The DNC has placed a new attack add against presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz).  Not only does the add shamelessly show footage of American troops being killed in an IED attack in Iraq (which is why the add won't be shown here), but it is fundamentally dishonest as well.  They're claiming that John McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq.  Here's what McCain actually said to a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on January 3, 2008:

Make it a hundred... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

"As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed?"  That doesn't sound like 100 years of war to me...

Just so you know what we're dealing with here, I thought I might share a reader's comment with me about Baghdad's per capita murder rate being less than Detroit, Michigan.  "mdking" writes:

JLG, you are manipulating facts to suit your ideology! Just muster the humility for one brief moment to think that you might be wrong. You say, “That’s a murder rate that is comparable to some major American cities.”

That’s a murder rate comparable to NO American city. 5 dead a day times one year equals 1825.

New York had less than 500 murders in 2007. The LAPD reported 379 people had been killed in Los Angeles as of December 15, 2007.

You are either making your numbers up or quoting Fox News (which has said what you say). In either scenario, your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate.

"mdking" is obviously having trouble with the "PER CAPITA" part, so let's stick with the Detroit example.  Per capita refers to the number of murders per person living in a city.  Baghdad has a population of about 7,000,000 people.  Detroit has 900,000.  So of course, Detroit has lower absolute crime rates.  That’s like saying there is less crime in Boise, Idaho than in New York City.  Thank you Captain Obvious!

The question is “PER CAPITA,” or how many murders are there PER PERSON in the city?  That’s not "manipulating facts," as "mdking" charges.  It’s just how adults compare crime in cities that are vastly different in size.

At five per day, Bagdad would have (as "mdking" correctly calculated) 1,825 murders in a year.  PER CAPITA, that's one murder for every 3,835 citizens.

Now Detroit (again only about 1/7 the population of Baghdad) had 354 murders in 2006.  PER CAPITA, that’s one murder for only every 2,542 citizens or about out 1/3 higher than that of Baghdad.

"mdking" accused me of making up numbers and told me, "your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate."  Again, Liberals love to proclaim victory and try to silence their opponents before they've made a coherent argument.  It helps mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about.

But I’m not making anything up.  The new York Times quoted five murders per day in Baghdad (and Reuters now is reporting only four per day) and city populations and crime rates are public record.  Maybe "mdking" could try a little research before accusing me “making up [my] numbers.”  Ever use a Google search?

Again... not enough integrity to admit that our troops are doing great work on behalf of this country and not enough intellect to even explain their argument (other than quoting MoveOn.org).

"Dan (Fitness)" just won't give it up!  He responded to the New York Times article by completely ignoring the descriptions of Baghdad residents going about normal life, and instead focusing exclusively on the five murders per day, and asking "in what twisted world is that livable?" 

Well, the "twisted world" of the United States, actually.  Per capita, that's a murder rate that is only slightly higher than Los Angeles, California and is less than Detroit, Michigan.  Will he argue that those cities are "not livable" then?  I doubt it.

Yes, I believe the Surge was intended to clean up our mess.  Iraq was not livable for a couple of years there.  But our troops have done admirable work during the Surge, and thus, we don't need more surges "ad nauseum."  It's just a shame that "Dan" is just another Liberal who does not have enough integrity to give credit to our troops for their tremendous sacrifice.

I've responded to "Dan's" every accusation with documented fact and he can only come back with some emotional appeal.  Still the only supporting "evidence" he has offered is a MoveOn.org-funded study that was debunked approximately five minutes after it was released.  I won't continue to bore our readers with that sort of "debate." 

Here another, more recent refutation of the claim by "Dan (fitness)" that "Iraq is not livable again," and his accusation that I'm merely viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."  This article comes from the Associated Press as reported on the Seattle Times Website:

BAGHDAD — A year ago in Baghdad: Shiite militiamen and Sunni insurgents owned entire neighborhoods and key areas beyond. Iraq's government was adrift, and U.S. commanders weighed the real possibility of being trapped in a full-scale civil war.

In response, on Feb. 14, 2007, with the 82nd Airborne as the vanguard, Washington launched an American troop buildup that would climb to 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers by the summer.

A year later — through a mix of military might, new allies and some fortunate timing — Iraq looks very different.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is still struggling to get firm footing but has recently tried to push through some of the U.S.-demanded political reforms for reconciliation.

The U.S.-led forces have successfully tamped down violence, and the Pentagon has forged critical pacts with Sunni fighters against al-Qaida in Iraq, which is trying to regroup in northern parts of the country.

After a sharp initial spike in military and civilian casualties, the numbers make a strong case that the surge generally accomplished its main goal.

I told you yesterday about an interesting exchange that has been taking place between myself and another blogger.  He has not yet responded to my post but I thought I would address a couple other parts of his argument about Iraq.  He said, "the country is not livable again," and then accused me of viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."

Well, here's an article from the New York Times, regarding the actual situation in Iraq:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country...