By Charles Krauthammer

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration’s current military strategy—while not appearing to do so—that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines’ leading intelligence officer there concluded that the U.S. had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet, just this week, the marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we “have turned the corner.”

Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, now reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing “a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition.” And that “this is a crucial struggle and it is going our way—for now.”

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Thursday’s bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents’ ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. “Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger,” reported ABC’s Terry McCarthy on April 3, “but over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal.” He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as “sniper alley.” He found that “children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets,” and concluded that “nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal.”

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with their indiscriminate terror campaign that they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing (February 2006) kindled Shiite fury—a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad—without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

How at this point—with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed—can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus—unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate—to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements on the ground while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates—beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton—do you think are acting in the same spirit?

There is NO REAL PROGRESS in Iraq.

Bush and Company keep trying to paint a rosy picture of the scenario, but U.S. soldiers die every day there.

Wake up, my friend.

"Wall Street’s largest trade group has started a campaign to counter the “populist” backlash against bankers, enlisting two former aides to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to spearhead the effort.

In memos of confidential meetings with top financial executives, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said it began this month the “execution phase” of the operation, which pledges to “embrace change” and accountability. The plan targets policy makers and the media in New York, London, Washington and Brussels and calls for a “city-by-city, grass roots” approach.

The securities industry “must be perceived as part of the solution, which will allow it to better defend against populist overreaction,” the documents, prepared for a June 17 meeting of SIFMA’s board, said.

The board meeting minutes and staff-written papers, obtained by Bloomberg News, outline the program crafted by polling, lobbying and public relations companies paid at least $85,000 a month. The memos provide a glimpse, in often candid language, into how Wall Street is grappling with its pariah status.

“It is imperative that in this historic period of reform, the industry be recognized as playing a positive role in seeking change and providing solutions to the problems we face,” one of the documents said. “There is currently widespread skepticism about the industry’s commitment to this needed change.”

Lobbying Congress

The internal papers call for using regional securities firms, many of which have escaped notoriety in the financial crisis, to push the industry’s message with their local members of Congress. The plan notes that brokers across the country can also be used.

“The foot power of the private client group has proven to be effective in blunting populist messages in the past,” said board member Paul Purcell, chief executive officer of Milwaukee investment firm Robert W. Baird & Co., according to the minutes of one meeting.

To advise on the strategy, the trade group turned to a bipartisan roster of consultants. Such advice doesn’t come cheap and SIFMA is discussing dipping into its reserves to cover some of the costs, according to one memo.

Michele Davis, Paulson’s former spokeswoman, and Jim Wilkinson, his former chief of staff, are among those leading the effort. SIFMA is paying their firm, Brunswick Group LLC, a monthly retainer of $70,000, the documents show. Both Davis and Wilkinson declined to comment. Paulson left office in January.

Democratic Pollster

Assisting them is a Democratic polling company, Brilliant Corners Research and Strategies, which is paid $5,000 a month. It is run by pollster Cornell Belcher, who worked on President Barack Obama’s campaign. BKSH & Associates Worldwide, a lobbying firm chaired by Republican strategist Charlie Black, signed on for $10,000.

In response to questions about the push for an image makeover, SIFMA President Timothy Ryan said the organization has taken a lead advocating for a federal systemic risk regulator and has pushed for increased government power to wind down financial firms that don’t own banks. He also touted the group’s recently issued recommendations on executive compensation.

“This effort, which is not uncommon for a trade association, is designed to ensure our ideas for improved accountability, oversight and transparency are heard by the widest possible audience,” Ryan said.
And if they want to be seen as the leader in pushing for ‘transparency’ when are they going to stop fighting Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders/Jim DeMint in trying to get the Federal Reserve audited under HR 1207 and S 604?
And I thought this was interesting: http://seekingalpha.com/article/148262-austrian-school-of-economics-is-on-the-rise

What do you think about this?

what do they mean by "populist"?

Are they receiving irate letters from homesteaders via Pony Express?

These writers for Wall Street and other financial centers throughout the world, which consist of all sorts of functionaries, bankers and otherwise, should be more specific as to what they define as a manifestation of "overreacting" and as to who among the citizenry in this Republic they deem to be the "populists" expressing such manifestations.

It is interesting that the author of this article propagates the notion that "bankers" are the only people they know who could have given the average "populist," along with any other American citizen, something to grumble about, and that "Wall Street" is thus magnanimously taking steps to guard against any "populist" nebula beyond the gates.

But discernment isn’t exactly a strong suit with these city-slicker types I guess, pointing fingers everywhere, or they wouldn’t be all in a tizzy.

10.The industrial development strategy that prefers to use common infrastructure is known as…
a.Dispersion
b.Agglomeration
c.resource development
d.market strategy

12.As a capitalist society, we are encouraged to always want more by our friends, peers and media, This is known as the…
a.Marxist revolution
b.Revolution of rising expectations
c.Globalization revolt
d.Muddle in the middle
e.None of the above

14.What has never occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press?
a.Civil war
b.Famine
c.General strike
d.A and b
e.All of the above

10. b
12. b
13. c

Which of the following provides a good measure of return on owner’s equity?
A. Gearing
B. Liquidity
C. Profitability
D. Solvency

Which of the following best represents the financial planning cycle?
A. Retain profits, attain equity finance, minimise risks, plan the marketing strategy
B. Address the present financial position, source funds, analyse reports, establish a cost centre
C. Conduct a situational analysis, lead structural change, maintain record systems, develop cash flows
D. Address the present financial position, prepare budgets, analyse financial reports, plan financial controls

Which of the following would normally be considered as features of a classical-scientific approach to management?

A. Flat organisational structure and autocratic leadership style
B. Hierarchical organisational structure and autocratic leadership style
C. Hierarchical division of labour and democratic leadership style
D. Hierarchical division of labour and participative leadership style

Current
Profitability
D
D

worst 3 day run since March. Some investors are saying he will cause a "1000 pt correction".
This is not about "regulation" and more about punishing them. Not smart when we’re trying to get them to free up lending.

Do you believe this is just the beginning of the Democratic strategy of attacking the "rich" (successful) in an attempt to get the people angry enough to follow misguided policy?

Or, we he revert to blaming Bush?

He is absolutely committed to transferring wealth from one group to another if not by healthcare, then by any means possible, but bashing Wall St. and killing investor confidence, this just transfers wealth to vapor, and low yield fixed income investments, not growth.

O would understand this if he was a businessman.

Today however, the Republican party is not Market Liberal, it’s Social Conservative (Christian Democrats), and the Democratic party is Social Liberal (Although before FDR, the party used to be Paleoconservative).

What’s with American politics? It’s very bizarre, in that almost all any of you care about are social issues, but even then you rarely deviate from the current and are always lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to civil liberties (The Democracy Index 2008 ranks the US the lowest out of all the true democracies in civil liberties). Then they use things like the economy as secondary issues, and use it as a proxy for social issues. It’s even more bizarre because both parties share the same economic policies, only the Republicans just decided that the Bush era never happened, and that they’re going to be fiscal all of the sudden just by denying any reform.

Nearly every nation except the US has a mainstream Market Liberal party.

I feel really bad for Americans. All your politicians are corrupt and quite a few of them are genuinely insane (e.g. Michele Bachmann).

Perhaps what America needs is to burn down Capitol Hill? It’s what the French and Greeks do whenever their government is screwing them over.

Any political party is defined by its leaders, and they all change over time.

What does Obama mean, that he’s really not going to worry about what type of person he picks to help choose a vice president? Shouldn’t Barack have good enough judgment & responsibilities to vet his own vetters? So he can make sure they are not the very lobbyist or crooks he was railing against in the democratic nomination, and “Claims” he has not & will not have any associations with.

And now his guy Jim Johnson has to drop out 24 hours later from suspicious multi million dollar loans, from none other then Countrywide a company under investigation for sour mortgage deals, and corruption, after they squandered billions, and needed a bail out. All the while Americans lost their homes over progressive mortgages and painful combatant rising prices on fuel and commodities, and the markets plunged from the sour mortgage attribution.
I thought this was the stuff Obama claimed to not be a part of?

Does anyone else wonder if Jim Johnson might be in danger of going up to be inedited and convicted for money laundering, and some of the other charges like Obama’s other buddy old pale Rezko was?

Jim sure did drop out pretty quick after things started to hit the fan for him. I guess that is a pretty quick “Change…” of plans…

There is even talk going around that Eric Holder may also be forced to step down as well from Obama‘s Vice president Vetting team, leaving only Caroline Kennedy to help pick Obama‘s vice president.

(main question) Don’t you think this shows Mr. Obama with a little naivety, poor judgment, while taking a hypocritical stance?

What do you think this further shows about Mr. Obama?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/other/orl-syn-hoag0612,0,6314638.story

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-8g-0SMVRbSScyiKVhLBMgyYVAQD9185T700

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/obama_at_first_downplayed_vett.html#more

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Johnson_resigns.html

Madman:… I’m not even going to click your link, CNN has been watering everything down for Obama majorly for months now, I‘m not stupid or blind to the MSM either.

Even if Jim was a volunteer… Barack still appointed him…

I didn’t bring up Rev. Wright… but you have… Now thanks for reminding the voters of the lunatic.

do we care, Johnson stepped down.

End of story.