Good point from Ralph Peters:

AM I the only one who’s noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week.

Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won’t bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan – expanding that war. (He’s discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.)

And the left’s quiet as a graveyard at midnight.

Where are the outraged protests from MoveOn or the DailyKos? I thought the extreme left felt sorry for our service members in harm’s way and wanted to reunite them with their families.

What happened?

We all know exactly what happened. The left has nothing against foreign wars (as long as they don’t have to fight in person). They just want to pick our wars themselves.

The problem with Iraq wasn’t that America toppled Saddam Hussein, but that George W. Bush did it. I’ve been saying it for years: Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would’ve celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.

…just like he does at home.

The AP reports:

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to work for a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations “starting from the minute I’m sworn into office.”

Wow, what an inspiring statement, equally bold and realistic. That’s just the sort of audacious change people expect from Obama. Yawn.

“What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged with the peace process and to be concerned and recognize the legitimate difficulties that the Palestinian people are experiencing right now.”

Right, because the United States government has never been involved before. How about a recognition that the conflict would end the minute the Palestinians quit engaging in terrorism?

Jordan’s king told Obama that an evenhanded U.S. policy would bolster America’s credibility in the Middle East and that achieving Palestinian statehood is essential for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict, according to a royal palace statement summarizing Abdullah’s remarks during a closed-door meeting with the Illinois senator Tuesday at Abdullah’s private Amman residence.

But this is backwards. The Palestinians themselves need to form a civilized society first, starting with an end to violence and terrorism, then they can be recognized internationally as a state.

The AP reports:

NEW YORK (AP) “” Oil prices have settled sharply lower for the second straight day, capping a dizzying drop that has left crude more than $10 cheaper in just two days of frenzied trading.

Let’s see, what happened two days ago? Oh yeah, the president revoked the executive order banning off-shore drilling, making future increases in production marginally more likely. Of course they don’t give President Bush any credit, they don’t even mention the president. He must never be mentioned in the context of any good news, according to unofficial DeMSM rules.

Republicans need to press for an end to the ban on off-shore drilling every day from now until the November election. Let Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all their comrades step up to the podium and stand in the way of less expensive gasoline every day. Simply, voters have a clear choice – Republicans and cheaper gas or Democrats and more expensive gas.

From the AP:

They also include notes about the 2003 State of the Union address, during which President Bush made the case for invading Iraq in part by saying Saddam Hussein was pursuing uranium ore to make a nuclear weapon. That information turned out to be wrong.

Uh, no it didn’t.

Via The Corner at NRO, Vets for Freedom announces a new ad:

(Washington, DC) “” This morning, Vets for Freedom released its second television advertisement as part of the national “Four Months, For Victory” media and grassroots campaign. The ad””entitled “Some in Washington”"”highlights the success of the Surge, and exposes detractors of the policy””namely Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

CLICK HERE to view the ad.

The ad is part of Vets for Freedom’s current multi-million dollar ad buy, and will air in multiple markets in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and select cable markets for the next ten days.

“It’s incredibly important that the American people not only know that the surge has been successful, but also that certain policy makers””from both sides of the aisle””opposed that policy and have been wedded to a narrative of failure since then.” says Iraq war veteran and Vets for Freedom Chairman Pete Hegseth. “This ad is intended to shake the trees and determine who truly supports victory and success in Iraq, and who is unwilling to admit past policy mistakes and change their stance.”

CLICK HERE for more information about the “Four Months, For Victory” campaign.

The ad is simple, direct, powerful. Check it out.

How exactly is this any different from President Bush’s position? –

It’s very hard to anticipate what it’s going to be like six months from now. We saw how rapidly things have changed over the last six months, because of not only the extraordinary work of our armed forces, but also the shift in attitudes of tribal leaders in places like Anbar, the Mahdi army’s decision to — for now at least — to stand down the more aggressive posture that the Maliki government took in going into places like Basra.

So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground. It strikes me that that is something we could begin relatively soon after inauguration. If, on the other hand, you’ve got a deteriorating situation for some reason, then that’s going to have to be taken into account.

Sounds just like “return on success”.

It is nice though to finally hear a Democrat acknowledge the reality of the success of the president’s surge strategy. It’s really just tiresome to hear the Democrats keep repeating the same old talking points from 2 years ago over and over as if nothing has changed.

The Washington Post encourages Obama’s more realistic position:

BARACK OBAMA has taken a small but important step toward adjusting his outdated position on Iraq to the military and strategic realities of the war he may inherit. Sadly, he seems to be finding that the strident and rigid posture he struck during the primary campaign — during which he promised to withdraw all combat forces in 16 months — is inhibiting what looks like a worthy, necessary attempt to create the room for maneuver he will need to capably manage the war if he becomes president.

What are all the nutroots bloggers and activists going to do now that Senator Obama is adopting the strategy vision of the Outlaw Bu$hCo Regime? If he eventually goes all the way and talks about “victory in Iraq” their heads are all going to explode.

…He’s certainly trying hard once again to alienate one of our allies in Latin America, taking a knee-jerk anti-Bush stance on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. On the plus side, he’ll probably change this position too when it becomes politically convenient. Strangely, Obama polls well among Latinos. (Even more strange, he polls well among people who want less expensive gasoline, even though he promises more expensive gasoline, but that’s a separate issue.) Only time will tell whether most voters will see through the facade before November.

How many news items need to begin “Obama Shifts on…” before the charge that he’s a flip-flopping opportunist really sticks?

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

It almost starts to look like a parody. He’s going to disagree with every one of his former positions by November at this rate. Is this what he’s meant all along when he’s talked about being the candidate of change?

Others:
Hot Air
Commentary