Clifford May makes a good point in this article on NRO:

 For the sake of argument, imagine that opponents of the war in Iraq are right. Suppose that our military — designed to confront a different enemy, on a different battlefield, in a different era — has met its match. Suppose that the war against al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as against various Iranian-backed Shia militias, can not be won, and that staying on in Iraq can do nothing to protect America’s vital national-security interests.
If that’s true, we must prepare for defeat in Afghanistan as well. There is no reason to believe that the strategy being used against us in Iraq will be less effective 1,400 miles further east.

Michelle Malkin has a post, "Document Drop", featuring a preprint of an article which examines, and rebuts the claim of 98,000 excess civilian deaths in Iraq following the US invasion.

 One of the most useful roles of the blogosphere is its service as an open-source intelligence-gathering medium.
....
Now, it’s the statisticians and math geeks’ turn. Remember that massively-publicized 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study? It was cited in nearly 100 scholarly journals and reported by news outlets around the world. “100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq” blared the Washington Post in a typical headline.
....

Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane’s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors “cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.” Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors’ main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.

 

Kathleen Parker has an essay at Real Clear Politics about the stories written by The New Republic's "Iraq Diarist".  The consensus seems to be shaping up to say, these stories are not very likely. 

Stranger -- and far worse -- things have happened in war. But people who have served in Iraq have raised enough questions about these particular anecdotes that one is justified in questioning whether they are true.

As just one example, it is unlikely that a Bradley would be driven through concrete barriers just for fun, according to an Army JAG who e-mailed me. He explained that people aren't alone out there. Other vehicles, NCOs and officers would be around and Iraqis would have made a claim for repairs, resulting in a JAG investigation.

In other words, either plenty of people would know about it -- or it didn't happen.

 So why did they make it in to TNR, without any apparent attempts to confirm their accuracy?  Parker calls it "Nifong Syndrome."

 It may be that The New Republic editors and others who believed Thomas' journal entries without skepticism are infected with Nifong Syndrome -- the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief.
....

In the case of Scott Thomas, the "truth" that American soldiers are woman-hating, dog-killing, grave-robbing monsters confirms what many among the anti-war left believe about the military, despite their protestations that they "support the troops."

We tend to believe what we want to believe, in other words.

 A report on a cache of WMD would be scrupulously double-checked.  This passed right through the journalistic filters of the editor at TNR.

Patterico has a comment about  executive privilege.  Interestingly enough, it seems Bush isn't the only one saying contempt of Congress charges may not be applicable against someone covered by executive privilege.

Steven Groves addresses a number of myths about the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, including:

 Misconception #1: The U.S. must either put Guantanamo Bay detainees on trial or release them.

 Misconception #2: The Guantanamo Bay detainees received inadequate due process when they were designated enemy combatants.

 Misconception #3: The Guantanamo Bay detainees are entitled to habeas corpus relief.

The Volokh Conspiracy has some thoughts about the latest maneuvers regarding executive privilege.

The final book of the Harry Potter cycle is reviewed at Opinion Journal.  (I wish I'd come up with that title!)

National Review Online has another review, here.

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, has been quoted describing the actions described in the "Shock Troops" article as "practical jokes".

I'll stipulate that a practical joke has been played -- on The New Republic.

Michael Goldfarb has more on The New Republic's "Shock Troops" article.

There may have been an unmarked cemetery that was discovered and moved.  The bodies would have been relocated and reburied.  The alleged desecration of the remains would not have been tolerated, and there are other aspects of the story that remain very difficult to reconcile with reality.

The consensus of everyone writing in is that anyone who mocked a woman who had been injured by an IED would have been severely reprimanded and been subject to UCMJ action.  If he was lucky.    If he was not lucky, he'd have been given an attitude adjustment by just about everyone else in the area.

4th IBCT Public Affairs Officer Major Kirk Luedeke has some comments.  Among his comments, he points out that:

 Just about every Soldier these days has his or her own digital camera or video camera. Talk to anyone here- every unit down to squad level in our brigade is *required* to have a camera on every mission. It's all part of being prepared for such a discovery. Surely- there would be photos of the skulls and mass grave if it truly existed, would there not? The reason there isn't any photos, is because simply- the story isn't true.

 And:

 I  know that if my organization claimed to have unearthed a sizeable cache of hundreds of explosives, rockets, nitric acid and other key components to make roadside bombs, otherwise known here in these parts as a "good news story," media outlets would rightfully demand some kind of proof to subtantiate our claims. That's why we take pictures of such things and provide them along with our press releases.

And that's an interesting point.  An organ like The New Republic would require extensive corroboration of a report that WMD had been found.  Indeed, TNR might not be content with a single photo or videotape of a cache, and might demand photographic evidence from multiple sources, "in case the evidence had been Photo-shopped".  But the unsupported account of "Scott Thomas" is published without comment.

TNR has a preferred narrative.  Sicko psychopath soldiers run amok fits this narrative.  Finding WMD doesn't.

 Therein lies the difference.

The New Republic has published an article titled "Shock Troops".  It depicts the U.S. troops as sadistic nutcases.  It's described and pretty well shredded at the Weekly Standard here, here, here, here, here, and here.

A piece  at The American Thinker examines the possible identity of  "Scott Thomas".

It seems the only merit the "Shock Troops" article has is that it supports a narrative The New Republic approves of.

Here's a link to Sen. McCain's statement on the amendment which would have required a "redeployment" of troops out of Iraq by next April.   One excerpt:

No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism.  Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose.  Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our “inevitable” defeat in Iraq, and that “the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.” He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda. 

General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place?  If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power.  Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.  If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over.  Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death.  That plan is to take shape in four stages:  establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one:  expel the Americans from Iraq.  Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it.  The question is: Are we?

OK, I'm starting a blog at Townhall.com. 
One reason for this is that the other blogs I have are currently inaccessible from work, so if I want to make a note of some news item for future reference, I have to put it someplace else.

Like here.