-called political benchmark measures to pass after months of American pressure for progress… President Bush, traveling in Kuwait and Bahrain on Saturday, praised the vote, calling it “an important step toward reconciliation.” 

What's the matter?  Don't the editorial writers at the Times read their own paper?