If the liberal media wants to know why conservatives have pretty much given up reading their papers and watching their broadcasts, this may give them some insights. From Investor's Business Daily: (My emphasis throughout)

"Iraq War: We interrupt coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy to announce that the U.S. has turned over control of Iraq's wild, wild west to Baghdad. Memo to Barack Obama: Soon you will have nothing left to surrender.

On Monday, while Democrats waited to see if Hurricane Gustav would be another Katrina and the GOP juggled its convention schedule, U.S. commanders formally returned responsibility for security in Iraq's Anbar province to the Iraqi Army and police. [The Iraqis have actually been in control since April.]

Maybe you missed it. The New York Times Web page had three stories on Bristol Palin. The Washington Post's online magazine, Slate, is running a "Name Bristol Palin's Baby" contest. And Us Weekly has "Babies, Lies and Scandal" on its cover.

Victory in Iraq can't compete in an environment where Bristol's boyfriend is more thoroughly investigated than Obama's lifelong association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

The media prefer to ignore how wrong Obama was on the major foreign policy issue of the Bush years. He opposed the war and the surge. He supported cutting off funding. He sponsored a bill to have U.S. troops withdraw in defeat by March of this year, their sacrifice in vain. His policies would have led to a humanitarian and strategic disaster.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence," he [Obama] said in 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse." When confronted by ABC News with the success of the surge, asking if he would have supported it knowing what he knows now, Obama's answer was "No."

Not only was Obama wrong about Iraq, but he selected a running mate who also was wrong. Remember Joe Biden's Slice and Dice solution to turn a sovereign Iraq into a sectarian sectioned country? 

I am thrilled that Iraq has made this progress, but I don't think it was due just to the increase in troops. IBD touches on this:

The extra troops allowed a take-and-hold strategy that convinced Iraqis that America wouldn't cut and run. It would later be called the "Anbar Awakening."

Sure, the extra troops helped reverse the dire situation in Iraq, 

In 2006, al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba to be the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq, and said it controlled both Anbar and Diyala. In January 2007, CNN's Michael Ware described Ramadi, a city of 500,000 and Anbar's capital, as "the true al-Qaida national headquarters."

But more than that, the Surge told the Iraqis that we were committed to being there. Despite the end the war rhetoric from liberal politicians and media, the Iraqis were not in this alone.<.p>

My neighbor's son, a Marine, had been to Iraq on 2 tours. During the first tour, he said that the people were so afraid, it was palpable. He explained you could always tell when an attack or surprise bombing was going to occur because the residents would be very quiet and hide in their houses.

Since the people were usually friendly to the Americans, why wouldn't they warn them if an attack was imminent? Because they were afraid of repercussions from the terrorists. You see, they did not feel they could depend on the Americans to be there later. When you don't know who will hold the power later on, do you really want to cross them now?

The Iraqi people still remembered what happened in the first Gulf War when the Kurds in the north went out on a limb for America. After we pulled out, Sadam ruthlessly attacked them in revenge. 

But on my neighbor's 2nd tour of duty, he noticed the people were more willing to talk to the Marines. The people were more confident that America meant business and would see this through.

This phenomena was even noticeable during Brookfield's last mayoral race. Many people were for the opponent, but because of their job, city contracts, or their need to remain in favor with City Hall, they were fearful to take a bold stand against the incumbent.

People naturally like to be on the side of the winner. In Iraq however, it was a matter of life and death. 

If the Iraqi people had doubts about America's resolve to see things through, I think we can lay a good amount of that blame on the liberals and liberal media. Almost from the start they were determined to turn Iraq into a Vietnam.

Thankfully, some people, like John McCain (and others), were not about to let popular opinion sway them from what they believed was necessary.  Because of that resolve and Providence, we are edging toward victory.

"Not in our wildest dreams could we have imagined this," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who flew in from Baghdad. "Two or three years ago, had we suggested that the Iraqis could take responsibility, we would have been ridiculed, we would have been laughed at."

On Tuesday, General David Petraeus had another surprise, announcing that U.S. troops might be leaving Baghdad as early as next summer. Another defeat for the defeatists.

Is it any wonder the liberal media is ignoring this?

(AFP/Graphic)

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna