Start the presses !!!

Where is the front page above the fold coverage and "breaking news" commentary on the BIGGEST story in the world right now??

According to a Reuters report released yesterday, violence in Iraq IS DOWN 70% in the last 3 months - i.e. since the full implementation of the surge!

Where are all the headlines? Every time an Iraqi sets off a cherry bomb and a kid has the potential to "put his eye out" the presses scream into action so as to deliver us this must know news, so where are the cameras and print media now? This also proves that many (including Titus/Jambo/McCain/Powell) were right in their original assessment that more troops were needed. I of course had originally defended Rumsfeild for every syllable he uttered, but as soon as the PoTUS elected to send in 30,000 more troops as part of the "surge", being the intellectually honest guy that I am, I was forced to ask the question - if 30 thousand more are good, then how could 300,000 more not be even better? So, as a side note here Rummy is a big loser. Pelosi and co, and especially my native Senator Harry Reid, whom actually declared the war "lost" 4 months ago in a press conference, are made to look like the fools they are. Now, this is a 3 month average - the 70% - but we can only hope and pray that it continues. Ah, I mentioned the losers, well the big winner here is the US, period ... and the nation we're building, Iraq. So a big and hearty - JOB WELL DONE to all those serving ... you guys sure as hell earned it !!!

Now, to our recent discussion ....

"Me and Ollie North" - that was funny. Titus, I see that you would "get the information." I was sure you would say that. Despite the many jests to the contrary I have never pegged you for weak on national security, especially in times of war. No one could be that big of fan of Band of Brothers, or look in wide eyed awe at the D-Day Museum when we went, and also be a linguini spined weenie when facing our enemies. And I am not going to defend every instance of "bending" the rules for national security that went array - in the case of Reagan I simply choose to live in denial that he ever did anything wrong, as all good conservatives are required to do ... he he. This discussion, of executive authority, especially in times of war, has been with us since the inception of this nation. Our fore fathers designed the constitution so as to make it purposely unclear in certain areas in order to ensure that just this type of healthy discussion and debate would produce the closest thing to "balance" on the issue at the time it occurs. And I think it has served us rather well. When it comes to executive "violations" to the letter of the law - again pertaining to national security and particularly during times of war - the formula for whether it was "justified" or "correct" is quite simple: if it worked or was a failed part of an overall plan that worked, it's looked on favorably or forgiven. If it failed, it is not. There's your formula. It's not any more complicated then that. Carter gets no pass for the downed helicopters while Reagan and FDR get passes galore and high schools named after them. As far as it pertains to the Bund it would seem that you Titus would prefer that either the congress be consulted to change the law, or these decisions be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than implementing an executive policy that contradicts current law. In that latter scenario it would seem that you give the CIC more leeway. That outlook is not far from my own, or it would appear, badboy's. I would simply be more sympathetic to allowing that set policy of the executive "bending" the law during war time, that you oopose, and let history be the judge of where I (or Bush) is viewed within the afore mentioned formula of history.

One last point - you asked a fair question of a slippery slope scenario - would I afford the next president, say madam Hillary, that much leeway within the law during war time? In answering that I would apply my own version of a case by case basis, only inserting the words a "president by president" basis. I personally believe Bush (despite all his flaws, of which there are many) to be an honest man whom has the country's security in mind. So, in this scenario - our current war with Islamo-fascists - I as a US citizen will afford him a great deal of leeway within the law in combating these terrorists. With Hillary, although I am inclined to believe she is NOT an honest person whom has only her own power in mind, I would reserve judgment on the amount of executive "leeway" I am personally prepared to give her until such time as she is elected president, combined with the war time events being acted out at the time, i.e. "events on the ground" as it were..

Well, tell your friends - violence down 70%! They sure as hell won't read it in the newspaper or see it on TV, which means for millions of Americans it didn't happen.
FR