Yesterday I wrote about Congresswoman Nancy Boyda who found three-star General John Keane’s (ret.) positive report about Iraq so upsetting that she had to leave the briefing room in a huff. While we don’t know exactly what the General said that so riled the obviously easily riled representative, Keane did give an interview to National Review’s Rich Lowry which gives us some insight into that burning question. Here’s some of what Keane told Lowry, but by all means read the whole thing:

The success that the security operation is achieving is, in my judgment, very definable. What I have done is, in my first visit in February since the operation began, I went into neighborhoods in Baghdad and then returned 90 days later to make a comparison. And I will do the same in August…

What you see is a stark contrast to ‘06 in those neighborhoods. Because all the schools are open. The markets are teaming with people. Some operating at full capacity; some not quite there because of the level of violence in their neighborhood and some of the construction that was being done, but nonetheless a steady improvement. Government services are being administrated in the neighborhoods and again some of that is uneven because of the nature of the government of itself, but nonetheless there is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in ‘06 there were none…

I think Baghdad (in a year or two) will be stable except for an occasional car bomb by the al Qaeda. Anbar province will be stable. Diyala province will be stable and many of the provinces around Baghdad will be almost as stable. And I see us, from a security perspective, having made some very significant gains, particularly in comparison from ‘06 and from a political perspective, I absolutely see the change that is taking place from the grassroots level in the Sunni and Shia wanting change.

Once again, read the whole thing. The General doesn’t back away from addressing the unsatisfactory political situation in Baghdad, and is no Pollyanna. But overall, the picture is a lot more encouraging than it was a year ago or even a few months ago. This perhaps explains why the New York Times found the American public more encouraged about the situation in Iraq, much to the Grey Lady’s shock and horror.

No wonder why Nancy Boyda left the room in a hurry when General Keane gave his briefing. Wouldn’t want to take any chance of getting confused by the facts.

OF COURSE, THE COUNTRY IS full of Nancy Boydas – people who refuse to hear good news from Iraq. They believe that the war is lost and that the sooner America and especially the Bush administration admit its humiliation at the hands of Al Qaeda and abandon millions of Iraqis to genocidal massacres, the better. It is in Nancy Boyda’s honor that I now introduce the Nancy Boyda Award, which I will present to people who ostentatiously deny whatever good news might come out of Iraq.

Some Nancy Boyda Award winners will twist good news into bad news. For instance, the surge became fully operational a little less than a couple of months ago. In May, we suffered 125 casualties. In June, that number ticked down to 101. With July almost over, the number currently stands at 74. Each casualty is a loss to be mourned; still, the fact that the casualty figure has declined by roughly 20% per month while our troops have been most active and engaged is clearly an encouraging sign. What’s more, given the activity level of the current American mission, the number of U.S. casualties should be a lagging indicator of the situation in Iraq. Logically, our casualties should decrease only when more bad-guys are dead and their activity already diminished. In other words, these numbers should represent improvement across the board in Iraq, which is exactly what General Keane reported and those two crazy-brave Brookings fellows wrote about in yesterday’s New York Times.

So, you might wonder, how does a hard left website like the Daily Kos deal with an appalling development such as fewer U.S. military men dying in Iraq while achieving greater results? Long time Kos front pager “Meteor Blades” answered that question by making the following observation under the heading ”Iraq by the Numbers”:

Try a different perspective regarding that "drop." Compare the Coalition’s fatalities for all the Julys that the U.S. has occupied Iraq via the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Website:

July 2007: 77
July 2006: 46
July 2005: 58
July 2004: 58
July 2003: 49

In honor of this tendentious piece of drivel “Meteor Blades” wins our first Nancy Boyda Award! Congratulations, Meteor Blades, wherever you are.

ODDLY ENOUGH, ANDREW SULLIVAN provides the perfect coda to our debut of the Nancy Boyda Award. Earlier today, Andrew was slightly miffled that I suggested that “the left and other anti-war figures like Andrew Sullivan have a lot invested in this war failing and failing miserably.” Andrew took delight when someone took my logic and inverted it, writing, “The right and other pro-war figures like Dean Barnett have a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew commented with a portentous and approving “Hmmmmm.”

Probably unwittingly, Andrew has confirmed my theory that this war’s opponents have forgotten something basic and elemental: Every American, regardless of his party affiliation or political philosophy, has “a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew Sullivan used to know that. Best to ask him why he’s forgotten it.

And ask Representative Nancy Boyda also, while you’re at it.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com