I just checked in after flying across the country, and think these are a few of the most devastating paragraphs I have ever read, posted by Dean earlier today:

Does Andrew think nobody notices? He attacks General Petraeus as a man of no integrity and bluntly accuses him of a willingness to lie, and then asserts "[t]here's been no 'smearing' of General Petraeus, as far as I can see."

There are only three possible explanations: (1)Sullivan does not understand his libel of General Petraeus on July 18 to be offensive, which would reveal Sullivan as an individual of no honor at all; (2)Sullivan forgot he smeared Petraeus; or (3)Sullivan doesn't care what people think of him, provided they think of him. (I fell for it before, but no more.)

For a concise summary of the smears directed at Petraeus, including a citation to Sullivan's, see this.

Even the anti-war fringe must be disgusted with Sullivan, who is with them until he realizes that he's gone a slanderous bridge too far.

You usually don’t have to wait very long for the fever swamp to seize upon news and completely overplay their hand. Take the news of the seizure suffered by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The scare for the chief apparently wasn’t serious enough for Wonkette’s liking, a sentiment which should be repulsive to all Americans regardless of political ideology, but that’s not the only reaction that’s outrageous and offensive.

Today on CNN’s Situation Room, The Cafferty File, the regular segment that could just as easily be called Let’s See What The Ill-informed, Lefty New York Crank Thinks, Jack Cafferty offered the following as one of his questions of the hour.

Hi, Wolf. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts released from the Maine hospital where he was taken after suffering a seizure yesterday. Good news, doctors say test results show no cause for concern, diagnosed the seizure as benign, with no apparent damage, and no identifiable cause. But it turns out that Roberts suffered a similar seizure in January of 1993. Senator Arlen Specter says that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee knew about that seizure two years ago, but didn’t think it was significant enough to bring up during Roberts’ confirmation hearings. Say what? Arlen Specter and his colleagues don’t think we the public need to know that the man nominated to be chief justice of the United States is prone to seizures. I wonder how many medical degrees there are on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Consider this, Roberts, like other federal judges who have these jobs for life, are not required to divulge any information about their health or medical conditions, none whatsoever. Just this year, FBI files were released that showed when the late chief justice, William Rehnquist checked into a hospital for treatment of back pain and an addiction to a prescription pain killer, he suffered from hallucinations. One doctor said a then-associate justice tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas, and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him. But the public didn’t know a thing about this. These Supreme Court justices arguably have as much or more influence over all of our lives in America than anyone else in this country. So with that in mind, here’s our question. Should Supreme Court justices be required to disclose their medical conditions?

In a word, no.

1. There is still something resembling a representative government in this country, with a Constitution that says the United States Senate, duly elected by the residents of all fifty states, shall provide advice and consent. If there is a medical condition that would be deemed disqualifying of government service, that’s technically up to the executive branch to discover in the vetting process, and then up to the Senate in the confirmation process.
2. The example that Cafferty used in his diatribe was that of a medical episode by Chief Roberts well into his term at the Supreme Court, a medical condition that didn’t exist at the time of his confirmation, unless Cafferty is hinting that the Senate should have probed and disclosed publicly any backaches the Chief might have had as a young person, just in case he someday might get progressively worse and develop additional problems. It’s nonsense.
3. Chief Roberts had one previous seizure, not exactly what one would consider to be a chronic condition. If he had had a concussion as a child, would that raise concerns about his potential fitness on the Court? What if he ate French fries every day when he was at law school? Is his caloric content and dietary regimen now something that should be disclosed, and given as much weight as his intellectual capacity? Considering the frailty of Justice Ginsburg, does Cafferty and the left really want to go here the next time a Democratic president gets to nominate someone for the Court?

Cafferty’s question is of course inappropriate, and deserves to be ridiculed. John Roberts is the Chief Justice because of a lifetime of extraordinary work in and around the federal judiciary, and his near encyclopedic recall of past Court cases impressed even the most harsh critic in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the end of the confirmation hearing, there was nothing Chuck Schumer had as a reason to scuttle his nomination. There might be some Supreme Court justices that have more credentials than Roberts, but there’s not very many of them.

Once again, it’s nice that The Situation Room has Cafferty on twice an hour, every day, to give voice to the fever swamp of the left, apparently with little or no editorial oversight. I’m still waiting for a conservative to be given the same opportunity on a daily basis to vent unencumbered, without having to share the table with Paul Begala or Donna Brazille to counter every word they say.

I’m also more convinced than ever that the same CNN executives that bring you Jack Cafferty on The Situation Room will bring the same sense of fair play and balance to the GOP YouTube debate next month, and not try to sandbag the Republican candidates with Santa Claus questions…not.

The problem is that the current legislation Democrat leadership is pushing would increase federal spending for the S-CHIP program by $50 BILLION over the next 5 years. And how are they going to pay for this $50 billion? Increased taxes of course, including a tax on privately held health insurance plans such as the one you probably have.

Now, the S-CHIP program was originally designed to help poverty level children, something I think we can all get behind. But who will be the beneficiary of this increased spending under the new plan? A family of 4, including adults, who make up to $81,000 per year or 400% above poverty level could qualify to be covered under this program. It looks to me more like a gradual spread of socialized medicine rather than helping the truly needy in our country. Ironically enough, under the Democrat's expanded S-CHIP program, 70,000 American families would be "poor enough" to qualify for S-CHIP while at the same time among "the rich" who have to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Andrew Sullivan this morning:

“There's been no 'smearing' of David Petraeus, so far as I can see."

Andrew Sullivan on July 18:

“Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney's. Expect spin, not truth, in September.”

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Yesterday I wrote about Congresswoman Nancy Boyda who found three-star General John Keane’s (ret.) positive report about Iraq so upsetting that she had to leave the briefing room in a huff. While we don’t know exactly what the General said that so riled the obviously easily riled representative, Keane did give an interview to National Review’s Rich Lowry which gives us some insight into that burning question. Here’s some of what Keane told Lowry, but by all means read the whole thing:

The success that the security operation is achieving is, in my judgment, very definable. What I have done is, in my first visit in February since the operation began, I went into neighborhoods in Baghdad and then returned 90 days later to make a comparison. And I will do the same in August…

What you see is a stark contrast to ‘06 in those neighborhoods. Because all the schools are open. The markets are teaming with people. Some operating at full capacity; some not quite there because of the level of violence in their neighborhood and some of the construction that was being done, but nonetheless a steady improvement. Government services are being administrated in the neighborhoods and again some of that is uneven because of the nature of the government of itself, but nonetheless there is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in ‘06 there were none…

I think Baghdad (in a year or two) will be stable except for an occasional car bomb by the al Qaeda. Anbar province will be stable. Diyala province will be stable and many of the provinces around Baghdad will be almost as stable. And I see us, from a security perspective, having made some very significant gains, particularly in comparison from ‘06 and from a political perspective, I absolutely see the change that is taking place from the grassroots level in the Sunni and Shia wanting change.

Once again, read the whole thing. The General doesn’t back away from addressing the unsatisfactory political situation in Baghdad, and is no Pollyanna. But overall, the picture is a lot more encouraging than it was a year ago or even a few months ago. This perhaps explains why the New York Times found the American public more encouraged about the situation in Iraq, much to the Grey Lady’s shock and horror.

No wonder why Nancy Boyda left the room in a hurry when General Keane gave his briefing. Wouldn’t want to take any chance of getting confused by the facts.

OF COURSE, THE COUNTRY IS full of Nancy Boydas – people who refuse to hear good news from Iraq. They believe that the war is lost and that the sooner America and especially the Bush administration admit its humiliation at the hands of Al Qaeda and abandon millions of Iraqis to genocidal massacres, the better. It is in Nancy Boyda’s honor that I now introduce the Nancy Boyda Award, which I will present to people who ostentatiously deny whatever good news might come out of Iraq.

Some Nancy Boyda Award winners will twist good news into bad news. For instance, the surge became fully operational a little less than a couple of months ago. In May, we suffered 125 casualties. In June, that number ticked down to 101. With July almost over, the number currently stands at 74. Each casualty is a loss to be mourned; still, the fact that the casualty figure has declined by roughly 20% per month while our troops have been most active and engaged is clearly an encouraging sign. What’s more, given the activity level of the current American mission, the number of U.S. casualties should be a lagging indicator of the situation in Iraq. Logically, our casualties should decrease only when more bad-guys are dead and their activity already diminished. In other words, these numbers should represent improvement across the board in Iraq, which is exactly what General Keane reported and those two crazy-brave Brookings fellows wrote about in yesterday’s New York Times.

So, you might wonder, how does a hard left website like the Daily Kos deal with an appalling development such as fewer U.S. military men dying in Iraq while achieving greater results? Long time Kos front pager “Meteor Blades” answered that question by making the following observation under the heading ”Iraq by the Numbers”:

Try a different perspective regarding that "drop." Compare the Coalition’s fatalities for all the Julys that the U.S. has occupied Iraq via the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Website:

July 2007: 77
July 2006: 46
July 2005: 58
July 2004: 58
July 2003: 49

In honor of this tendentious piece of drivel “Meteor Blades” wins our first Nancy Boyda Award! Congratulations, Meteor Blades, wherever you are.

ODDLY ENOUGH, ANDREW SULLIVAN provides the perfect coda to our debut of the Nancy Boyda Award. Earlier today, Andrew was slightly miffled that I suggested that “the left and other anti-war figures like Andrew Sullivan have a lot invested in this war failing and failing miserably.” Andrew took delight when someone took my logic and inverted it, writing, “The right and other pro-war figures like Dean Barnett have a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew commented with a portentous and approving “Hmmmmm.”

Probably unwittingly, Andrew has confirmed my theory that this war’s opponents have forgotten something basic and elemental: Every American, regardless of his party affiliation or political philosophy, has “a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew Sullivan used to know that. Best to ask him why he’s forgotten it.

And ask Representative Nancy Boyda also, while you’re at it.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Imagine, if you will, sitting around your radio, circa 1942.

Radio Announcer: “Chesterfield brings you the “Moonlight Serenade” with the Glenn Miller Orchestra. The cigarette that satisfies presents America’s No. 1 dance band with America’s No. 1 swing band leader, Glenn Miller!”

“Tonight, instead of “Moonlight Serenade,” “Chattanooga Choo-Choo,” or “I’ve Got a Girl in Kalamazoo,” we’ve decided to bring you an anti-war medley of pacifist anthems and traditional German folk songs because we really wanted to do something that everyone can connect to, you know? Because, we’re all people, man, and no one’s pro-war, right? Who wants war?”

Nearly impossible to imagine because it just wouldn’t have happened.

But these days are different.

HH: Do you trust him to give a complete, fair and accurate assessment of conditions on the ground when he makes his September report?

MO’H: Oh, yeah, Petraeus is outstanding, and so is Ambassador Crocker, and they will…you know, and General Odierno’s quite capable as well. They will give us good information. However, I will nod my cap, or tip my cap just a little bit to Democrats on this point. They have said well, you know, we don’t necessarily trust them. I think these are people of great integrity and great ability, however their job is to try to find a way to succeed. And that’s good for our country, but it also means that they’re going to be looking for the bright spots. I still think they are about the three best people we could ask to speak on this of everybody I can think of, but I would favor the more independent eyes, and I’d favor, for example, an Iraqi Study Group II that might include Tony Zinni, the retired general, or Sam Nunn, the retired Senator, and have them look at the information as well to complement what Petraeus and Crocker will do.

In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved.

As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy.

The irony is that should President Bush endure the hysteria and furor and prove able to give the gifted Gen. Petraeus the necessary time — and I think he will — his presidency could still turn out to be Trumanesque, once we digest the changes in Europe, the progress on North Korea, the end of both the Taliban and Saddam, and the prevention of another 9/11 attack. How odd that all the insider advice to triangulate — big spending, new programs, uninspired appointments, liberal immigration reform — have nearly wrecked the administration, and what were once considered its liabilities — foreign policy, the war on terror and Iraq — may still save it.

About 10 years ago, a group of graduate students lodged a complaint with Linda C. Babcock, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University: All their male counterparts in the university's PhD program were teaching courses on their own, whereas the women were working only as teaching assistants.

That mattered, because doctoral students who teach their own classes get more experience and look better prepared when it comes time to go on the job market.

When Babcock took the complaint to her boss, she learned there was a very simple explanation: "The dean said each of the guys had come to him and said, 'I want to teach a course,' and none of the women had done that," she said. "The female students had expected someone to send around an e-mail saying, 'Who wants to teach?' "

In one early study, Babcock brought 74 volunteers into a laboratory to play a word game called Boggle. The volunteers were told they would be paid anywhere from $3 to $10 for their time. After playing the game, each student was given $3 and asked if the sum was okay. Eight times more men than women asked for more money.

Babcock then ran the experiment a different way. She told a new set of 153 volunteers that they would be paid $3 to $10 but explicitly added that the sum was negotiable. Many more now asked for more money, but the gender gap remained substantial: 58 percent of the women, but 83 percent of the men, asked for more.

Now, feminists would have us set precise salaries for every job and dole them out to each worker, regardless of competence or negotiating skill, just so that we can prevent the dreaded pay gap (which is also caused, in part, by women workers' decision to take time out of the workplace to have children and raise them). But the workplace is a market, in which everyone is working in his own self-interest.

Those who play hardball sometimes get rewarded for it, and if you're unwilling to play the game, you can't make society entirely to blame for your lower salary. An employer doesn't have an obligation to pay you any more than you're willing to assert you're worth.

There's more to it than women just being more assertive, however, and here's where the feminists have a point, according to this study:

Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

Ahh, back to blaming it on men. That feels better. Uh-oh, not so fast:

...women tended to penalize both men and women who negotiated, and preferred applicants who did not ask for more.

Interesting reading.

Hart joined the Cub Scouts in 1928 in Malden, Mass., and earned 23 merit badges during his years as a Boy Scout, scouting officials said. Of the 120 merit badges available, 21 must be earned to qualify for Eagle Scout rank.

It all got set aside when he joined the Navy during World War II and served two years aboard the USS Alfred A. Cunningham.

Last year, he rediscovered some of his old Boy Scout memorabilia, including documents that showed he completed the requirements for his Eagle Scout rank. He contacted the Scouts about receiving his award.

"I think this was something that was always on his mind, but every time he went to go do it, something else came up," daughter Elizabeth Gatturna said. "I know how hard he's tried to get to this point."

When my brothers were trying to earn their Eagle Scouts, I know there were times when my mom thought they wouldn't be done until they were 88. Congrats to Mr. Hart. It is a hard-earned honor, and I'm glad he got it, finally.

Michael Yon has filed another one of his amazing dispatches from Iraq. This one comes from the frontlines of the Battle for Baqubah. The valor and excellence of our men is inspiring, and Michael as always deserves kudos for putting himself in harm’s way to get the story. For goodness sakes, please consider hitting this man’s tip jar.

The image above comes from Michael’s report. It’s of an exhausted American soldier, after participating in a battle that has dramatically improved the fate of tens of thousands of Iraqis, catching a quick catnap outside a destroyed building in 120 degree heat. That, my fellow Americans, is your United States military.

Why do I get so upset when people like Franklin Foer and his co-conspirators at The New Republic go to great lengths to slander the men serving in Iraq? Take a look at that image, and read Michael Yon’s report.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com