We all know He works in mysterious ways. Sometimes those ways involve removing some inconvenient statements about Iraq from His website.

Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

I seem to remember that Obama has mentioned his self proclaimed superior judgment about Iraq in 2002. Apparently it's his campaign's judgment that being wrong about the surge is a distraction they can't afford.

Of course as countless drunken college students have learned to their dismay, nothing is ever really erased from the web.

h/t Powerline

Posted by: DrewM at 07:43 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

For the first round. 28 shots for the left-handed center fielder for the Texas Rangers.

Tonight may be an accomplishment for him. He's got this one, a nice record to savor. But he also has a more important goal.

Staying sober and clean.

If the rest of his career turned out to be brief, unremarkable (heh, a Texas Ranger, welcome to 'nobody remembers anybody but Nolan Ryan' dude), but he won this other fight. I'd call it a huge win, and a life well lived.

Way better than 28 runs in the first round of the AllStar HR derby. Good luck and Godspeed Josh.

UPDATE: Not to be. Still, there's another goal out there.

I mean besides finally getting past the goddam Yankees in the first round.

the other goal.. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:38 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

I forgot to mention this over the weekend as an immigration criterion I liked the sound of. A Moroccan woman in France, her name truncated to "Faisa M" in reports, has been denied citizenship because she is insufficiently assimilated.

The report [to France's highest administrative body] said: "She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind."

The woman had said she was not veiled when she lived in Morocco and had worn the burqa since arriving in France at the request of her husband. She said she wore it more from habit than conviction.

Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, said it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship. "If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French," he told Le Monde.

The law professor misses the point entirely (que surpris!). Submission by itself is not the problem. The problem is that Faisa M's submission keeps her from understanding and participating in French society. She has carved out a space for herself in which the values and beliefs of an anti-Western culture exist; it's the faux-Caliphate underneath her burqa. Thus, France has no obligation to admit her into its society.

It's too early to tell if Faisa M's case is part of a new trend or an isolated incident. President Sarkozy has been turning up the pressure on immigrants, requiring that they take an exam on French language and values before they even leave their home countries. I keep expecting this summer's riots and, in fact, thought that this case might be the spark that inaugurated another attack of the YOUEEs. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:23 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Update:
The McCain campaign sent out a clarification of his position on gays and adoption. It sounds a lot like what several of you wrote after my original post:

McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCainÂ’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.

Thanks to DrewM., who also notes that this is not high on the list of things people care about.

Original Post:
The McCain on gay adoption story hasn't penetrated the dextrosphere much, though it's been tearing up the in-the-out-door-sphere since Saturday evening. The usually thoughtful Marc Ambinder writes:

Curious as to why cultural conservatives haven't picked up on this. Maybe because it was in the New York Times?

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that weÂ’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I donÂ’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple

Mr. McCain: Yes.

As with the New Yorker story that Dave talks about below, Ambinder seems to be looking for the strawconservative lurking just out of sight with his guns and his churches and his conspiracy theories about black presidential candidates and his well-known dislike for the gays. The simple answer is that conservatives are not eagerly watching the news just for an excuse to talk about gay stuff. They're just not.

More than that, the things that get people excited are not present in this story. What McCain said is not controversial for conservatives. That's why you see this story in the gay blogs and on some liberal blogs. It's a big deal to them. Conservatives, not so much. Nor does the particular issue of gay adoption impact all that many lives. Contrast: marriage, where nearly everyone has some stake, to adoption, which impacts relatively few individuals and families. Finally, there's no sudden scandal here, just a single question and follow-up in a N.Y. Times interview so lengthy that I fell asleep before I reached the end.

Which leads me to an observation of my own: there's no meat here. I mean, I would have commented about this earlier if I knew just what McCain was talking about. I think when he says "both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I donÂ’t believe in gay adoption" he means "both genders are important in the success of a family." If that's the case, the real story here is that McCain opposes adoption by unmarried individuals, which is legal (and not uncommon) in 49 states. The gay thing is just incidental to his preference that children stay in an orphanage rather than be adopted by anyone other than a "traditional couple." On the other hand, I don't know just how much emphasis was placed on the word "couples" in the question, so McCain may just be going along with the usual "Gays? No, I am pro-family values" shtick.

That's the problem. McCain gave an ambiguous answer and then said "yes" to an uncompleted question. You don't get anything from the story except that he is not a big fan of gays, but that he is pro-adoption and pro-family. All of which, we already knew. So the gays can go ahead and get huffy, the dems can go ahead and get snooty, and the rest of everybody can go ahead and think about stuff that actually matters to them. That's why "cultural conservatives" haven't picked up on this.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:57 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.

Commenter Bart asks:

"Why aren't we talking about the cover of the New Yorker showing Barack as how the rightwingers see him?

The New Yorker is using Kerry's excuse of "it was a botched joke about Bush's failed policies" by saying it's satire to show how bigoted and ignorant the red-staters are".

(He asks this over at the new test site, so some may have missed it).

Here's the cover in a post over at HA.

I'm just a nobody, but I'll try to answer his question.

I don't know why. The New Yorker sucks canal water. It's a pimp-rag read by snooty snoots and the effete.

Of course the Obama campaign has reacted with vomitous sanctimony (I learned this expression from lauraw, and it's a keeper), pretending it's a smear of him by the magazine, "over the top", blah blah blah.

Bart points out the truth of the whole thing in the second part of his comment, that the New Yorker explains their intent by "saying it's satire to show how bigoted and ignorant the red-staters are".

Which would be refreshingly honest of them, if they did in fact say this, because that's exactly what it is. Poor Obama has to defend himself from all these horrid and unfair smears, ugly rumors and mean-spirited opinions about him from conservatives and redneck bigots.

Well done Sir!

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 02:14 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

It turns out Obama used to be a little bitter himself when it came to immigration.

And, if I'm honest with myself, I must admit that I'm not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration* demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.

That's from his book "The Audacity of Hope". As Jim Geraghty points out at the link above, ObamaÂ’s been singing a very different tune lately about this and the language skills of immigrants, especially in front of Latino groups.

ThereÂ’s only one man who can Hope to effortlessly pull of this kind ChangeÂ…Captain Bullshit!

Slushop courtesy of Slublog

Posted by: DrewM at 02:02 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Not anti-American, just pro-terrorist. Jawa has the full story of two women murdered by the Taliban and the AP's participation in the story.

We would remind the AP that the act of the Taliban inviting a reporter to the murder means they wanted this news out there. The AP was clearly being used as a propaganda outlet for the Taliban.

Does this make him an accomplice or only a witness to the crime? When you know a crime is about to be committed, do you not have a moral and ethical obligation to try to prevent that crime? Even if you're a journalist? Even if all you do is try to call the authorities, in this case someone in the Afghani government or NATO?

No word yet if the AP will be charging the Taliban if they use the photos or excerpts of the story on their jihadi recruitment sites.

Maybe it's time the US military started pulling the credentials of so-called 'news organizations' that shill for the enemy. It would be interesting to see which side they pick to report on.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:03 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

He addresses the "war of choice vs. war of necessity" arguments, and concludes they're empty-headed. I'd add it's a sign the opponents of the war are struggling with the reality of genuine success of counter-insurgency operations in Iraq.

He also notes that many Al-Qaeda wound up in Iraq having been pushed out of Afghanistan, including al-Zarqawi.

If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for.

The anti-war "get out fast" strategy would have thrown away this critical advantage. Instead we've badly beaten an insurgency both militarily and politically, and are applying the lessons learned to achieve the same results in Afghanistan.

Ace made the point a while back, it's possible this success could not have been achieved earlier. There's a tipping point, where in order to deny your enemy a base of operations, you have to win over the populace. They have to decide (out of survival) where to cast their lot. It's pretty clear now the choice they made. Politically, Maliki's government benefits from that choice and is able to assert itself, as the latest of Mookie's "adjustments" to his Mahdi Army, Divisions, Brigades, Gangs, Book Club demonstrates.

via HotAir headlines

Also at HA: The Beeb says Maliki's "timetable" statement might have been misreported.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:35 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

They hold 'competitions' there much more interesting than anything at the Olympics.

Nine British women were facing prostitution charges after being arrested at the weekend for taking part in an oral sex competition in the Greek holiday island of Zakynthos, police said on Monday.

The women, who came to the popular resort on holiday, had been paid to take part in the competition, which was video recorded and was to be posted on the Internet, police said.

...Around 15 million people -- a fifth of them British -- visit the eastern Mediterranean country each year, drawn by its soaring summer temperatures, azure waters and sandy beaches.

Zakynthos...Come for the beaches and weather but stay for the oral sex.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:25 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Alas, it's basically symbolic but it's a pretty big gift to McCain.

With prices at the pump over $4 a gallon, Bush pushed the Democratic-controlled Congress to expand offshore oil and natural gas drilling and give companies access to the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge despite fierce opposition from environmentalists.

"With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away," Bush said. "This means the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress."

Congress too has a ban on offshore drilling and while it expires on September 30, it could be renewed, making Bush's move largely symbolic. Additionally, government officials say it would take years for any oil to be produced in those areas.

So, will Nancy, Harry and the rest of the 9% gang have the guts to reauthorize the ban in the face of $4.50+/gallon?

Obama is opposed to lifting the ban because it won't provide immediate relief. When exactly with his mythical 'new technologies' be ready to roll? Personally, I'd put my money on exploiting new fields over revolutionary breakthroughs.

McCain on the other hand is in favor of lifting the ban but letting states decide whether or not there'd be drilling. Why states would get a veto over exploiting national resources, I don't know.

BTW-Am I the only one who didn't know the statutory ban was a year to year thing? Why didn't Bush pick this fight a few years ago?

Posted by: DrewM at 10:23 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.