Update: See also Iraqpundit, whose relatives in Baghdad have been able to move back to their home, at least temporarily. He acknowledges that the sectarian "thugs" might "eventuallly" return. [via Insta ] Note that Mohammed is hearing firefights, which suggest to him that the targets of the "surge" are not just lying low:
It looks like some militants consider that sitting back and waiting is not an option and so they are trying to break the siege.
**--Backfill: Dick Morris offers several other examples of Hillary's counterproductive stubbornness:
Counseled by most of her staff to release the Whitewater documents when The Washington Post first requested them, she said no and triggered the designation of a special prosecutor. When Whitewater co-conspirator Jim MacDougal suggested that he buy her out of the investment to avoid political embarrassment, she refused, saying that she planned to use the proceeds for Chelsea's college tuition. When Bill Clinton had the opportunity to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit, Hillary vetoed that possibility, paving the way for her husband's impeachment.
Morris blames her dependence on "gurus." But at some point it doesn't matter. Bad judgment is bad judgment. ... 5:00 P.M. link
Coping with the Nevada cost of living: 16% of public employees in Southern Nevada make more than $100,000 a year, reports the Las Vegas Sun. ... Paying workers overtime for overtime seems only fair, but at some point it becomes a racket. (The national average for all workers is 5%, says the Sun). ... [Via NewsAlert ] 11:57 A.M.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Do all those Democratic Senators running for President really want to vote to disapprove the surge even as it seems to be showing some initial, tentative, possibly illusory positive effects? Or, as Instapundit suggests, would a "no surge" vote put them in the position where a military success would be "politically ... dangerous?" I've previously argued that the wording of an anti-surge resolution would leave the Dems some escape routes--but what if the public doesn't pay attention to the wording? What if they just pay attention to the vote? What if it comes up in a debate: "And you opposed the increase in troops which is what finally brought relative peace to Baghdad..." How much better for these Democrats if a)they can placate the left by telling primary voters they support some sort of anti-surge resolution but b) they don't have to actually vote on a resolution because it never gets enough votes for cloture, so there's no actual vote that can be hung around their necks. That's win-win! And gee, that's what actually seems to have happened in the Senate. Funny thing. I smell Kabuki. If there's one thing United States Senators are good at it's engineering a stalemate that lets everyone posture in whatever way they think will help them. ... 6:55 P.M. link
AUSTIN — Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs lambasted teacher unions today, claiming no amount of technology in the classroom would improve public schools until principals could fire bad teachers. ...
If Jobs is a Democrat,** he's a New Democrat! ...P.S.: In response, Dell CEO and founder Michael Dell--who sells mainly non-Apple Windows-based machines-- defended the unions. ... Windows, kludgy Old Dem! Apple, New Dem! Just what you would have thought. ... P.P.S.: Jobs might have added "no amount of well-meaning educational donations from the Gates Foundation would improve public schools nearly as much as allowing principals to fire bad teachers." ...