A group of conservative reporters was summoned to the White House today to visit with the Leader of the Free World. Kathryn Jean Lopez and Kate O'Bierne from NRO say he was in a fightin' mood: The Fighting President A commanding commander-in-chief. By Kathryn Lopez & Kate O'Beirne The war in Iraq was foremost on President George W. Bush’s mind when he met for an on-the-record session with a small group of conservative journalists for over an hour Wednesday afternoon. But he also talked about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the importance of pending trade agreements, and his nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general. As he made clear in his prime-time speech on Iraq last week, the president is optimistic about the U.S. military’s ability to accomplish its mission. He repeatedly emphasized the commander-in-chief’s crucial relationship to members of the military and their families; he explained, “If I ever believe we’re not going to succeed, I can’t leave our troops there.” He’s specifically encouraged about the improvements in security and political progress in Anbar province. The president explained that during his recent trip there he met with a two-star Marine general and asked him whether he thought the reconciliation there was real. The general knew the local sheiks and believed they are “absolutely committed to fighting extremism,” and see the U.S. as a force for good in the province. President Bush was comforted to notice that his meetings with local leaders in Anbar looked a lot like his meetings with county commissioners when he was governor of Texas. He saw it as an encouraging signal that “politics is working.” President Bush said he was further heartened having had recently met with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams in the Roosevelt Room, who explained why their experiences made them think that the U.S. will succeed in Iraq. Along with security and political reconciliation, President Bush believes that economic prosperity is key to success in Iraq. He thinks that two major elements will help to enable a stable, secure Iraq. He noted the enormous wealth in Iraq and pointed out that oil revenues were being shared even in the absence of a national agreement; “there’s a blossoming of an entrepreneurial spirit” in Iraq, Bush raved. “I’m optimistic,” he concludes. Asked about efforts to enact the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, President Bush said that Congress “ought to accept what General Petraeus recommends” rather than have the Administration “accept what they’re recommending.” Regarding Senator Jim Webb’s amendment on troop rotations, he simply stated, “Congress shouldn’t dictate troop deployments.” The president blasted MoveOn for their “Betray Us” ad in the New York Times and the Democratic silence in response to it. “I was incredulous at first and then became mad.” The president said, “It is one thing to attack me — which is fine.” But the president’s view the attack on Petraeus as “an attack on men and women in uniform.” He said pointedly: “I was looking for the voices from leadership on the Hill and I didn't hear too many.” He said, “This is wrong” and added that the ad “was uncalled for...and so was the silence” from the Democrats on the Hill. President Bush met the group of ten journalists after a stop at the National Security Agency. He returned to the White House exuding a confidence in and dedication to protecting NSA staff. “I’m sorry you can’t see what I see,” observing that at the NSA he had visited “a building full of incredibly bright and hardworking people.” The president emphasized the importance of the work they do, tracking the plans and movements of an enemy who is “constantly listening and adjusting.” He stressed the importance of FISA reform to provide them with an indispensable tool, adding that he didn’t want the needed changes to become a political issue next year because it is important that his successor have such an essential program in place.

The President said today in his weekly radio address that we are still in the early stages of The Surge. That must be demoralizing news for Al Qaeda since we are killing them and other terrorists at a rate of 1500 per month. THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I traveled to Kansas City to address the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I spoke about the ideological struggle that our Nation faces in the 21st century, and the lessons we can draw from the advance of freedom in Asia in the 20th century. America's enduring presence and perseverance on that continent aided the rise of democracy, helped transform American enemies into American allies, and made our country safer. Next week I will address the members of the American Legion at their annual convention in Reno. In that speech, I will focus on the Middle East and why the rise of a free and democratic Iraq is critical to the future of this vital region and to our Nation's security. I will also provide an update on the developments we are seeing from our new strategy in Iraq. Every month since January, U.S. forces have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists. And in June our troops launched a surge of operations that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against al Qaeda, clear the terrorists out of population centers, and give families in liberated Iraqi cities a safer and more normal life. As security improves, more Iraqis are stepping forward to defend their democracy.

What is good for the goose is supposed to be good for the gander--except when it comes to comparisons of Vietnam and Iraq. The Left has invoked Vietnam for years when speaking of why we should get out of Iraq. Now that the Leader of the Free World has used the spectre of Vietnam to cite reasons why we should stay, the Left is in an uproar. Over at Opinionjournal.com, prolific author and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Max Boot says that President Bush's reference this week to Vietnam was not inaccurate, just terribly incomplete: Ever since the mid-1970s, critics of American military involvement have warned that any decision to deploy armed forces abroad--in Lebanon and El Salvador in the 1980s, in Kuwait, Somalia, and Kosovo in the 1990s, and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan--would result in "another Vietnam." Conversely, supporters of those interventions have adamantly resisted any Vietnam comparisons. President George W. Bush boldly abandoned that template with his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Wednesday. In a skillful bit of political jujitsu, he cited Vietnam not as evidence that the Iraq War is unwinnable, but to argue that the costs of giving up the fight would be catastrophic--just as they were in Southeast Asia. This has met with predictable and angry denunciations from antiwar advocates who argue that the consequences of defeat in Vietnam weren't so grave. After all, isn't Vietnam today an emerging economic power that is cultivating friendly ties with the U.S.? True, but that's 30 years after the fact. In the short-term, the costs of defeat were indeed heavy. More than a million people perished in the killing fields of Cambodia, while in Vietnam, those who worked with American forces were consigned, as Mr. Bush noted, to prison camps "where tens of thousands perished." Many more fled as "boat people," he continued, "many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea." That assessment actually understates the terrible repercussions from the American defeat, whose ripples spread around the world. In the late 1970s, America's enemies seized power in countries from Mozambique to Iran to Nicaragua. American hostages were seized aboard the SS Mayaguez (off Cambodia) and in Tehran. The Red Army invaded Afghanistan. It is impossible to prove the connection with the Vietnam War, but there is little doubt that the enfeeblement of a superpower encouraged our enemies to undertake acts of aggression that they might otherwise have shied away from. Indeed, as Mr. Bush noted, jihadists still gain hope from what Ayman al Zawahiri accurately describes as "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents." The problem with Mr. Bush's Vietnam analogy is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is incomplete.

From the Gallup Guru: A hint of more positive news for the Bush admininstration We’re seeing some slight hints of positive news for the Bush administration. For one thing, Bush’s job approval rating has stopped its downward trajectory. Bush hit bottom with his administration low point of 29% in early July (based on our USA Today/Gallup poll readings). Now – in the data just about to be released from our weekend poll – Bush's approval rating has recovered slightly to 34%. That’s not a big jump, but it is the second consecutive poll in which the president’s numbers have been higher rather than lower. Also, we are seeing a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans ...

Shooting to make W look Nixonian, the WaPo fires but misses in this piece in today's Washington Post. The picture of Bush is this: a man beset by challenges but at peace with himself. One of the angles that is a bit hard to take in the article is the way the WaPo describes it as "surprising" that this president is well-read, intellectually engaged, and reflective about history and the currents at work in the world. Here is one such swipe, "Not generally known for intellectual curiosity, Bush is seeking out those who are, engaging in a philosophical exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration." Shocking isn't it? Despite itself, ...

Anne Gearan clamors for the moral high ground as she questions Bush's commitment to democracy in the Middle East. Calling it a "rhetorical cornerstone," she accuses Bush of using the goal of establishing an Arab democracy as window dressing for his war in Iraq. What has Bush done to earn Gearan's scathing assessment? Apparently, he had the audacity to throw his support behind Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who "evicted Hamas radicals from his government over the weekend and is now the sole elected figure running the Western-backed Palestinian government in the West Bank." Abbas' actions were prompted by a bloody coup in which Hamas took control of Gaza. Gearan adds that Abbas was trying "to consolidate power and avert all-out civil war with his Islamist Hamas rivals." The evicted Hamas leaders were elected in January of 2006, when Hamas took 76 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament.:"(Wikipedia)": Gearan tries to paint Bush as a hypocrite who supports democracy at all costs in Iraq, but quickly defends the supposedly un-democratic actions of Abbas. Shame on President Bush for not realizing that civil war in Iraq is bad (so bad that we should get our troops out of there before one breaks out), but civil war in Palestine is good, especially when it is perpetrated by a militant Islamic terror organization such as Hamas. Elected or not, Hamas does not deserve the sympathy of those who would have us believe that the U.S. and Israel are to blame for all the trouble in the Middle East. Credited with hundreds of suicide bombings, rocket attacks against civilian targets, and frequent calls for Muslim attacks against Americans, Hamas has no right to claim legitimacy as a political party.

Former President Jimmy Carter made headlines last weekend for stating that the Bush administration "administration has been the worst in history." He has since tried to back away from his comments, calling them "careless" and clarifying that he wasn't "comparing this administration with other administrations throughout history but just with President Nixon's." Right. Because "the worst in history" isn't a comparison to other administrations throughout history. Perhaps the reason for Carter's backpedaling is that he would prefer to avoid an active "Whose administration was the worst ever" debate because of how often his name might come up. The Chicago Tribune has already thrown their ...

Harry Reid threw up his hands today in the universal sign of surrender as he and the Dems surrendered to President Bush over the issue of troop withdrawal timelines. The New York Times reports: "Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war. A Democratic effort to include timelines prompted Mr. Bush’s veto of the original bill last month, producing a political impasse." "Representative Steny ...

Like a broken record, the dinosaur media has gleefully and consistently reminded us that President Bush's approval rating is hovering in the low 30's. Pelosi, Reid, and Co. have taken advantage of every opportunity to gloat about how out of touch the President is, and they use these poll numbers to prove that Bush is unwilling to listen to his constituency. Today, in a story you won't hear mentioned anywhere by The Media, Gallup reports the findings of their most recent approval rating polls. As expected, Bush's approval rating was 33%, just two points lower than his to-date 2007 average. Of those surveyed, 62% disapprove of his performance, with 73% of Republicans surveyed saying they approve of the President, compared to just 9% of Democrats. OK, so that's not really news. Bush's approval rating hasn't been above 40% since September of last year, and the network anchors just won't let us forget it. What is newsworthy, however, is the approval rating the American people ascribed to their representatives in Congress. Gallup found that Congress' approval rating is a meager 29%, or four points lower than that of the president. Since January, the Democrats have enjoyed majority status in both houses of Congress, yet just 37% of Democrats say they approve of what the Congress is doing. Those numbers could hardly be described as a "mandate."