Mount Virtus

Michael at Best Destiny made a great catch today, courtesy of Captain Ed, about the more pronounced partisanship of Colorado’s Democrat Congressional delegation. Almost 96 percent of the time, the quartet of Diana DeGette, Mark Udall, Ed Perlmutter, and John Salazar vote along with Nancy Pelosi.

As Michael points out, Bob Schaffer needs to trumpet the notable statistic that Boulder liberal Udall has earned his moniker by voting party line 95.1 percent of the time. Put precisely, Udall is 95.1 percent Pelosi pure.

Of course, liberal elite orthodoxy has tried to teach us that only Republicans can be “partisan.” Voting with the Democrat agenda makes them “bipartisan.” This implied double standard in the world of politics has been around as long as I’ve been an observer. But numbers don’t lie: Colorado Democrat members of Congress (along with most of their party colleagues) are much more in lockstep with their national party leadership than their Republican counterparts are.

The highly-paid propaganda organs of Colorado’s Left make a living off incidents of phony selective outrage, such as the one repeated yesterday against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer at one of their mouthpieces. Today’s Denver Post clears up the matter pretty decisively, however.

First, they picked the wrong subject to attack him on. Schaffer’s personal integrity and principled stance on issues of parental choice and educational freedom are well-established. Further diminishing the credibility of those who attack him, they are firmly aligned with the status quo forces of the teachers union:

Schaffer said there is no connection between his vote to support the charter school and Brennan’s contribution. “I campaigned for office as an advocate for parental empowerment and student choice,” Schaffer said. “Whether I’m on the State Board of Education or in the U.S. Senate, I am going to actively encourage anybody who agrees with me to contribute to my campaigns.”

Second, a national nonpartisan watchdog group responded to the accusation with a big yawn:

Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, discounted the impact of Brennan’s donation - partly because he had previously supported Schaffer’s political campaigns and partly because the State Board of Education has limited power in this case. The board can only recommend reconsideration; it cannot overturn the local school board’s vote.

“Any time you have a contribution that comes so close to a decision that is favorable for the donor, it is a reasonable question to ask,” he said. “But that does not mean there was a quid pro quo.”

Third, the Left-wing propaganda machine failed to realize how many fingers they were pointing back at their own candidate when they wildly waved one at the object of their hatred:

Republicans quickly turned Huttner’s attack into a broadside against [Boulder liberal Mark] Udall.

Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Udall should return union contributions because he voted earlier this year to eliminate secret workplace ballots for setting up unions.

Finally, the Udall campaign itself has quickly distanced itself from the outlandish claim:

Mike Melanson, campaign manager for Udall, said the campaign didn’t support Huttner’s tactics.

The Left-wing attack machine continues to strain any shred of credibility. Once again, they’ve overplayed their hand with silly, selective phony outrage. The story is no longer the object of their attack but the motivation for their own outlandish claims and the resulting problems they cause for their own Democrat candidate.

This week alone from Iraq, we see strong evidences of success in our fight against al-Qaeda (Sunni) and against the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army (Shi’a). Both developments provide encouraging news in our slow upward climb to victory.

Also encouraging is that our fellow countrymen may be beginning to take notice. Results of respected national polls taken before this week’s developments already show some noteworthy changes in American public opinion concerning Iraq. Far from the Left’s loudly-touted “mandate” to the new Democratic Congress to get our troops out of there right now, only 20 percent of Americans favor this approach. Fifty-four percent believe immediate withdrawal would leave Iraq in worse shape, and 71 percent recognize that it would open the door for an al-Qaeda takeover.

Just over half (51 percent) say the surge strategy is improving the situation, and considerably larger percentages of the American populace view the war as having been the right course of action and that things tend to be going well. Remarkably, 80 percent trust General David Petraeus’ judgment, and about 60 percent support waiting on his September report to decide on the next course of action. What a bummer for the Left-wing defeatist propaganda machine!

Of course, a little caution is in order: The American people well may be more satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq. This fact is important insofar as mustering domestic political will is essential to accomplishing the mission. Have we passed the ebb of American public opinion on the war? I’d like to hope so, but we certainly have no guarantee. Regardless of popular sentiment, though, this much is clear: Let’s give General Petraus’ new counterinsurgency strategy a chance to continue to work.

Don’t forget to keep visiting the Victory Caucus website.

Anyone like me, trapped in the dark ages of having a television set not equipped to receive digital signals, ought to read this (though with more than 18 months to go, it seems hardly the time to panic):

On Feb. 18, 2009, tens of millions of televisions that are not equipped to receive digital signals will become useless pieces of furniture. The government is spending $5 million to let owners know so they can do something about it — not enough, critics say.

While the government has committed $1.5 billion for viewers to spend on converter boxes that will translate digital signals for older televisions, it is largely relying on the broadcast industry to spread the word about the changeover.

The critics are wrong: It shouldn’t be the government’s job. It is indeed in the interest of broadcast corporations to notify consumers. And some might even add the occasional mention by random bloggers, too. Just thought you ought to know.

Earlier this year Colorado Democrats violated the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights by raising your taxes without asking your permission. Then, feeling a bit guilty perhaps, they are caught in a deceitful ad campaign to cover up their folly. Face the State observed the message coming on behalf of Senator Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, but I’ve also seen the message coming on behalf of Senator Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood.

The occasional reminders may seem repetitive, but I want to make sure more and more Coloradans clearly see the danger of having handed the purse strings of state government over to the Democrats.

To drive the point home, please read from the following:

- June 18: “Consequences of supporting a property tax increase”

- June 6: “Four weeks since Ritter hiked your property taxes”

- May 10: “Ritter signs property tax hike, sticks finger in taxpayers’ eyes”

- May 9: “Yes, it’s time to sue: arrogant tax hike leaves little choice”

- May 3: “iVoices: Hear AG Suthers explain need for vote on tax hike”

- May 3: “Harsanyi: Why not ask voters first?”

- May 1: “Colorado Dems ram through bill, snub voters, raise taxes”

- April 25: “Colorado schools keep raising funds from property taxes”

An op-ed I penned for the Independence Institute about the misleading Colorado Education Association “Professional Pay” campaign has been published both by the Greeley Tribune and the Colorado Springs Business Journal. Please feel free to check it out and to remember: the debate should first be about HOW we pay teachers, not HOW MUCH.

Our republic needs more informed citizens, especially these days about our military operations in Iraq. Cut through the hype and the soundbites, and bookmark the new Victory Caucus website on your browser. Unlike in the MSM, you’ll easily find facts not only on coalition casualties but on measures of political stability, sectarian violence, and weapons caches found.

Moreover, you’ll find links to the latest reports from independent journalists (like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio), key military bloggers (like Blackfive and Mudville Gazette), and official U.S. sources. That’s only the beginning: you’ll find reports from military commanders on the ground, interactive regional maps, reviews of relevant books, and user forums.

Thanks to NZ Bear and the Victory Caucus board of governors for this important endeavor that will make it easier to connect relevant information directly with our fellow citizens. Sure, many still will be stuck on American Idol and Britney Spears, while the Nutroots will be tuned in to the military haters. But any thoughtful patriots who can be reached will help to make a difference in this long, global struggle with Islamic fascist fanatics in which we are engaged.

There are no easy fixes nor simple solutions. There is hard work cut out for us as a nation. And if not enough of us understand what’s going on, minus the filtered agenda of the media elites, not enough of us will have the will necessary to help our leaders see it through. Give it a try today. Make the Victory Caucus a regular stop on the Web.

Just in case you missed it, you may wish to check out the latest example of high-stakes mismanagement from Colorado’s Democratic Governor Bill Ritter:

What are we to make of Gov. Bill Ritter’s swift firing of Chris Olson, his original choice to head the Division of Emergency Management? The administration refuses to answer virtually any queries on the matter - which tells us plenty.

Only a few short weeks ago, Ritter sent out a news release fawning over Olson’s “commitment to emergency management, his longtime experience in public safety and service to the community …”

Yet, when The Post sounded the alarm regarding Olson’s troubling history - including a domestic-violence call summoning police to his home, a civil-rights violation and a no-confidence vote from employees, among other interesting tidbits - Ritter dumped Olson faster than you could say “Both Ways Bob.”

Now the governor’s office calls the whole debacle a “confidential personnel matter.”

Oh, if only it were so easy.

As is often the case, Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi is on top of the story.

About a month ago, I highlighted the release of a liberal interest group’s report that used selective and distorted statistics to argue that Colorado needs a huge tax increase. Predictably, local Lefty bloggers leaped to embrace the work with little appearance of critical hesitation. Then I wrote:

My friends, the Left in Colorado is growing desperate and increasingly irrational. They blindly accept a report written by their ideological allies that shares their premises. Come to this site for a critical analysis of the report. And hopefully others will offer their critical analyses, as well. Then we may see a little bit more independent thinking taking place.

Well, I’ve been slow to add my critical analysis. It is summertime, after all. But leave it to the insightful Mark Hillman - former state senate leader and interim state treasurer with the common sense of a wheat farmer - to debunk the fallacious report with real statistics. It’s a must-read, if you have any interest in seeing through the Left’s attempt to gin up the case for raising your taxes through the roof:

Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute’s “Aiming for the Middle” whitepaper concludes that you, Mr. and Mrs. Colorado, are under-taxed to the tune of $3.3 billion a year — maybe more. That’s $1,030 a year for every man, woman and child in the state.

And before you write off this outfit as a bunch of crackpots, notice that a former budget director for Gov. Roy Romer is behind this proposal.

Such a massive spending increase — triple the size of Referendum C — would require a 43-percent across the board increase in state income and sales taxes that currently produce about $7.5 billion a year.

And that’s their price tag just to elevate Colorado to “average” among the 50 states. “Merely ‘aiming for the middle’ may not be bold enough for Colorado,” the report suggests. To hear them tell it, you’d think we are living in “Colobama.”

According to CFPI’s selective data, Colorado ranks near the bottom of most states in various measures of government spending. Not only are CFPI’s prescriptions flawed, so is its data which seem to seek out skewed indicators to create the impression of impoverished government.

Read the whole thing, and then observe the silent responses from the Left to this weighty refutation of their sacred report from a credentialed critic using logical argument and credible sources. It’s been six days since the critique was posted, and I’ve seen no responses from those who so quickly embraced the report as gospel proof of their agenda. (Please feel free to direct me to any response I may have overlooked. I will gladly extend my remarks to reflect it.)

Finally, as Mark points out, the responsible members of the state’s majority party would be wise to ignore the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute on this matter:

In the last two elections, Democrats claimed to support fiscal restraint. If they follow CFPI’s prescription, Colorado voters will soon institute a fiscally-conservative cure.

El Presidente is tooting his own horn, having climbed to the top of the most recent rankings of influential Colorado political blogs. The other horn noise you hear comes from a tailgating Mount Virtus, close on his bumper at #2. El Presidente won’t be able to ease off the accelerator too much with such friendly competition.

More interestingly, seven of the top 10 on the influence meter are right-leaning blog sites. I’m not sure if this fact says more about the nature or the quality of the political debate or more about the secret methodology used to create the rankings.

Regardless, you as a reader are part of the success. Thanks for your continuing visits.

Liberal gotchas like this one might hold more credibility if they were accompanied by a little consistency. Citing a CBS-4 Denver report, a diarist on the Dead Guvs’ site highlights the following critique of one part of a Republican ad against Boulder liberal Mark Udall:

He didn’t vote to raise taxes, he voted against a tax cut passed by a Republican Congress and vetoed by President Clinton. While critics say Udall’s vote had the same effect as supporting higher taxes, the fact remains, Udall voted to maintain the status quo, which is not the same as voting for a tax hike.

“He didn’t vote to raise taxes, he voted against a tax cut….” When was the last time you saw a liberal attacking a conservative lawmaker with the allegation of cutting spending on Government Program X when all he or she did was vote against a large budget increase? It’s an even steeper stretch in logic than the one in the ad against Udall.

I know, it once was so common you hardly thought about it. Of course, with many Capitol Hill “conservatives” losing all sense of fiscal responsibility in recent years, there haven’t been as many such instances to highlight. But the point of the liberal double standard still stands.

I look forward to CBS-4 Denver’s debunking of liberal campaign ads that make such spurious accusations.

Of course, even the Dead Guv diarist had to concede that there were other instances where Udall actually has voted to raise taxes. There is no denying that Colorado taxpayers carry a heavier federal burden today in part because of Udall’s votes in Congress.

Sounds like a great slogan idea … Mark Udall for Colorado: he’ll tax ‘em all.

The ad may have been less than careful in making a legitimate point about the Boulder liberal’s voting record. But the ad’s liberal critics should take care to check the mirror first.

Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall

Liberal distortions about Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer’s early fundraising totals continue to circulate among the blogosphere’s left-wing echo chamber without any serious reflection or criticism. The latest repeat of an unsubtantiated rumor that the $717,000 has fueled the fire for a more “moderate” Republican to join the race shows up at a site called The Political Realm:

Bob Schaffer, Udall’s likely opponent, apparently has some Colorado Republicans worried that he may not be able to keep up with Udall’s strong fundraising.

Of course, I already refuted the distortion earlier, but Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi has taken the explanation even further on a new blog to which he contributes:

Republicans of a “moderate” variety were indeed lined up to take on Mark Udall had Bob Schaffer opted out. But my GOP sources — and there is always a chance they’re a.) lying b.) unreliable and/or c.) intoxicated — tell me Republicans are set on Schaffer (though they have reservations about his staffing decisions) and none have mentioned anything about a search for a “moderate” candidate.

But let’s define our terms: A “moderate” means a candidate that sees things a little more clearly — like a Democrat. As my co-blogger David Sirtoa proves in his posts, there is rarely a conservative who isn’t “far-right” or “extreme.” Conservative positions are by default extreme to many liberals.

Continued attempts by the Left to stir up dissension within the Republican ranks through unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo should be rejected assertively. As Harsanyi points out, in the world of facts (not the world of liberal wishful thinking), Colorado’s 2008 Senate showdown is setting up to be a clear choice between Right and Left. From my vantagepoint, that doesn’t bode well for supporters of Boulder liberal Mark Udall.

Boulder liberal Mark Udall has cast his lot with the Democrat caucus and corrupt union leaders at the expense of law enforcement and defrauded workers. Udall voted to defeat an attempt that would have spared the modest budget of the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) from draconian cuts.

So, apparently, OLMS was a highly ineffective and wasteful branch of government, right? The Democrats just wanted a leaner and more efficient operation, right? Wrong on both counts. As John Fund noted in yesterday’s Opinion Journal:

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues.

And some other recent successes of OLMS highlighted by Fund:

Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local’s reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster’s local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money.

It wasn’t as though overall cash for the Labor Department is strapped, and that Congress was forced to make a tough decision. Rather, OLMS was the only office with its budget adversely affected, as the whole Department anticipates a $935 million boost in total appropriations. The problem for Congressional Democrats and many of their political backers was that OLMS worked too well.

Some white collar criminals who happen to live illicitly off the hard-earned money of various workers are breathing a little easier tonight. Thanks to Mark Udall and his Democrat colleagues, they’re less likely to be caught and prosecuted.

If the Republicans were in charge and the budget for enforcement of corporate white-collar crime had been slashed, your ears would have bled with the piercing howl of righteous liberal outrage. And they would have a very strong case. But now, it’s their silence that’s deafening.

Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall

If you hear Democrats next year on the campaign trail touting Congress for a fiscally conservative record of cutting a government program, keep in mind which program it was:

The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration’s budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.

Although Congress has long insisted on copious reporting by corporations, including the burdens of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, lawmakers have been relatively nonchalant about union reporting. Unlike the quarterly filings of corporations, unions must only file once a year with the Labor Department using a free software program. They don’t have to get an independent certified audit, are only rarely audited by the government, and don’t have to follow standard accounting methods.

Read John Fund’s Opinion Journal column in its entirety to learn more about Democrats’ idea of fiscal responsibility - namely, political payback to the labor bosses who got them elected.

A scathing editorial in yesterday’s Denver Post calls out Colorado Democrats for bowing to Big Labor with their support of HR 800, the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act (read here, here and here).

Though all Democrats in the state’s delegation voted for the bad legislation, the Post specifically singled out bill co-sponsor Boulder liberal Mark Udall - the man who would be U.S. Senator- first for his anti-business agenda:

The proposal, which passed the House with support from Rep. Mark Udall, contained an offensive and little-known provision that would have allowed a government arbitrator to impose a two-year contract on businesses and workers that actually specified wages and working conditions. Neither the employer nor the workers could appeal the decision.

The government has no place mandating how much private employers, for example, pay for their employees’ health insurance.

Later, we also find that Udall’s support of HR 800 was unfriendly to workers, including many blue-collar independents and Democrats:

And Udall, who wants to be Colorado’s next senator, should know that elections here are won by wooing over moderate, independent-minded voters. Casting votes like this won’t help. The proposal died only after Senate Democrats could attract only one Republican vote, from Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, to stop a GOP filibuster against the bill.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act also would have denied workers the right to a secret ballot on the question of whether they want to be represented by a union at all. The measure, which passed the House 241-185, is sure to be back because organized labor has made it the top priority in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

But the tenets of the bill aren’t Western values, and our lawmakers should oppose this unprecedented intrusion of federal power into the collective bargaining process and private
workplaces.

One more piece of evidence that Democrat Rep. Mark Udall, who once again has wandered to the Left of the Denver Post, is out of step with Western values and Colorado’s independent voters.

The Post also assailed Colorado’s junior U.S. Senator Ken Salazar for selling out Colorado to the left wing of his Democratic party:

We were extremely disappointed that Colorado’s Sen. Ken Salazar abandoned his centrist values to vote with the liberal wing of his party when he voted to shut off debate on the bill, which could have forced a vote on the measure. He was elected as a moderate, and he simply can’t become intoxicated by the ideals of his big-government liberal colleagues. He needs to maintain his independence.

Even the left-of-center Post editorial board saw the naked power grab behind HR 800 and called out Democrats Udall and Salazar) for tossing the rights of workers and businesses under the bus to give political payback to union leaders.

Are these guys who we want representing the entire state of Colorado on Capitol Hill? I don’t think so. Try Bob Schaffer instead.

Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall

It seems like whenever another state proposes a taxpayer-friendly ballot measure, the big government crowd turns up the scare factor by looking at Colorado and dredging up the same discredited and refuted statistics [PDF - full disclosure: I am the author of the linked Independence Institute publication].

The latest round comes from Washington State, where proponents are pushing Initiative 960 to require lawmakers to reach a supermajority or receive voter consent in order to raise taxes. Admittedly, I don’t know a lot about the measure itself, though it sounds like a fine idea on its face.

What has me convinced that Washington State likely would benefit from the proposal is the fact that leading opponents have dug into the well of misleading arguments, using Colorado as their trumped up case study. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer appears to be carrying the water for opponents. Writes lawyer and guest columnist Knoll Lowney:

I-960 is loosely patterned after a 1992 constitutional amendment enacted in Colorado. After its passage there, Colorado fell to 49th in education funding and dead last in the number of children who received their full vaccinations from disease. Ultimately, Colorado had to pull the plug on the failed experiment to start recovering its economy. That’s not what we want for Washington.

In the Post-Intelligencer blog, writer Chris McGann uncritically quotes a spokesperson for the Washington Education Association (WEA) (recently slapped down hard by a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court):

“When Colorado passed a measure with similar supermajority requirements, their education funding dropped to 49th in the nation,” said Mary Lindquist, President of the Washington Education Association. “It isn’t idle speculation, it’s fact: when you tie the hands of the legislature on their number one constitutional requirement, education funding, there will be effects in the classroom.”

Read the rest of this entry »

I share the heaviness of Jim’s heart and El Presidente’s disgust at Colorado’s band of Surrendercrats. Short-sighted political pandering from both parties - but most especially the Democratic leadership in Congress - ignores the military realities of Iraq, and the promising success of Gen. Petraeus’ “surge” strategy, which has been in full effect for scarcely a month.

We need to move past our feelings about the current administration (mine aren’t too positive) and recriminations about the earlier halfhearted war policy and the mismanagement that put us at a disadvantage. Stop the blame game, and let’s get to victory first. And whatever we do as a nation, it’s infuriating to see some of our leaders try to pull out the rug just as we’re seeing real success in the counterinsurgency.

Two must-reads for today are Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson. Writes the realistic Krauthammer:

Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus’s plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.

That’s the logic of the wobbly Republicans’ position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government’s inability to meet the required political “benchmarks.” As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.

But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al-Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial levels with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.

The costs are heartbreakingly high — increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.

Meanwhile, Hanson takes down the New York Times white-flag editorialists point by point. The whole thing is a worthwhile read, but I’d like to focus on his conclusion here:

We promised General Petraeus a hearing in September; it would be the height of folly to preempt that agreement by giving in to our summer of panic and despair. Critics called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a change in command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops. But now that we have a new secretary, a new command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops, suddenly we have a renewed demand for withdrawal before the agreed-upon September accounting—suggesting that the only constant in such harping was the assumption that Iraq was either hopeless or not worth the effort.

Too many Americans are cheering (some more quietly than others) for Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy to fail. Too many others long for success, but remain highly doubtful. I struggle, too. There are many legitimate concerns and criticisms. Yet the consequences of defeat and withdrawal would be too great and devastating. We may not reach the depths of 1864’s defeatism during this conflict - too many Americans are detached from the war, and a considerable share of that burden must fall on the White House. But right now, we’re fighting (and mostly beating) Al-Qaeda in the hot Iraqi summer. That we can’t ignore.

Let’s give our military leader his promised chance and prepare to reassess the situation in September. Meanwhile, let’s continue to follow the challenges, the difficulties, and yes - even the signs of progress - from Michael Yon with our troops in the field and Iraq the Model in sweltering Baghdad. And a little historical perspective would be nice, too.