On the home front, liberal bloggers spent the weekend in Austin, Texas contemplating what a Barack Obama victory in November would mean. Meanwhile, the presumptive Democratic nominee took a trip overseas and is in Iraq today meeting with high-level Iraqi and American military officials.

The Confederate Yankee says it's ok to call Obama's trip a success so long as you realize that the trip is only possible because President Bush ignored Obama's original opposition to the war and his claims that the surge would fail:

So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort. Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.

Much of the debate surrounding Obama's trip so far concerns whether or not Iraq's Maliki-led government has endorsed a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Liberal bloggers say he's repeatedly made such demands, while conservative sites like Red State say the media was too quick to interpret Maliki's remarks.

James Joyner smartly points out the bright side of the double-talk coming from the Iraqi government:

Well, yeah.  Which is precisely how governments everywhere act.  Indeed, this would appear to be a sign that Maliki and company are more ready for prime time than it had appeared.

Is cheering on duplicity a sign of how low our expectations are for Iraq's government? Possibly, but when the agreed upon end point for the war is a government that can stand up on its own, this may ultimately prove more important than whether the government's leaders endorse a particular candidate's short-term political goals for the region.


UPDATE: I'll be WDEL radio at about 12:45pm EST discussing Obama's trip. You can listen here.

The Dark Knight broke several box-office records this weekend, is the second-highest rated movie of the year so far by critics. And (in a fine testament to internet hyperbole, is currently ranked as the #1 movie of all-time on the Internet Movie Database. So, what does a new Batman movie have to do with politics? More than you might think. Critics have correctly pointed out the film is the first critically and commercially successful film dealing with 9/11 and terrorism. The film has philosophical debates about negotiating with terrorists, whether torture is justified, and the civil liberties trade off of using warrantless wiretaps to track criminals. And unlike most recent films explicitly about the Iraq War, it manages to fairly look at both sides of the debate with nuance. Oh, and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has a cameo.

The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last, who also blogs at Galley Slaves, has strong praise for the film:

As such, The Dark Knight, like Batman himself, takes a dim view of liberal (meaning "classical Western," not "lefty Democratic") pieties. Nolan's argument is that the invisible ropes binding us together are not as strong as we might like, or imagine. A snip here, a cut there, and our rules begin to break down. Liberalism is well-suited to managing the competitions and collisions of liberal peoples. But it can be fatally ill-equipped for confrontations with those not grounded in the same basic traditions.

Most of the political left are enjoying the movie as well, including The New Republic's Christopher Orr.

The New York Daily News catapulted to the top of Memeorandum's blog chatter this afternoon with a story about how Barack Obama's campaign removed Obama's critique of the Iraq surge from its campaign website:

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

The story has been largely ignored by the progressive blogosphere, but is running wild on conservative outlets and in some mainstream media sites. Robert Stacy McCain calls the move "Orwellian," while Townhall's Matt Lewis says the move shows a "more sinister, secretive Obama." Jim Gergaghty and the NRO team highlight what they call the "glaring contradictions" in Obama's war statements.

However, there are two problems with these critiques. First, campaign websites are not typically held to the same rules as independent blogs, who often frown on revising pages or deleting errors/mistakes without prior acknowledgment. Second, in the same, very brief Daily News story, we get an explanation from the Obama campaign:

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

Just yesterday, Obama penned an op-ed for The New York Times detailing that while the surge has been successful, it doesn't change his overall view of the war:

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. 

There are plenty of areas worthy of criticism when it comes to Obama's Iraq policy. But to say his campaign's removal of outdated statements reflects an attempt to rewrite history or shift his position into alignment with John McCain is just not accurate.

Bonus: Gateway Pundit provides the previous and current versions for compare and contrast

Over at the Commentary magazine blog, Max Boot argues that Iraq will need a large American military presence for many years to come. He uses the comparison of U.S. troops stationed in Geramny and Japan to make his case, while allowing:

Granted, the enemies that Iraq faces aren't as formidable as the enemies that West Germany faced for so many decades, but Al Qaeda, Iran, and its various proxies are dangerous enough, and Iraq isn't nearly as strong as West Germany was.

No doubt Boot was looking for a fight when he entitled his post, "Klein and Sullivan." Sure enough, Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein have responded, arguing that Boot is comparing  "apples helium balloons," by measuring Iraq against post WWII Germany. That's certainly a legitimate line of criticism,  but isn't it also a bit shortsighted to assume that any American presence in Iraq will be rejected by its populace and manifested in the form of continued insurgent attacks?

While all three men are well-versed in Middle East politics, none know exactly what is going to happen. But from an outside point of view, it seems to me equally unlikely that any U.S. presence in Iraq will result in permanent war, as does the assumption that a longterm presence in the country will be warmly received. What I'm guessing John McCain, and even to a less extent, Barack Obama, are aiming for is that point at which a drop in troops levels and a corresponding drop in violence intersect.

Liberal bloggers are again going after John McCain for describing al Qaeda in Iraq as an organization comprised of Shiite Muslims. Their reaction illustrates two points: How a candidate's perceived strengths often become their greatest vulnerabilities, and the diminishing marginal returns of focusing on one area of criticism. Here's the actual exchange from today's testimony:

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

Democrats, and their liberal blogger allies, clearly see an opening to attack McCain on what they consider a lack of sophistication on national security knowledge; the very area he has based nearly his entire campaign on. However, in today's exchange between McCain and Gen. David Petraeus, McCain almost immediately corrected himself. If Democrats will look to these gaffes as evidence that McCain is unfit to be commander-in-chief they may be expending energy that could be better spent going after larger, and more politically vulnerable, aspects of McCain's platform. It's in some ways comparable to conservatives still focusing on Barack Obma's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While the initial critique revealed the first measurable "dents" in Obama's public persona, the shelf left on that issue, at least in the Democratic primary, seems greatly diminished. Too much focus on this singular point makes it seem like Republicans are desperate for an attack line, and the media will eventually tire of covering it (if they aren't already), therefore limiting the narrative's ability to reach voters not already familiar with it. 

Blogger reactions after the jump...

Senators are hearing a story of measurable progress in Iraq; from a reduction in violence, to incremental advancements on the political front. Liberal bloggers haven't backed down from their criticism of the war, and Gen. Patraeus testimony, which they see as overly optimistic. Conservative bloggers remain focused on what they see as signs of success, and countering attempts to diminish Petraeus' credibility.

Kyle E. Moore says a "success" argument doesn't comport with the request to pause troop reduction plans:

My question is, if things are going so great, why do we still need to maintain troop levels elevated over pre-surge levels? The party line is, of course, to prevent back skidding, but if the ultimate point of the surge was to foment political reconciliation, would any modicum of actual success along those parameters negate the possibility of back skidding?

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith says the media will be paying too much attention to the presidential candidates and not enough to the actual Petraeus/Crocker testimony:

With Sens. Clinton, McCain and Obama in the Senate Armed Services Committee for the testimony today, expect the media to parse every last syllable, facial expression and eye roll from the presidential candidates. Would that they would give the same level of scrutiny to the honeyed evasions and pronouncements dripping off the tongues of Petraeus and Crocker

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin calls Carl Levin an "idiot" for referring to Petraeus as "admiral."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a McCain campaign surrogate, just took part in a conference call with conservative bloggers in which he outlined what will be the Republican approach to congressional testimony tomorrow from Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker on the state of the Iraq war.

Graham also denied rumors he is in contention to be John McCain's vice presidential running mate, despite their strong friendship and alliance on many issues, including the war:

“I am confident that John will have picks better than me. … Most Americans are going to vote not for vice president, but for president.” “He’s one of the most-qualified people to be president at any time in our history.” “I talked to John four times today. I don’t have an idea who he’s going to pick.”

On the "congressional mood" heading into tomorrow:

“I think Republicans are going to be very reluctant to engage in a strategy that goes against Gen. Petraeus’ advice.” “There’s nowhere near 60 votes now for setting arbitrary withdrawal dates.”  “The trend lines, politically, economically, and militarily are moving dramatically from where they were before the surge.” “I think we can get to pre-surge levels by July.”

Omar Fadhil on when, how and why Iraqis will be paying attention to the U.S. presidential election:

While I expect the silence of the media and politicians to last through the coming months, the average Iraqi will begin to get more and more interested in the subject. From previous experience, I believe this will become visible once there are only two candidates competing for the presidency. That’s when the clock will — finally — start ticking in Baghdad.

Liberal bloggers have professed a previously undocumented fondness for the McClatchy Company's Washington bureau every since Bill Moyers' PBS special last year documenting that the news organization provided skeptical investigative reporting that was largely ignored during the run up to the war in Iraq.

Today, McClatchy offers evidence that the cease-fire between U.S. forces and Muqtada al Sadr is coming to an end. McClatchy's headlines places the word "success" in scare quotes when referencing the surge of U.S. forces. That's arguably responsible journalism, but also arguably seeking to editorialize against something that has to some extent become accepted as fact, even by many war opponents. But the larger question of intellectual consistency is: can anti-war bloggers herald a downturn in Iraqi security when they have previously rejected out of hand any evidence of the surge's possible success?

The criticism of John McCain's foreign policy knowledge, or lack thereof, was escalated to a new level today. Talking Points Memo curator Josh Marshall offers an editorial making the bold argument that the one remaining candidate with actual military experience is the least qualified to serve as commander-in-chief:

Hillary Clinton has stipulated to McCain's qualifications as Commander-in-Chief; and Obama, implicitly, does the same. But his record actually shows he's one of the most dangerous people we could have in the Oval Office in coming years -- not just because he's a hothead in using the military, but more because he seems genuinely clueless about the real challenges and dangers the country is facing. He's too busy living in the fantasy world where our future as a great power and our very safety are all bound up in Iraq.

While liberals would almost certainly reject this comparison, their new attack line against McCain comes from one of Karl Rove's own strategies: attack an opposing candidate on his or her perceived greatest strength. Republicans have used that to great effect against Democratic veterans like John Kerry and Max Cleland. It's not that surprising that Democrats are getting comfortable attacking McCain on his foreign policy credentials. But it's still unclear whether the public at large will agree with that criticism. But so long as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leave the more direct attacks to people like Marshall, there's a better chance of the attack line succeeding or at least helping to solidify Democratic voters, many of whom are not instinctively comfortable going after McCain on military issues.

In politics, one of the problems with professing an expertise in anything, is that a simple misstatement or gaffe will be flipped into a sign of incompetence by your opponents. That's the case today, where liberal bloggers are all over John McCain's misstatement during a press conference in Jordan that Iran is training al Qaeda operatives and sending them back into Iraq. As was widely reported, McCain was corrected by Joe Lieberman, who is traveling with him on a foreign policy tour of the region.

Daily Kos diarist Smintheus says:

This isn't just a minor slip. This betrays a profound lack of foreign policy expertise, a shallowness so extreme that if the remark had been made by Barack Obama, say, it would have called into question his viability as a presidential candidate.

But some conservative bloggers and publications like The Weekly Standard are saying McCain was right the first time. Pointing to the 9/11 Commission report as evidence, Powerline's John Hinderaker adds:

It is the AP (and other media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times) that fails to understand the relationship between Iran and Sunni terrorists, not John McCain. The AP's statement that there is "no evidence that al-Qaida has benefited from Iranian assistance" is flatly wrong, and shows a breathtaking level of ignorance.

New Gallup and Pew polls show a positive shift in the public's perception of the Iraq war, with more respondents believing the U.S. will ultimately be successful in Iraq, than in any time since last year. From the Pew findings:

In that survey, 48 percent of Americans thought that the war was going very or fairly well and the same number thought it was going not too well, or not well at all. That is a stark change from February 2007 when 67 percent of those surveyed told Pew the war wasn't going well, while only 30 percent said it was.

Several conservative blogs are relishing the poll findings, with Ed Morrissey adding:

Congressional Democrats seem to have already figured this out. They recently approved the entire appropriation request for operations in Iraq without making hardly a peep about it. It’s no coincidence that it’s the first time in two years they haven’t tried to hold it hostage for a retreat.

Matt Stoller says recent electoral evidence contradicts the poll findings.

Meanwhile, liberal journalist Glen Greenwald goes after the Politico's feature story on the poll findings and concludes:

The Politico today published one of the most blatantly one-sided, journalistically flawed "news" articles on the Iraq War in quite some time and promoted it as its featured story, filled with dramatic proclamations certain to attract (by design) significant attention.