Neptunus Lex

It was wrong in 2004 for Republican Party operatives to paint as unpatriotic Democratic politicians who in good conscience found themselves opposed to the ongoing effort to liberate Iraq. Wrong in its own right, and wrong tactically, as it energized the latter party to view the war as Republican versus national, the winning of which would only serve to reward their political adversaries. The coalescence of that view - combined with the efforts of a sympathetic press wedded to the distribution of pornographic violence - demoralized our populace, inspired our enemies, prolonged the campaign and contributed to untold thousands of deaths overseas. That view - better that the country should lose the war than Bush win it - was wrong too. Just as it was always wrong for a party of progressive liberalism to agitate against the liberation of an enslaved populace.

It was wrong for Barack Obama to admit that a little bit of genocide might be acceptable when it came right down to it. It has been wrong of him to insist that all American combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration, regardless of the facts on the ground and despite the fervent desires of the democratically and hard pressed elected Iraqi government.

It was right of him today to admit that the situation in Mesopotamia has changed markedly since he first formulated his opinion on troop levels. It was right of  him, having won the support of his hyper-agitated base, to move towards a more sensible position supporting both the aspirations of the Iraqi people and the long term strategic interests of the country he aspires to lead.

Having done so, it was irresponsible for Republican Party operatives to joyously claim that Obama had “flip-flopped” on the issue. As though coming around to reason was in itself somehow contemptible. Which attack in turn caused the Democratic Party candidate to clarify his position: He will end the war under whatever terms possible, so long as he does so within a defined timeframe. Lose it, if need be.

His moderation should have been greeted with warm approbation by the political right. They should have welcomed him alongside them into the light. Because winning the war in Iraq has to be more important than winning the election at home. It has to be. We’ve come too far, spent far too much in blood and treasure, to walk away from success, to risk snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at this moment. Everything trembles in the balance.

That was true in 2004 and 2006. It will be true in 2008 as well.

The Castle’s BillT provides an update:

The New Army kicks butt, takes names and, when it runs out of paper, stops taking names — because it was recruited, trained and organized while its officers, NCOs, soldiers and recruits were being bombed, shot, rocketed, kidnapped and executed en masse by the same scuzzballs who demand that *we* roll over and die because our existence offends their tender Wahabi sensibilities.

The New Army has some tough people, in my book, and I’ve got a real small book.

Good to know.

Barack Obama has clearly figured out that he might just win this thing. And, keeping that in mind, it’s time to row back from the positions he took to win the nomination. Not everyone is pleased:

“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this (FISA) proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”

As Ann Althouse goes on to say, “You can’t please everybody, and if you want to be President, you really can’t please Greenwald, Hamsher, and Kos.”

The Wall Street Journal puts it just a little bit less delicately:

We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.

There’s what you do to win. And there’s what you do once to get in. For the first, Obama has shown that he’s willing to do whatever it takes. I’m not sure anyone knows what’s in store for act II.

I’m in the 20% club.

Most men are sexually harassed by women at work  -  but are afraid to complain to their employer, say researchers.

Four out of five male workers had experienced such harassment from a female colleague, according to a study for employment law firm Peninsula.

At least I’m pretty sure I am.

And the FARC let a high-profile bargaining chip get away:

French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt has hailed as a “miracle” her release from more than six years of captivity in the Colombian jungle.

Also released on Wednesday were three Americans and 11 members of the Colombian security forces, all said to be in relatively good health.

The Americans - military contractors Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell - have flown back to Texas, where they are expected to be reunited with their families and undergo medical tests.

Whatever claim the FARC once had to revolutionary credibility has long ago been shattered, as the group degenerated into little more than a well-armed criminal organization. My guess is that this is only the latest internal betrayal in an organization coming rapidly unwound.

Taking today off.

Been that kind of a day.

More from the perpetually outraged set, UK-style:

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.

Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Fortunately, the Tayside police department has apologized vigorously for inadvertantly giving offense to those quite willing to take umbrage at a photograph. Of a puppy. In Britain.

No doubt they will now be placated.

I’m continually struck by the tendency of so many Democrats to talk - usually, but not always in disparaging terms - about John McCain’s military service, even as they let more potentially fertile fields of discussion lay fallow. The next step in this baffling strategy seems to be to express resentment when the senator from Arizon responds. Virginia Senator Jim Webb has now stepped into the McCain/Massengale Clark fray, saying that McCain has been imputing his own policy views upon the military generally for political purposes. Which, perhaps that’s happened - I honestly haven’t noticed - but mostly it seems that he and his campaign have been forced to parry petulant philippics from Obama proxies.

In any case, Webb - whose own military career includes no-kidding acts of personal heroism in combat - seems oddly placed to ask McCain to lay off it: Not only have both men used their own personal records of service as testaments to their public character, but both have sons that served as Marines in Iraq.  John McCain made very little mention of his son’s service there, while Webb spent his 2006 election campaign literally wearing his son’s combat boots on the stump.

Nothing wrong with that, considering Webb’s  criticism of the Iraq war and his desire to keep the welfare of the troops in the forefront. But then to turn around and say that McCain is making too much of his military connections seems at the very least a bit disingenuous.

All for it, in theory:

While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Might be all that time spent in the POW camp makes a man more appreciative of women. I only had to spend two weeks in SERE school, and it sure worked on me.

The crazies can’t shut you down:

Did Google use its network of online services to silence critics of Barack Obama? That was the question buzzing on a corner of the blogosphere over the last few days, after several anti-Obama bloggers were unable to update their sites, which are hosted on Google’s Blogger service.

The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs. “You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,” the Google e-mail read.

Code is poetry.