From our UK edition
Karl Rove is a remarkable man. On his last day in the White House, National Review Online publishes a piece in which Rove claims that history will judge Bush favourably if Iraq proves a success: History’s concern is with final outcomes, not the missteps or advances of the moment. History will render a favorable verdict if the outcome in the Middle East is similar to what America saw after World War II. OK. You'd expect that.
From our UK edition
According to a new Zogby poll, 11% of Americans think the US has already won in Iraq. This confirms my long-held view that a non-trivial percentage of the population can be persuaded of absolutely anything. Other findings include: Asked which of the 2008 presidential candidates would best handle the war in Iraq, Rudy Giuliani topped the list with 14% support, followed by Fred Thompson (11%), Hillary Clinton (10%), Barack Obama (9%), John McCain and Joe Biden (7%), John Edwards (5%), and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich at 4%. But overall, more Americans said they were unsure (15%) than supported any single candidate to best handle the war.
From our UK edition
From the AP: The son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is preparing for deployment to Iraq next year. Capt. Beau Biden, a Judge Advocate General in the Delaware National Guard and the state's attorney general, is part of the 261st Signal Brigade that has been told to prepare for duty in Iraq in 2008. They have not been given a date of deployment yet. "I don't want him going," Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. "But I tell you what, I don't want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference." As GFR points out, that's a bit different from Mitt Romney's sons serving their country by selling Mormonism. But enough of policy... Biden named his son Beau?
From our UK edition
If you're a British resident or citizen (subject, surely?) might I suggest you add your name to the petition calling upon Her Majesty's Government to provide refuge in the United Kingdom for those Iraqi translators and other Iraqi civilians who have risked their lives working for the British armed forces in southern Iraq and who, consequently, have much to fear if left in Iraq. You might also want to write to your MP. This isn't a matter of whether one was for the war or against it. It's a matter of simple decency, honour and obligation: all of which makes one think that absent significant public and media pressure the government will, in traditional style, find a way to do the shabby thing. That is, after all, the current default position.
From our UK edition
I'm quite prepared to believe there has been some military progress in Iraq and that it might be possible for the US to move some troops from some areas to others where they could be more profitably engaged. But I'd be much more comfortable taking General David Petraeus's report at face value if the Los Angeles Times were not reporting that: Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
From our UK edition
Cheney makes the anti-war case rather convincingly (in the light of recent events). Of course he's speaking in 1994, explaining why the first Bush administration declined to press for regime change in Iraq after the liberation of Kuwait (or, rather, after restoring Kuwait to its own less than liberal regime): Now, sure, this clip is doubtless amusing many people. But perhaps Cheney was wrong twice? Wrong not to have pressed on to Baghdad in 1991 and wrong to have supported doing so in 2003. Perhaps all he predicts in this exchange would have come to pass. On the other hand, perhaps the George HW Bush administration would have managed any resulting chaos rather more effectively than has George W Bush's.