2008 Senate Races at a Glance

I haven't been following the pending Senate matchups of 2008 very closely in the last few months, but the conventional wisdom is that Democrats are poised to make modest-to-substantial gains with few if any losses. It's far too early to tell if that will be the case, but I'm skeptical that it will be the Democratic bonanza currently predicted. True, I didn't believe the Dems were gonna pick up six Senate seats last fall either, but the logistics of 2006 (a midterm election year which many Republican voters sat out) helped significantly in securing the narrow Democratic margins in a number of red-state Senate contests. The higher-turnout Presidential contest of 2008 is likely to be a different ballgame entirely, particularly if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and generating ugly counter-coattails in most states.

Here are my general thoughts on the 2008 races, state by state.....

Alabama--Conservative Republican Jeff Sessions is up for re-election and would seem to be a shoo-in. There's a push for some statewide elected officer (Agriculture Secretary I believe) named Ron Sparks to hop in the race on the Democratic side, but I expect that some kid would shoot an 1,100-pound wild pig in the Alabama woods before a Democrat gets elected to a federal office in Alabama. Okay, bad example....but Sessions should still cruise to the finish line.

Alaska--There's some rumors of long-standing Republican curmudgeon Ted Stevens being emboiled in a mini-scandal, but unless he's either indicted or dead, Stevens will win by his usual 80%+ margin.

Arkansas--Conservative Democrat Mark Pryor is probably gonna win re-election, and may not even be battered bloody by the prospect of a Hillary candidacy given Hillary's Arkansas roots. The only caveat would be the prospect of former Republican Governor Mike Huckabee abandoning his Presidential bid and running against Pryor for the open Senate race. Huckabee has expressed no interest in doing so, but if he did, would give Pryor a run for his money.

Colorado--One of the Democrats best pick-up opportunities is Colorado, where incumbent Republican Wayne Allard is retiring. Popular Democratic Congressman Mark Udall is the likely nominee on the donk side, while a number of prominent Republicans could end up throwing their hats in the ring. If I had to put money on it at this stage, I'd bet Udall continues the Democratic Party's momentum in Colorado and pick up this seat, but as with all open seats, there's no way of knowing which direction things will go.

Delaware--Will Joe Biden retire from the Senate after his latest bid for the Presidency inevitably fails? I actually think he will, setting himself up for a Cabinet position in a would-be Democratic administration. Even without Biden on the ticket, you have to like the Democrats' odds at holding the Delaware Senate seat in 2008.

Georgia--The only Democrat who could win federal office in Georgia these days is Zell Miller, and given that nobody in the Democratic Party has any interest in bringing the deranged Miller back to the Senate, Republican Saxby Chambliss should score a safe double-digit re-election margin next year.

Idaho--Unless he retires, Republican Larry Craig will be re-elected. If he does retire, another Republican will follow in his footsteps. Take it to the bank.

Illinois--Despite a rhetorical blunder a couple of years ago, Democrat Dick Durbin is virtually assured of re-election in 2008.

Iowa--Given his penchant for over-the-top rhetoric in a culturally conservative state, Democrat Tom Harkin can never be completely counted upon for victory, but is nonetheless greatly favored in 2008 against any Republican that may choose to challenge him, particularly with Harkin poised to deliver pork by the bucket full to Iowa farmers as the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee working on the upcoming farm bill.

Kansas--Republican Pat Roberts will be re-elected by 2-1 or better.

Kentucky--Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell will be re-elected by 2-1 or better.

Louisiana--Despite the GOP's failure to secure a top-tier challenger to two-term Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu, I still can't imagine a scenario where Landrieu gets re-elected given the changed demographics of post-Katrina Louisiana (fewer blacks) during a Presidential election year where any of the major Democratic candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) will be about as popular as diarrhea in Louisiana. Place your bets on the Republicans picking up this seat.

Maine--Popular Republican moderate Susan Collins is being challenged by Democratic House member Tom Allen. Early polls show Collins leading 2-1, and while the outcome is not likely to be that lopsided, look for Collins to hang on by a comfortable margin.

Massachusetts--Since I haven't heard otherwise, I'll operate under the assumption that John Kerry is planning to run for another term in the Senate. Whether he does or doesn't, the Massachusetts Senate seat will remain in Democratic hands.

Michigan--Long-time Democratic incumbent Carl Levin is high-profile enough to overpower any Republican rivals, or at least he should be in economically volatile Michigan where voters are likely to be unpredictable.

Minnesota--Republican Norm Coleman is on the short list of most vulnerable incumbents, but he's a skilled politician who knows exactly what to do to win support among the suburban moderates needed to win in Minnesota. If Coleman faces off against Al Franken, it'll be a blow out in favor of Coleman. If Mike Ciresi gets the Democratic nomination, Coleman will win by a more modest margin.

Mississippi--Conventional wisdom is that geriatric Republican Thad Cochran plans to run for re-election. If he does, Election Night 2008 will be another coronation for him. If he doesn't, there's zero chance a Democrat wins a Mississippi Senate race....including former Attorney General Mike Moore who wouldn't get within seven points of a Republican in MS with Hillary or Obama at the top of the ticket.

Montana--It certainly is likely that long-time incumbent Democrat Max Baucus will be re-elected, but in a Presidential election year in Montana, Baucus could conceivably be taken down by a capable Republican challenger.

Nebraska--Unless he runs for President third-party with Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate for Nebraska. If Hagel doesn't run for Senate re-election, another Republican will win the seat.

New Hampshire--Tough call on this one. One-term GOP incumbent John Sununu is definitely vulnerable, but until I know the significance of his future Democratic challenger, I have to give Sununu a slight edge.

New Jersey--Democratic incumbent Frank Lautenberg is a very old man, but nonetheless seems poised to run for another term in the Senate next year. Lautenberg has low approval ratings, but so do all New Jersey politicians. I'm confident Lautenberg will dispatch any Republican challenger that might be thrown at him.

New Mexico--Pete Domenici is in hot water over his role in the U.S. Attorney firings....and may retire anyway. My bet is that Domenici runs again and gets re-elected. If he doesn't run, the Democrats may have a slight advantage in winning the open seat, but only a tiny one if Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson runs (even though I doubt she'd abandon her House seat).

North Carolina--Lame Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole is vulnerable, but it would take a special kind of Democrat to defeat her in a Presidential election year. Governor Mike Easley might be such a guy, but even in an Easley-Dole faceoff, I'd have to give a slight advantage to Dole considering the circumstances. Winnable, but an extreme longshot. I said last year that I expected it to be a generation before a Democrat won another Senate seat in the Old Confederacy outside of Arkansas. I still feel that way.

Oklahoma--Wingnut Republican James Inhofe is a shoo-in for re-election.

Oregon--Moderate Republican Gordon Smith is gonna be very hard to take down no matter which Democrat challenges him. I'll be stunned if Smith gets beaten.

Rhode Island--Democrat Jack Reed wins in a landslide.

South Carolina--He might face a tough primary challenge on the right for cooperating too much with those nasty Democrats, but Republican Lindsay Graham will nonetheless prevail handily in both the primary and the general election.

South Dakota--I'm doubtful that Democrat Tim Johnson will be well enough to run for re-election next year. If he isn't, Republicans will be strongly favored to pick up this seat. Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth may have even odds if she decided to run, but I honestly hope she doesn't because we can't afford to lose that House seat for a Senate run gamble. Bottom line: I'm betting the GOP gains a seat here.

Tennessee--Republican Lamar Alexander crushes any Democratic challenger that steps in his path.

Texas--The Democrats are delusionally optimistic about toppling one-term incumbent John Cornyn....in Texas.....with either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards at the top of the ticket. I can't think of any Texas Democrat capable of getting within five points of Cornyn.....or any other candidate with an (R) next to his name for that matter.

Virginia--If Republican John Warner decides to run for another term (pretty much even odds on that bet right now), he'll win. If he doesn't, the Democrats have a modest chance of picking up a seat, particularly if former Governor Mark Warner runs. But the Republicans have a pretty solid bench of their own in Virginia, so don't count them out even if Warner (John that is) ends up retiring.

West Virginia--I submit that Shelley Moore Capito could take Democratic incumbent Jay Rockefeller if she challenged him in increasingly Republican West Virginia, but there's no indication that will happen at this stage, and until it does, you have to bet on Rockefeller.

Wyoming--Republican incumbent Mike Enzi is re-elected handily.

So there you have it. Even under my most optimistic prognosis, the Democrats are only poised to net one seat in 2008. It's way too early to give any merit to these predictions, but I'd be shocked if either party gained more than two seats in the 2008 cycle. It'll be interesting to watch the contests unfold in the months ahead.

Why Would Mexico Boo Us?

Rarely does the Miss Universe Pageant generate any headlines the day/week after its broadcast, but last weekend's pageant was the exception to that rule for a couple of reasons. First, America's delegate to the pageant stumbled and fell on her ass during the evening gown competition, which has been publicized ad nauseum in the last 48 hours. More significant, however, was the other headline generated from the evening. When the American delegate got up on the podium to speak, the mostly Mexican crowd at the pageant (held in Mexico City) sustained a prolonged booing fit directed at the American chick. In any other international context, I would dismiss this booing as a misdirected fit of petulance about U.S. foreign policy, specifically the war in Iraq, but given that this happened in Mexico City during the midst of our heated immigration debate, I'm inclined to believe the audience actually has the audacity to express displeasure at America for not rubber-stamping the Vicente Fox-endorsed immigration plan.

It's pretty stunning actually. Mexico surely doesn't lay out a welcome mat for Central American immigrants at its southern border. In fact, it has an iron-clad gauntlet much like the proposed border fence in this country that has so many in Mexico infuriated. After all, Mexico doesn't want that cheap Guatemalan and El Salvadoran labor trickling into their country and suppressing their wages! While the quid pro quo between the American and Mexican governments is tacitly understood by everybody, it's Mexico that clearly gets the better end of the bargain, foisting their unrelenting social problems onto American soil and allowing their kleptocratic government to continue with business as usual.

The worst thing that could happen to the Mexican people in this immigration deal is continued lax border enforcement by the United States, unless of course the Mexican peasantry enjoys sending its young men and women thousands of miles north to work, often separated from their families and forced to stand in line at the post office every Thursday afternoon sending money orders back home. A cultural climate like this ultimately corrupts both participating nations, benefitting only a few powerful money interests on both sides of the Rio Grande. It's sickening that the Mexican people, or at least the crowd at the Miss Universe pageant booing "immigration reform" dissenters, don't appreciate that.

Hard Choices for the Dems

There's no way of sugarcoating what happened in Congress last week in terms of the war appropriations vote. The Democrats got rolled. They knew it was gonna happen, as they didn't have enough votes to override Bush's veto, so they kept the lights on until September with the hope that the next three months will trigger enough GOP converts to make a stronger showing then. As pissed off as I was watching this unfold last week, I'm pragmatic enough to realize there was no way the Democrats could pull off an immediate defunding/withdrawal without finding themselves trapped in a PR avalanche of "withholding funds for the troops".

Under the circumstances, it's irrational for Daily Kos hardliners to be so enraged at the Democrats for not waging a fruitless and counterproductive fight on the floor of Congress at the present time. This is a two-party government, and the Democrats didn't have the votes they needed to end the war unless they committed the politically suicidal act (at least right now) of withholding war funds. Honestly, I'm not so sure they'll have the votes by September either, despite the conventional wisdom that a number of Republicans will abandon the President in the fall heading into the 2008 election cycle. We've been hearing these rumors of "pending Republican defections" of Iraq war support for about two years now, yet the numbers of dissenters remains microscopic.

Ultimately, the only way I expect to see this war end is if a Democratic President is elected in 2008, making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's calculated votes against last week's war appropriations bill that much more significant. The message their vote sent to the more than 60% of American voters who want a near-term withdrawal from Iraq is that they won't be the kind of hair-splitting opportunists who only talk about badly the war is going, yet still plan to let it drag on for years longer out of fear of "crying uncle" and being tagged as weak on defense. Whether or not Hillary or Obama would actually do that if they were elected is another story, but their vote allows them to continue courting favor with the anti-war left while appearing to be "the few who got it right" as conditions in Iraq continue their inevitable collapse into unbridled anarchy.

Bottom line: the war in Iraq is likely to remain on autopilot heading into the 2008 election, meaning "the course will be stayed" until early 2009 or later. The only variable to that prediction is if Bush makes good on his winking suggestion that he would leave Iraq if the Iraqi government asked him too. It seems unlikely that Maliki would ever ask the Americans to leave seeing as how American troop presence is the only thing stopping Maliki from getting a bullet between his eyes. The Iraqi Parliament, on the other hand, seems like a very likely candidate to tell Bush to stuff it (after they return from their two-month summer vacation, of course) once the inconsequential "benchmarks without penalties" laid out by the Bush administration are inevitably unmet.

If the Iraqis do request America take a hike in the next few months, it would be the perfect out for the Bush administration, allowing him to "respectfully submit to the will of the democratically elected government of Iraq", declare victory and go home. Instantly, the war would be off the table for the 2008 election, requiring likely nominee Hillary Clinton (or whoever the Dem nominee is) to win on their own, without the counterwind of an unpopular war blowing at their back. There is not a Republican Presidential candidate in the lot that wouldn't jump at this opportunity, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the next 12 months produced a dynamic of this sort, generating a phased withdrawal of American troops beginning next summer per the orders of the majority of the Iraqi government.

Unless I'm way off base (wouldn't be the first time), that's the grim reality that war opponents face. The only chance of ending this war in the next year is if the Iraqi government requests our departure, in which case Bush and the Republican party are handed a measure of political victory in the 2008 election. Otherwise, the Democratic President elected in 2008 (ideally with a Democratic Congress still behind him/her) will be forced to take the reins themselves, beginning in early 2009.....after nearly two more years of needless bloodshed.

Battle of the 80's Crimefighters: The Last Hurrah

It's all come down to three shows, two of which square off now to face MacGyver.

Hardcastle and McCormick vs. Crime Story

In retrospect, I should have waited a year to do this tournament as it will be a productive year for DVD viewings of several of the crimefighter series that I haven't seen much or anything from since they aired originally. Two such series are Hardcastle and McCormick and Crime Story, both of which I loved as a child of the 80's and have every expectation of loving again watching as an adult. But which will I like better? Tough call, as the atmosphere and grit of Crime Story will almost certainly rein me in as they did back in the day, while the buddy chemistry of Hardcastle and McCormick will almost certainly do the same. While Crime Story was probably a larger innovator within the medium, H & M was more fun. And that's ultimately what made 80's crimefighter shows so enjoyable. The ones done well were almost always fun. For that reason, Hardcastle and McCormick makes it through another round.

Now, for the grand finale.....

MacGyver vs. Hardcastle and McCormick

It all boils down to two action series that premiered Sunday nights on ABC. Hardcastle and McCormick premiered in September 1983, and MacGyver premiered September 1985. And interestingly enough, H & M ended its run in July 1986 on Wednesday nights at 9/8 central following.....MacGyver at 8/7 central. Neither show was ever a major hit for the network, and both found their momentum sucked away when broadcast in the Monday death slot either before or after Monday Night Football, but both kept the network afloat during a period of serious audience erosion for ABC that began in 1984 and didn't really stabilize until 1989.

Contentwise, both series were fun and imaginative, rising to the occasion with a suitable blend of action, drama, and comedy. Hardcastle could have easily ran another season or two without losing its edge, but found itself having lost a good quarter of its audience from its first season at the end of its three-season run, and ABC decided it was time to pull the plug. MacGyver, on the other hand, had a stable but middling audience that stuck with the show for seven seasons....probably one season too many in retrospect. Much as I enjoy both programs, it's no contest for me to crown MacGyver the king of the 80's crimefighters. The inventive secret agent always wowed us with his off-the-cuff creations that saved the day, and the writers masterfully walked the tightrope of doing a series that appealed to all age groups. I knew 7-year-old boys, 85-year-old grannies, and every age group in between who loved the series, featuring a positive role model for young people and intelligent enough stories to capture the interest of adults. The maturation process of MacGyver should be held up as a model for every other crimefighter series seeking a long run, as the series consistently diversified its story portfolio to keep from becoming stale, keeping viewers tuned in week after week for seven years, longer than most of the 80's crimefighter series that were big hits but did not diversify and mature when the times called for it.

By every measurable criteria, MacGyver wins this tournament....and I shall reward the series by watching it in its entirety this summer on DVD.

The Looming War Over Property Rights Versus Personal Comfort

As expected, the state of Minnesota is poised to be the latest to enact a full-frontal assault on property rights by banning smoking in so-called "public areas", which actually refers to privately owned restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys. The idea of a Big Brother-imposed smoking ban in privately owned bars is so wrong at so many different levels that I could spend the entire evening dissecting its foolishness, so I'll focus on the one issue where the law portends an Orwellian future, where private property rights are tossed to the wind in the interest of serving every individual's perceived entitlement to comfort on demand.

Whatever the high-minded rhetoric regarding smoking bans in restaurants and bars may be, the bottom line is that the motivation driving them is the very loud grumbles of a small group of prima donnas who believe that it's government's jurisdiction to clear a path of fresh air to accommodate their every footstep....even on OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. The clever talking point of smoking ban proponents is to frame the issue as "workers' rights" by suggesting that employment in a smoky bar puts the bar employee's health directly at risk. The absurdity of this premise is that a bar/tavern employee loses his or her life every day in America as a result of the violence instigated by patrons who consume the very product that keep bars in business....alcohol. If we are truly going to ban the consumption of a legal product in a bar in the interest of workplace safety, certainly we have to ban alcohol in bars along with cigarettes, right?

And there's the rub. As ridiculous as that may seem, the anti-alcohol special interest groups watching Big Anti-Tobacco successfully snuff out cigarettes in bars and restaurants are gonna see these victories as their opening to further microregulate legal activities on private property to achieve their agenda. It will also be cleverly framed within the context of either "workers rights" or "your rights end where mine begin."

That latter context is ultimately the scariest, because these smoking bans give every petulant prima donna in America license to use government as their personal lifestyle enforcer. If enough people complain about their "allergies to the poisons in perfume or cologne", you can be sure power-hungry state legislatures across the country with far too little to do will lobby for perfume prohibitions outside of private homes. And how about my right to listen to the radio in my house at a modest volume? Does my right completely end where my neighbor's begins should he decide to thrust the bootheel of the state on me?

The extent to which anti-smoking whiners have moved the goalposts on acceptable venues to criminalize tobacco consumption (they are now moving to outlaw smoking at beaches, outdoor parks, and apartment buildings, where "workers rights" issues cannot even be used a convenient distraction) suggests that other special interests will use any excuse to move the goalposts further for their own agenda. The term "slippery slope" is often overused, but it's no exaggeration to suggest that America has a full-blown property rights crisis looming as an inevitable consequence of nanny-state creep, where nobody's personal property is exempt from the latest whim of those crying foul from the edge of the property line.

There are no end of special interest groups out there (often in the insurance trade) just salivating at the prospect of legislating your rights away, usually as a means of health-and-wellness purity. The anti-smoking lobby may be the most ruthless and most obnoxious special interest group, as trendsetters usually are for better or for worse (in this case worse), but I am positive others will follow. That's why even as a lifelong nonsmoker with no personal interest in this cause, I weep for my home state as I watch it pander to the insufferable forces attempting to sacrifice liberty for security. It scares me to death to ponder how far our elected leaders plan to let this trend go before someone tells the property rights invaders to suck it up rather than trying to legislate other people's freedoms out of existence.

Battle of the 80's Crimefighters, Round Four

Only six shows left. Which ones will prevail??

Magnum, P.I. vs. MacGyver

Two of the longest-lasting 80's crimefighter series square off. Both series were brilliant when at the top of their game, with above-average stories and top-shelf production values for episodic television. Both series were also widely considered to have stuck around at least one season too long, but the similarities pretty much ended there. Magnum, P.I. was a huge hit on CBS for most of its eight-season run while MacGyver limped along with middling ratings for seven seasons on ABC, getting picked up a half season at a time but always delivering when the heat was on much like the series' title character always did.

In a way, this isn't a fair fight because I've had a great deal more exposure to MacGyver than to Magnum, P.I. I've probably only watched half of Magnum's episodes and haven't see it at all in a few years. Nonetheless, the series was always hit-or-miss. Granted, this was the case for most 80's crimefighter series, but it seemed to be even more of an issue for Magnum, P.I., which frequently plunged into maudlin melodrama, particularly in its final two or three seasons. MacGyver certainly had some howler episodes as well, but they were less frequent and rarely as dreary as Magnum's weakest, which more often resembled Fantasy Island reruns than adrenaline-pumping action. While both series are deserving of accolades, MacGyver runs away with this one.

Round One goes to MacGyver

Hardcastle and McCormick vs. The Fall Guy

These were my favorite and second-favorite shows in my early elementary years. I'll probably better poised to opine on which series holds up in another six months, as I plan to purchase DVD sets for both in the very near future. I'm really going into Hardcastle and McCormick cold, having not seen it since I was 11 back in 1989. I have seen a dozen or so Fall Guy reruns in the last 10 years, and they've generated a decidedly mixed response for me.

Alas, in the interest of finishing this tournament in the next couple of weeks, I have to choose one, so here are my thoughts. The Fall Guy was the more ambitious show, with its international settings and elaborate stuntwork, but suffered for its dopey attempts at comedy and bad overall acting. Hardcastle and McCormick would have never carved out its own identity as a crime drama/action series if not for the chemistry of its dynamic duo, but that chemistry offered more memorable moments of television than the cool stunts and elaborately choreographed chase sequences on The Fall Guy. Again, this is a crap shoot given how much I loved both series as a boy, but my gut says that I will probably get more enjoyment, and cringe less often, when viewing my Hardcastle and McCormick DVD's than I will when watching The Fall Guy DVD's.

Round Two goes to Hardcastle and McCormick.

Miami Vice vs. Crime Story

Once again, two Michael Mann shows face off against one another, but the two series are about as different as two series can get stylistically. Miami Vice became a hit based on its flashy visuals and its ultra-contemporary tone, drawing the hippest guest stars wearing the swankiest fashions. Crime Story was never a hit and its imagery was cold and dark (even when the setting changed from the mean streets of Chicago to the glossy streets of Las Vegas), set in the early 1960s rather than the glamorous mid-1980s.

Which series was better? If judging by longevity, Miami Vice's five seasons is much more impressive than Crime Story's two seasons, but as I stated in last round's review, MV was beset by countless strategic gaffes over the course of those five seasons which very clearly tainted that series' legacy. Hard to say whether Crime Story would have held out better than MV had it lasted five seasons, but since it went two strong seasons, I have to give CS the edge. It's not really a slam-dunk as both series sparkled at their best and since Crime Story had its share of cheesy moments as well (Luca surviving a direct hit over ground zero of an atomic bomb testing site in Nevada?!?!?!?) but the number of howlers Miami Vice churned out, particularly in those last two seasons, does more to overshadow that series' great moments that CS's weaknesses overshadow its.

Round Three goes to Crime Story.

It's down to the final three shows for Round Five.

MacGyver draws a bye.
Hardcastle and McCormick vs. Crime Story.

I'll finish things off next week.

The Alternative to a Timeline for Withdrawal

Today, President Bush vetoed a bill from Congress setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Aside from the usual science fiction about "making progress" and "keeping our commitment to troops on the ground", the Bush administration and its adoring surrogates continue to make one claim worthy of consideration.....the claim that U.S. withdrawal precipitates a regional civil war in the Middle East left in the vacuum of a weak Iraq.

It’s reasonable to allege that a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq will serve as a proxy timetable for insurgent forces to ramp up their terrorist operations, ultimately turning Iraq into ground zero for long-term sectarian violence. I’m far from convinced that a regional civil war will ignite (and if it does, will America's continued presence be enough to overcome it?), but the premise is worthy enough that the Democrats need to address the issue much more effectively when they propose withdrawal timelines.

With that said, the Democrats blind eye on this possibility can be inversely connected to the hawks' refusal to accept the fact that an Iraq policy without a timeline for withdrawal ensures a permanent outpost of U.S. troops in Iraq forever serving as the welfare army for a dependent quasi-state/colony in Iraq. The alternative to a timeline for withdrawal is a permanent blank check….and only those whose reputation is most at stake for being proven right on a cartoonishly bellicose post-9/11 foreign policy platform are gonna be willing to accept a generations-long six-figure U.S. troop presence in Iraq with the promise of “victory being right around the corner”.