I started this diary in reaction to the news I read this morning about Salim Hamdan's trial, but I decided to tackle something that no one yet, as far as I know, has stood up and said anything about.

First, Hamdan.

From what I have gathered about this guy, he was Bin Laden's driver. That's his crime. He got a job as a chauffer driving Bin Laden around. For that, he was thrown in jail for six years, denied due process, labeled one of the most dangerous people on the planet, tortured, and now, put on trial for "war crimes," which have been specifically described as "conspiracy" and "providing support for terrorism."

The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.  The surge is working.

-John McCain, when asked to summarize his campaign message.

Okay, so I made that up.  I think.  But the rest of this diary is serious.

Note:  The contents of this diary were originally published at Upon the Gears, a political blog.

John McCain made two statements in the not too distant pass, both of them false.  McCain stated that: "I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign."

One of the factors that has affected the public perception of John McCain is the belief that he has political courage. This has been fanned by the flames of admiration of many members of the press. Any examination of the facts surrounding these so called acts of political courage reveal anything but courage as the explanation for McCain's actions. That the press is not even attempting any examination is a pathetic endictment of their decline.

Betcha John McCain didn’t see this one coming.

Ol’ smilin’ John may not be smilin’ so much when he realizes just how much money it’s going to cost to continue bribing the Sunni tribesmen who’ve proven to be a major part of the so-called success of the surge escalation. The anti-jihadists-cum-lately are in no mood for small talk these days. In fact, they’ve offered the U.S. military an ultimatum – either pony up more money or they’ll be rejoining the ranks of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

"I'll go back to al-Qaeda if you stop backing the Sahwa (Awakening) groups," Col. Satar tells U.S. Lt. Matthew McKernon, as he tries to secure more funding for his men to help battle the anti-U.S. insurgents.

I remember George Bush Sr., while building a campaign on impugning Michael Dukakis' patriotism, protesting (paraphrasing here), "I'm not questioning his patriotism, just his judgment." Hypocrisy is the debt that vice pays to virtue. Bush at least recognized that openly questioning his opponent's patriotism was scurrilous.

McCain, on the other hand, has made a conscious choice to explictly base his campaign on the absurd allegation that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose a campaign." That's worse than a direct assault on patriotism - it's a denial of the Obama's integrity. Here's  
the latest:

Watching hour after hour of talking heads continue the fiction of the success of "The Surge", I have been waiting for some one, any one to state the most obvious failure of "The Surge".

Yesterday, standing in front of a cheese display in a supermarket in Bethlehem, Pa., John McCain had a lot to say about the surge. As the Wall Street Journal reports it:

McCain began his answer with his definition of "surge" and then shared his own experience while visiting Iraq. "A surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy. And it’s made up of a number of components," McCain said. He continued by explaining that Colonel Sean McFarland, who McCain visited in 2006 and was in charge of operations at Anbar province, had begun a counter-insurgency on his own.

A lot of people have gove into the timeline, and shown McCain to be... well, not consistent with the history as it's recorded. But everyone seems to have given him, and the Conservative Media, a free pass on something more insidious. Trying to actually define what "the surge" means. As a term in the English language. For as George Orwell suggested in Nineteen-Eighty-Four; if something can't be said, then it can't be thought.

Who invented the term, what it meant, and how (and why) the Conservatives are trying to change the meaning of the phrase, below the fold...

I know Marc Ambinder is supposed to be the Atlantic's resident "objectiver reporter" guy, but I'm having trouble reconciling his zigs and zags on Surgegate.  

It appears that John McCain would rather lose his reputation for foreign policy expertise than lose the election.  Unfortunately, on Iraq, John McCain is losing on both counts, demonstrating on numerous occasions that he doesn't know anything about Iraq.  

John McCain is now a joke, even to usually reliable Republican media proxies like David Gergen.  

Perhaps, in stressing Iraq, McCain's campaign was trying to follow the alleged Rovian maxim:  first, take away your opponent's strength.  Being right on Iraq from the beginning was Obama's strength during the primaries.  And, for a time, when you'd asking McCain about anything, say the economy, McCain would change the subject back to Islamic extremists.  McCain would balance the budget by means of a victory he somehow still can't define.  

This will be a rather short diary, but this "surge" meme, along with the tepid response, is bothering me. Folks are apoplectic because McCain is acting like a Republican and the media are acting like the corporate prostitutes they are.

And yet what goes largely unmentioned is that the Democrats are again buying into the Thug framing. The "surge" has become the issue.  Did the surge work? Were there other factors involved in the reduction of violence? The problem of accepting that framing is that it ignores the real issue, the invasion of Iraq, which was based on lies that were apparent before the illegal military action took place.

This morning on Morning Joe; the cast (Mika, Schuster, Geist and guest Time's Mark Halperin), took an excerpt from last nights excellent Nightline interview/profile, with Terry Moran. In the portion the broadcast, Obama indicated He wouldn't support The Surge, if given the chance again.

Note: That Nightline segment is worth it, just to see the hundreds (maybe a thousand) troops, staff and dignitaries, cheer Obama wildy, when he was introduced and gave a speech at the US Embassy's Green Zone. It was the 3 pointer/Kuwait moment on steriods. Don't miss it when it becomes available on You Tube.

Back to the  Morning Joe crew. They were just absolutely licking their chops at the prospect that Obama has a 10am press conference (Est)scheduled, with a bunch of frothing at the mouth reporters, huddled in Jordan the past few days. who They were hoping these blasted him (ala Andrea Mitchell) on The Surge. Well it didn't happen (though A.Mitchell lied on the air today, about Obama position on Petraeus).

Etymology:
earlier, to ride (at anchor) probably in part from Middle French sourgir to cast anchor, land, from Catalan surgir to heave, cast anchor, from Latin surgere to rise, spring up; from sub- up + regere to lead straight; in part from Latin surgere

Okay, so I had one repost request. That's popular enough for me. :)

Maybe I missed something -- that can happen. In real life, things can sometimes occur that are unexpected. But this seems almost surreal:

_____

Obama website's opposition to successful surge gets deleted

A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

___

Crossposted to ePluribus Media, DailyKos, Docudharma and Below Boston

Maybe I missed something -- that can happen. In real life, things can sometimes occur that are unexpected. But this seems almost surreal:

_____

Obama website's opposition to successful surge gets deleted

A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

___

Say what you like about McCain's policy incoherence -- his major on-the-record flip-flops (Bush tax cuts, warrantless wiretapping, exempting the CIA from torture prohibitions, immigration reform, offshore drilling, etc. etc.), his open disavowals of supposedly current policy positions (not privatizing the existing social security program, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, refusing to bail out homeowners), his ventures into fantasyland (League of Democracies, offsetting hundreds of billions in tax cuts by eliminating earmarks).

The fact remains: he was right about the surge. Not necessarily about what to do next, or what our long-term goals in Iraq should be, but about the need to reduce violence and reach a minimum level of stability before we could expect any political progress. He was not just lucky-right; he was right because he understood the military requirements, and how a measure of military success might give the Iraqi government room to maneuver.

In the midst of this weeks latest edition of the Dave and Ryan Magic Show on capital hill, where it appears that if things get worse in Iraq, we have to stay and if things get better in Iraq, we have to stay - no matter what we have to again wait until September comes again  - everyone seems to have completely forgotten to bother asking what the Iraqis want the U.S. do?

Well, here's what Iraqi PM Maliki says:

The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.

Oops.  Does this mean that Maliki wants us to Cut and Run?

Sometime ago (nearly two-years) the Friedman Unit, after ol' Lead-Luvin' Tom,  was established, designating the term to mark six-months as a unit of time for things to turn around in Iraq.