Today in Ohio President Bush laid out some hard truth for the Democrats and anyone else pushing for retreat in Iraq - it’s a dumb idea. Referencing comments made by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, President Bush said:

“When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not foot-dragging, as one senator described it during Congress’ two-week Easter recess. It is a revolutionary undertaking that requires great courage.”

He also pointed out that the Iraqi accomplished a feat that our Congress often finds quite trying - passing a budget.

Of course, a great deal of political progress has been made in Iraq recently, but the Democrats are “staying the course” in their calls for an immediate and ill-advised retreat claiming they know better than the president, the military, and the intelligence community where the real terrorist threat is coming from - yet-to-be-constructed and entirely secure American military bases surrounding Iraq. At least, that’s where they’d like to relocate our troops - away from killing terrorists and onto bases in already secured areas. Surely a winning strategy.

Meanwhile, President Bush has this question for them,

“If America’s strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al-Qaida and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden’s deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?”

Good question! He also succinctly summed up the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Iraq:

“No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same: retreat,” Bush said.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi, Barack, and Sen. Clinton had better leave the War on Terror to the people that want to win…

…also, Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton do not seem to get it.

By “get it” I mean national security. The public seems, however, to be more in line with reality and, coincidently, so does John McCain. Overwhelmingly in a new survey conducted by Gallup, the American public (let’s call them “voters”) agree with John McCain (and again, reality) when they say how we should deal with the situation in Iraq.

That is, voters want the US and our next president to behave responsibly and in the best interests of America:

 It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.

Mr. Rove goes on to layout how the Dems have painted themselves into a corner of both political and foreign policy lunacy and describes how it will be perilous to their campaigns in November.

Elections are rarely decided over just one issue; to win, candidates don’t need to have a majority of Americans agreeing with them on every big issue. But when it comes to choosing a president, Americans take seriously the candidates’ views and experience on national security. Voters instinctively understand a president’s principal constitutional responsibility is protecting the country.

The Democrats have two candidates with less national security experience and fewer credentials than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. And they are compounding these difficulties with positions on Iraq and terrorist surveillance that are shared by a shrinking minority of Americans.

While Barack Obama is out chastising McCain for supporting “Bush’s war”, he seems to be missing some fairly important facts claiming that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war in 2003. That’s all great and everything, except that the facts and the former Iraqi regime disagree. Newly released and translated Iraqi documents reveal a very extensive operation run by Saddam’s regime to recruit, train, and finance terrorism around the world including with the al-Qaeda network and people working within it.

Take these excerpts from a tremendous article found in The Australian:

Newly published Iraqi documents reveal just how extensive Saddam’s involvement with international terrorism was. The summary of these documents, published under the heading Saddam and Terrorism, has been reported across the world and read by almost no one.Its first paragraph reads: “The Iraqi Perspectives Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the US.

These documents, researched and translated by the US Institute for Defense Analyses show a major, extensive effort in Saddam’s Iraq to work with terrorist enemies of the US and Israel around the world.

At times these organisations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements.

And yes, al-Qaede is among those he was supporting:

It is reasonable to assume the most sensitive stuff in a paranoid state such as Saddam’s was not written down. George Tenet, the former director of the CIA who became broadly an opponent of the Bush administration, states in his memoir as a matter of plain fact that 200 al-Qa’ida fighters relocated to Iraq with Saddam’s permission. Richard Clarke, who was director of counter-terrorism at the National Security Council on 9/11, and who went on to become a bitter foe of the Bush administration and is advising the Democrats, states as plain fact in his memoir that Saddam had engaged in sponsorship of al-Qa’ida.

200! 200 al-Qaeda terrorists were sheltered in Iraq before the fall of his regime. It only took the Greek 300 soldier to hold of the Persians, and yet Barack Obama thinks that 200 terrorists enjoying the shelter of Saddam (freakin!) Hussein isn’t a big deal!

But don’t worry…no one is hearing a thing about it:

We get too little real journalism about these subjects and too much “churnalism”, in which a single sometimes misleading wire report is repeated by thousands of commentators while nobody bothers to read the source document.

…

Acknowledging this support, but saying there’s no smoking gun directly to al-Qa’ida itself, means the report is taking an incredibly restrictive and precise view of al-Qa’ida.

But in any event this report is not claiming, as wrongly reported in the wires, that there was no link with al-Qa’ida, merely that it found no absolute smoking gun in the translated documents.

As Reagan said a while back, facts are stubborn things Barack…stubborn.

Another article (with quick bullet-points) detailing the relationships between Saddam’s Iraq and terrorist groups is here.

Let’s all hearken back to about a year ago, and remember what the situation in Iraq was like. The media was reporting dire circumstances, no political progress, and high death tolls on a nearly daily basis. In response, approval for the war effort was low - and the election prospects for people like Sen. John McCain were dim.

Fast forward to the present, and we are experiencing success on multiple fronts in Iraq as deaths of both Americans and Iraqis have plummeted, political progress is being made, and the terrorists and Muqtada al-Sadr are giving up and moving to Iran.

And what of the stories telling the fatal tale of John McCain being the largest proponent of the proven successful surge strategy? Well, let’s go to the polls:

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

As I’ve always said, Americans love to win - and as long as we have leaders like John McCain in America, we will win.

The Bush Doctrine appears to (gasp!) be working. Somewhat shocking news to the liberal media, this represent something that conservatives have been familiar with for a while - that peace comes through strength and freedom.

A good breakdown of the article is here.

Update: Another analysis here.

Nancy Pelosi has developed quite an amazing ability to stick her foot in her mouth right when it will be the most noticeable. While Nancy Pelosi is saying things like this,

“There haven’t been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well.” [Emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda is signing a different tune. In recently released copies of letters intercepted between the leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorists in charge sound the alarm that everything around them is falling apart.

 “This created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down . . . There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organisation.”

and this:

“There were almost 600 fighters in our sector before the tribes changed course 360 degrees . . . Many of our fighters quit and some of them joined the deserters . . . As a result of that the number of fighters dropped down to 20 or less.”

and this:

“The Islamic State of Iraq [al-Qaeda] is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar province. Al-Qaeda’s expulsion from Anbar created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have never been to keen on things like facts. They tend to get in the way of their agenda…

Now, I haven’t seen the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, and to be honest it looks entertaining, but I have recently read a few articles expressing some angst about some rather large omissions and one specific fallacy noted in the movie.

This piece seems to sum it all up pretty well, but the gist is that many observers have noticed President Reagan, despite his tremendous leadership on the issue, is not given even one iota of credit in the movie for winning the Cold War. Sure, Congressman Charlie Wilson played a role, but Reagan was the one forging the path ahead. In fact, in contrast to the apparent plot in the movie, Charlie Wilson and his CIA buddy needed quite a bit of prodding from conservative Republicans before they were convinced it was worth it to send Stinger missiles to the rebels in Afghanistan.

On top of this glaring oversight is the vexing inclusion of a myth that the US funded Osama bin Laden and the al Qaida terror network against the Soviets. This simply isn’t true, as bin Laden never received any funding from the United States and didn’t begin his little holy war until well after we had left the country.