What is with the state of fitness in this country? What about the "body art"?
Robbo, The Butcher's Wife, and the LLama-ettes were kind enough to invite the LMC entourage to join them at The Great Wolf Lodge and Tourist Trap outside of Williamsburg yesterday. We had a great time, the LLama-ettes were in rare form, the water activities were fun, and the bar was open.
Robbo and I are in agreement that we are still beating ninety percent of the field, despite our decrepit conditions. We still don't get the whole tattoo craze. What is up with that?
Yips! from Robbo: Yes, indeed. In all my puff, I have never seen a tattoo that had the slightest aesthetic appeal, no matter what kind of body carried it (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Angelina Jolie). On the other hand, the conundrum that continues to baffle me is why the people who one would think would least wish to draw attention to their, ah, figgahs are the ones who seem to go in for such decoration the most. I mean, it's not like a sunburst between your shoulder blades is going to disguise the fact that you're pouring over your waist-band and have double-chin knees.
Buy. This. Book. Right. Now.
Honestly, I picked it up Friday and am about two-thirds of the way through. Jonah lays the hammah down on the history of totalitarian utopianism, from Jolly Jean Jacques Rousseau and Robespierre right up through She Who Must Not Be Named. No, you cannot call modern day American Leftists Nazis (as the G-Man is very very careful to make clear). But you also cannot deny that they are citizens of the same collectivist village.
More later after I've had time to fully digest it. I'm interested in Gary's take, as I know he just picked up a copy as well. Also, I'm particularly interested to hear what Steve-O has to say, given that he's the house poli-sci wonk.
Sorry if your fly-by in my hometown wasn't as pleasant as it could have been. Our city isn't much of a tourist destination. Generally, it's: If you have business here, great ... but otherwise, we're not exactly Orlando or San Francisco in terms of welcoming folks in to kind of just walk around and buy stuff.
In any event, our tax base definitely appreciates your contributions. Come back any time! Though I don't recommend, say, mid-August for a visit. It tends to get rather moist and, uh, warm hereabouts at that time of year.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at January 13, 2008 08:53 AM (WTqJh)
2
Or, as Garrison Keillor put it, "To spend July and August in Houston is to believe in an angry God."
Posted by: Boy Named Sous at January 13, 2008 02:43 PM (xRL5x)
In a related thought, has anyone started the campaign to get Bill James in the Baseball Hall of Fame in the pioneers of the game category?
I mean, seriously, if Henry Chadwick is in the Hall, why not the man who corrected Chadwick's serious mistakes and reinvented how the game is managed?
"I went to Wellesley-it was practically part of the curriculum"
Money quote from this evening's Cashmere Mafia, uttered by Lucy Liu's character. Topic: experimentation of the sort Dr. Rusty does not oppose. We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
1
When I was in school, Wellesley had a reputation for women who were... "lesbian while collegiate"? There was a specific term, that I can't remember off the top of my head.
Whether or not it was true, don't know.
Posted by: owlish at January 12, 2008 12:33 AM (dk0SG)
2
I believe the term is LBG -- lebian before graduation.
As for the curriculum, well, judge for yourselves . . .
Posted by: The Abbot at January 12, 2008 07:35 AM (QBuXz)
3
On my campus LBG or LBGT (for "lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender") is generally used for the activist types who are politically active and is even used by the administration (think "the LBGT community" in an event announcement).
The youthful indiscretions are referred to as LUGs ("lesbians until graduation").
Posted by: CJ at January 12, 2008 09:31 AM (mCfRb)
Posted by: GroovyVic at January 12, 2008 10:37 AM (DVkb2)
5
I am so sick of lesbians. They really aren't very attractive.
Posted by: Mrs. Pepeprium at January 12, 2008 11:53 AM (LaFHv)
6
Dan---The acronym you are looking for is LUG. There was a high-larious piece in the onion about it a couple of years ago.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 12, 2008 12:29 PM (4/H9X)
7
I'm sure the straight Wellesley grads loved that line. Perhaps the llamas could ask HRC to provide an authorative answer... Or, better yet, put it into a pop culture question at the Dems next debate ...
The responses would be priceless...
Posted by: kmr at January 12, 2008 12:29 PM (3i2Pe)
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 12, 2008 01:21 PM (pPpVr)
9
you all sound like idiots. i doubt any of you know any wellesley women personally. i know many (my sister and several of my friends went there). and that line is not representative of their experiences.
Posted by: sean at January 12, 2008 03:08 PM (UqSSG)
10
Sean, I went to MIT. We had several little sisters from Wellesley connected to our fraternity [all of whom, as far as I know, were purely heterosexual]. Clearly, not every single female who went to Wellesley experimented with F-F sex, but at least within my experience that was rumored to be occuring at Wellesley, more than any other womens colleges in the area.
And apparently at least the rumor is part of popular culture as well, given the TV show.
Posted by: owlish at January 12, 2008 05:00 PM (dk0SG)
Last Sunday night, dozens of Harvard students waited at Johnston Gate for the Senate bus, more commonly known as 搕he fuck truck, to whisk them away to a sort of revelry rarely seen here. The invitation, sent out to hundreds of Harvard e-mail accounts, had called for 搎ueers, gays, allies, men, women, queens, dykes, bois, girls, butches, femmes, fairies, fruits, trannies, homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals, drag queens, drag kings, and friends. These Harvard hopefuls were headed to none other than the famous Dyke Ball, an annual fete of queer debauchery at Wellesley College.
Bus tickets had long since sold out, and eager first-years were begging the driver to be let on board. Once allowed, these Dyke Ball first-timers piled into the bus, with one anxiously asking a friend if her 揷onservative brown dress would pass muster with the queer fashion police.
At the Dyke Ball, costume is required and 揷reative black tie is recommended. In practice, that means everything from lingerie to formalwear, leather to feathers, high femme to butch drag. This year, one Wellesley student wore a satin 搗agina on her chest and asked drag emcee Jay Franklin to touch it. (Franklin, perhaps too much of a gentleman, declined.)
One pair of Wellesley students wearing nothing but lingerie and body glitter competed together in an onstage kissing contest. They were so involved in their exhibition that Franklin pulled the scantily-clad students off each other, saying, 揟his is a kissing contest, and that抯 a lot more than kissing.
Over the years, Dyke Ball抯 reputation for lesbian exhibitionism has drawn 搒ketchy people and 損eople coming to gawk, says Ellie A. Graham, a board member of the Wellesley Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendereds and Friends (WLBTF). 揝ometimes there are whole frats who will come and be like, 憃oh, look at all the dykes and stare at people.
The influx of onlookers displeased some WLBTF members. 揑t looked like a straight party, not a queer party, Graham says. 揂 whole lot of guys in khaki pants grinding with their girlfriends. We welcome straight people and allies at Dyke Ball, but we want it to be a queer party. The fact that frat boys were getting in and keeping Wellesley students out was upsetting.
In response, last year WLBTF changed its ticketing policy to reduce the number of non-Wellesley students who could attend Dyke Ball. While that limited the number of frat boys, it also kept out queer Harvard women who wanted to attend the event.
The costume requirement had been a part of Dyke Ball for a long time, but last year was the first year it was strictly enforced at the door, Graham says, as part of WLBTF抯 efforts to prevent the Ball from gaining a reputation for heterosexual khaki-grinding.
揝ome guys came in totally normal clothes, she says. 揥e said that if they want to take of their pants, and go just in their boxers, then they could come in.
Yet for some attendees tastes, the costumes are still not quite queer enough. 揑 thought there抎 be more playing with gender and less playing with slutty, says Karina A. Mangu-Ward 05, co-chair of the Harvard queer women抯 group Girlspot.
In response to queer students at schools like Harvard failing to get tickets to last year抯 Dyke Ball, last year WLBTF inaugurated an e-ticketing system by which students at colleges other than Wellesley could reserve tickets in advance.
揟he goal was to get off-campus queer people to come who didn抰 necessarily have Wellesley contacts, said WLBTF off-campus coordinator Robin N. Nelson.
The system was popular with Harvard students, who ordered more e-tickets than students at any other college, according to Nelson. Girlspot publicized Dyke Ball to its membership, sending out numerous e-mails, talking up the event at the meeting, and making sure people knew how to get to Wellesley.
The crowd this year included 1,800 people, which Nelson said was the biggest Dyke Ball ever. As recently as last year, Dyke Ball was held in Wellesley抯 Alumni Hall ballroom, which has only a 600-person capacity, but this year WLBTF dressed up the Wellesley Field House for the Ball to accommodate larger crowds.
揟onight, we are all dykes! shouted Franklin to the screaming crowd. The highlight of the evening was the performance by the high-femme and butch drag lesbian burlesque performance troupe, the Princesses of Porn with the Dukes of Dykedom. Dyke Ball 2003 also featured the seductive moves of dance troupe Mia Anderson抯 Drag Kings, Sluts, and Goddesses and the Wellesley the LesBiTrans advisor.
A group of Harvard first-year women danced on the crowded platform amidst boys in drag, glittering Wellesley women and colored lights flashing across the catwalk. Such a scene would rarely, if ever, be seen in the room parties and final clubs of the Harvard social scene.
Still, while our campus may not be host to celebrations of gender-play and queer sexuality, Mangu-Ward said that for her, Wellesley did not live up to its hype. 揑 didn抰 feel that Wellesley was this blossoming haven of lesbianism that Harvard isn抰, she said.
So what do Wellesley students think of this year抯 increase in the number of Harvard Dyke Ball-goers?
揥e enjoyed the dance a lot more, Nelson said.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 12, 2008 07:06 PM (KFkkS)
Not to pile on, but yes, I dated a Wellesley woman. Although she and broke up half way through through her sophomore year, I was in the picture long enough to see her freshman year roommate come out of the closet.
Also, in the early eighties there was apparently some problem w/ the other team leaving graffiti in the librairy, the College thought to put out an open log book entitled, "You can write in this book" where students of all persuasions could leave commentary, which fit some of the themes mentioned above. It proved so popular, that Book II was introduced. I don't know if Book III lived existed as I was out of the picture by then.
Wellesley alums from the mid eighties, please correct if I'm wrong...
Posted by: kmr at January 12, 2008 07:31 PM (3i2Pe)
13
All the Wellesley grads of the mid -eighties I've known were straight. But they used to swing dance to the Rolling Stones...
You have to witness that to understand how just ridiculous it was...we used to sit back with single malt scotch in hand and just smile....
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 13, 2008 11:17 AM (NfI/2)
14
Sorry, Sean. My sister-in-law is a (straight) Wellesley grad and I went to Wesleyan and knew several more. Shoe? Meet foot.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at January 13, 2008 04:25 PM (JZ75d)
15
we used to sit back with single malt scotch in hand and just smile....
How can you have a single malt scotch in hand and NOT smile?
Posted by: Boy Named Sous at January 13, 2008 04:30 PM (xRL5x)
16
I don't have any direct knowledge of the LUG phenomenon (thanks, Steve-O, for the correction) at Wellesley.
But as a high school senior who attended a dance or two at Smith, I can tell you that I saw enough there to scar my young mind. I simply assume the phenomenon was not unknown in the 80s at others of the Seven Sisters.
Posted by: The Abbot at January 13, 2008 04:48 PM (QBuXz)
揙prah has given us Swartzenegger [sic] and Dr. Phil, Roseanne rants. 揑f that was not offensive enough to decent thinking people, now she brings us Obama.
Addressing Oprah directly, Roseanne adds, 揧ou are a closeted republican and chose Barak [sic] Obama because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, Hollywood and dieting!
Wednesday night, Roseanne seemed to throw her support behind Hillary Clinton, stating, 揑 have decided that having a woman president before any man of any color is what these times call for.
Courtesy of--who else?--Allahpundit.
What I love about this---even more than the prospect of an Oprah/Roseanne slap fight (and you know my money is on Oprah in that battle)---is how this is the replaying of the ancient split going back to the 1870s over the fifteenth amendment, and how Elizabeth Cady Stanton had a cow and split the movement over the issue of black men getting the right to vote before white women.
Of course, Roseanne probably thinks "Elizabeth Cady Stanton" is nothing more than a euphamism for an [DELETED FOR BAD TASTE]. But that doesn't diminish the irony at all.
UPDATE: Of course, she is right about Dr. Phil.
UPDATE DEUX: I read the above quote, and thought of this:
Hillary Clinton for President: Let 'em know you're there!
"My friends think you're weird," Poppy said after hanging up with her Ya-Ya Sisterhood.
I opened a beer of the winterfest variety. "Tell them to get in line."
"Will you take us sledding tomorrow?"
"Who are you, Nostradamus? You don't know if there'll be a snow day."
Poppy dashed away to begin her daughter dearest routine of washing, brushing, flossing, rinsing and when she came out, I saw that her pajamas were on inside out.
"Taa-Daa!" she exclaimed, cranked up like that impossible-to-escape kid from Little Miss Sunshine (without the fat suit).
"Are all the light bulbs burned out?" I asked, examining the tags on her wardrobe.
"Very funny. Every kid knows that to get a snow day, you need to wear your PJs like this."
"Like a blind man?"
"Not very politically correct. Besides, I'm a girl, remember?" She headed into the kitchen and returned with a soupspoon in her hand.
"Let me guess. You need to drink from the toilet for your crazy voodoo to work?"
She rolled her eyes. "The final step is to put a spoon under your pillow."
"Makes sense. In Bizarro World."
At Bible Study last night, we were doing John 1:29-42, and I had this great insight that synthesized Magnum PI, and the George Clooney versus Frank Sinatra versions of the Danny Ocean character vis a vis John the Baptist.
1
Fred was very good, and in my opinion Romney finished second. This is becoming a recurring theme for him, and probably will end with him being someone's Vice President.
I think, though, that Fred waited far too long to get in, and I don't think he's ultimately going anywhere. Too little too late. I think we're going to end up with McCain as the candidate, because while he's offensive to so many people for so many stances on so many issues, he's also less offensive than so many candidates on so many issues. He's for smaller government than Huckabee, he's more experienced than Mitt, better than Giuliani on abortion and guns, and is more loved by the media than Fred. He also consistenly polls better than Hillary in the general election. I think he's wrong on environment, campaign finance, and the border (though he has greatly pulled back on this one, recognizing his political error), but ultimately, for me, those aren't deal breakers. I think that's true for a lot of people -- he isn't worse than some of the alternatives.
Posted by: The Abbot at January 11, 2008 11:30 AM (QBuXz)
Not that anybody may have noticed, but I've been out and about this week (or as our Scots friends might say, oot and aboot) in this great country of ours. Well, in Texas at any rate, which actually still considers itself a separate country. (And where nobody seems to think anything of building a luggshery hotel right next to a fargin railroad crossing, thereby guaranteeing that the guests hear every single farookin train that rolls through during the night.)
No doubt it's same ol' same ol' for some folks, but my travels included four flights in four days and three hotels in three separate cities in three nights, and I am utterly exhausted.
In addition, I woke up this morning (in Houston) with an extreme wrench in the left side of my neck. I dunno if this was the result of my having slept in an odd position, or whether it's the result of my obsessive clutching of my seatbelt during all those flights I've taken this week.
Now before Mrs. P and others start hurling snarks at me, I will say again that yes, I have a terrible fear of flying. Yes, I know it's completely irrational, but there it is. (On the other hand, I'm convinced that it's only other people's immense stupidity and self-obsession that keeps them from understanding things the way I do - i.e. that it is only the collective will-power of the passengers that keeps the wings from falling off - so there you are.) And it was not helped this evening by the beastly, choppy flight I had into Dee Cee from Houston. If you want to call me a coward, go right ahead.
In relation to this, and also with my Tiber-swimming activities, I have taken recently to appealing to the Holy Mother for strength while flying. However, as we buffeted about tonight over the stormy Southeast, I think she began to lose patience, because after about my twentieth Hail Mary, she suddenly said, "Oh, for Heaven's sake. Man up!" I did, too, and, after calmly finishing the crossword and reading the WSJ cover to cover (and enduring a bottle of Fish Eye cabernet - thank you, Continental! Not), forced myself to look out the window as we made our way along the Potomac Giant Slalom Glide Slope into National Airport, spotting and identifying the various landmarks as they went by. I did okay, too, until we hit that last sharp dog-leg to the right that you do over the 14th Street Bridge at about 300 feet. When all I saw was River, I had to look away. Ah, well. Baby steps.
Anyhoo, more on all that later. In the meantime, I only get one night in the comfort of Orgle Manor for the moment, because at the crack of dawn tomorrow we're off to the Great Wolf Lodge, there to celebrate the birthdays of the younger two Llama-ettes, who turn eight and six (respectively) over the next couple days. I'm only going a) because the LMC is scheduled to put in an appearance as well, b) because the place is self-contained and crawling with lifeguards, c) because rumor has it that there is a bar and a hot tub for the grown-ups and d) because the Missus can trump me every single time with "Fine, I'll drive them all there by myself."
More later.
Posted by: ww at January 11, 2008 03:17 AM (GT8oG)
2
That's Reagan National. And yeah, I really do not like landing where all I see is river, and river, and river, and excuse me Mr. Pilot but I would prefer to land on land not river.
Posted by: rbj at January 11, 2008 08:23 AM (ybRwv)
3
Robbo, the good old St Christopher medal is the way to go. In that movie where Jimmy Stewart plays Charles Lindbergh he is given a medal of the patron saint of travelers before his famous flight, and old St Christopher helps him get through. If it worked for Lucky Lindy...
Posted by: Mark S at January 13, 2008 02:25 PM (F+w6V)
Steve-O: the surge worked. I arrived in Baghdad in late January and left in late December. The security situation improved markedly over the course of 2007 and was the result of more American forces in the city and the improving readiness of the Iraqi security forces. The progress made in 2007 was real by every measurable yardstick--bad guys killed, attacks on Coalition forces, Coalition casualties, ISF trained and on the streets, availability of essential services, oil production, and the willingness of ordinary Iraqis to venture on the streets. To suggest otherwise requires willfully ignoring the obvious.
Make no mistake about it, there is plenty of work to be done and it will take years to finish the job. The Coalition must continue to shwack the bad guys while building ISF capacity to continue the fight. The government of Iraq for its part must deliver the electricty, water, sewer, education, fire, ambulance, and road repair which are essential to prove to the population the government can deliver both security and essential services.
The stakes are huge. Al Qaida sees Iraq as the central front in its war on the West and has said so on many occasions. Iran needs Iraq as a client state, or at least unstable, to further its goal of regional domination. Progress is being made--Sunni Al Qaida is on the run in the western provinces and Shia militias are fracturing.
In the larger sense, we have to recognize radical Islam is at war with the West and must be stopped by whatever means necessary, including the use of military force. Unfortunately, one of the major political parties refuses to recognize the importance of this conflict. One of its two leading contenders for the presidential nomination mocked the ground commander's report to the Congress, saying: "it requires the willing suspension of disbelief." Her chief rival calls for an immediate pullout.
The war against radical Islam will be fought in many ways and in many places, but Iraq is where it is being fought now and where we must win.
1
Thanks for the report from the field, and thank you for serving! I totally agree that we must fight this war, and I definitely prefer that y'all fight it over there instead of here at home. My only comment is that the war isnt really winnable. There will always be more terrorists and more evil in the world... can't win over that. But keep fighting on behalf of us who can't! Thank you!
Posted by: Lynellen at January 10, 2008 09:29 PM (bDn6U)
We are at war. It is against an ideology that seeks to transport us back to the seventh century. Our freedoms are based on a constitutional democracy where power flows from the consent of the governed. The enemy seeks to impose a regieme based on their radical seventh century view of the Koran.
We have to decide which is better. The multi-cultural view that all societies are equal in terms of moral value works only when everyone agrees to that premise. The jihadist clearly think they are better than us and are quite willing to die for that belief.
It is time to choose sides. I know which one I am on.
Posted by: kmr at January 10, 2008 10:27 PM (3i2Pe)
I'm getting cracking on my Lenten reading list a little early. It's weird, for the only time in my life Mardi Gras is on my birthday this year, and Easter will be its earliest in the western churches on the whole Easter chart covering 100 years in the Book of Common Prayer.
Well now.
This year, I'm going for a mix of old things to return to as well as some new to me stuff.
1 & 2 C.S. Lewis The Four Loves, and Mere Christianity.
Somehow, I completely missed C.S. Lewis, both fiction as well as essays until a few years ago. I'm about three quarters through the Four Loves, and yes the LLamabutcher side of me snickered all the way through the "Eros" chapter every time he talked in hilarious British euphamisms. But I grooved on the friendship chapter--parts of it are sadly ridiculous, imho, but the central argument was very powerful.
More later.
1
It has been a number of years since I read any Lewis, though I remember enjoying The Great Divorce, Screwtape, and Mere Christianity when I was young. Of his fiction, I've read the Narnia series and an odd little book on the myth of Psyche called "Til We Have Faces." I also read a small book of his literary essays.
I should go through him again complete.
You should blog, him, Steve-O. I'd be interested to see your take on him.
I've never read the Four Loves, so I'm imagining his euphemisms for Eros being something along the lines of Chris Elliott's comments in Something About Mary -- the series of comments beginning, of course, with "cleaning the pipes."
Posted by: The Abbot at January 10, 2008 01:45 PM (b1/bF)
I realize as an author you have little control over your cover art, but isn't this a little embarassing for a book you want to charge fifty bucks to students for? You've got eleven candidates on the front cover, and seven of them never even ran for president in the first place?
Using the microtargeting model, research firms working for Bloomberg are gathering comprehensive information on voters throughout the country, such has who owns a home, has children in college, where they vacation, type of car or computer and past political support. All the puzzle pieces will then be arranged to create a picture of each individual.
Most of the data already exists in commercial databases that the multibillionaire Bloomberg can simply purchase. It will then be analyzed to determine how each voter fits into several categories: "strong supporter," "persuadable supporter," or "potential volunteer."
They need to add the category for "creeped out, ticked off middle-finger flipper to Nanny State jerkwads" to get a true profile of my sentiments here at Stately LLama Manor.
1
If he were doing this homework in say, early 2006 it might be of use. But he's missed the bus on 2008.
Someone needs to explain to him how you need to have an R or a D next to your name to even be on the ballot in a lot of states; or alternatively, that to build an organization to do petition drives in enough states to get on the ballot to give you a shot at getting enough electoral votes to win is something that, well, he needs to have done already.
He can send me a check if he needs this explained to him. I'd save him a lot of money on those databases.
Posted by: The Abbot at January 10, 2008 11:54 AM (b1/bF)
2
Flower oil painting works of both artists expressed their ideas given by the content, and display a unique language of oil painting, oil painting, as well as the development.
I'm still cracking myself up over the Terminator clip from yesterday, juxtaposing Hillary! with the T1 in the awesome final scene of the original movie. That is, until I saw this clip over at Hot Air and was chilled to the core:
What's going to be fun about the next month is watching the Donks destroy themselves Old School style. For the first time, a lot of them are going to see the venal acid flecked Clintons and their proxies for what they really are.
There will be blood, indeed.
The series of blown calls amount to the shakiest campaign performance yet by a profession seemingly addicted to snap judgments and crystal-ball pronouncements. Not since the networks awarded Florida to Al Gore on Election Night 2000 has the collective media establishment so blatantly missed the boat.
The reasons are legion: News outlets are serving up more analysis and blogs to remain relevant in a wired world. Many cash-strapped organizations are spending less on field reporting, and television tries to winnow a crowded field for the sake of a better narrative. Cable shows and Web sites provide a gaping maw to be filled with fresh speculation. Tracking polls fuel a conventional wisdom that feeds on itself. The length of today's campaigns provides more twists and turns long before most voters tune in. And there is a natural journalistic tendency to try to peer around the next corner.
What was interesting to me was that the political futures markets were just as off too. They caught the shift earlier in the late afternoon, but they were just as snowed. Someone could make a killing if they could take a Warren Buffett style approach to value picking in politics.
So, the media blew it because it was arrogant and hubristic. Or, they had it right, and the New Hampsterite Democrats are just a bunch of crackers. Take your pick.
UPDATE: John Harris, who was shovelling on the Clinton's grave just days ago, responds.
"The Surge Worked." I wonder if McCain would pick Liebs as his running mate:
It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.
At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans -- and understandably so.
After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already "lost," and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.
In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.
Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001. Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency's core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst -- prompting Osama bin Laden to call them "traitors."
Read the rest for an interesting analysis. LMC, thoughts?
