Looking for a nugget of good news from Iraq?  Then consider that on yesterday’s “In Memoriam” segment on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” there were no U.S. military deaths in Iraq to report from the past week, the first time that’s happened  (the names of nine soldiers and Marines killed in Afghanistan were listed, however).

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) was insistent on pursuing this line of locker-room questioning with Gen. Petraeus yesterday:

PETRAEUS: Senator, the vice president was in Iraq just a couple weeks after that, and he also had a very warm reception.

BIDEN: Did he get kissed? Get a kiss?

PETRAEUS: I believe he did get kissed when he was there.

BIDEN: I just want to know whether he got kissed, that’s all.

When Joe Biden lives vicariously through Dick Cheney, we really ought to be concerned.  Presumably, this is getting to first base, Biden-style.

You don’t often here a Senator say “crap.”

So when one does, it’s worth relaying exactly what Joe Biden said.

From the teleconference Biden and Carl Levin held on Friday previewing the Petraeus Iraq hearing:

QUESTION: Senator Biden, I hate to ask you a political question, but Senator McCain is probably going to have a big forum before yours as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and I wonder if there is any way, any thought on the Foreign Relations Committee to letting Senator Obama go ahead of seniority since otherwise he might be going in the middle of the night.

BIDEN: The biggest mistake we could make is politicizing, making this — looking at this in terms of political advantage — the American people are sick of this crap. And, you know, McCain is the ranking guy, so he’s going to get to speak first. And I think it’s good to hear what McCain has to say. I love the idea of McCain having to explain what’s going on here and why this is working so well.

But the idea here is, the last thing with — Carl and I are like broken records in our caucus on this — the last thing we should be doing is viewing this through a political prism. There’s nothing idealistic about that. There’s nothing noble about that. It’s just a practical fact of the matter.

This is life-and-death malarkey — this is life-and-death stuff that we get into the malarkey of talking about, you know, gaming out the politics of it.

Ah, malarkey.  That’s more like it.

We must stipulate at the outset that we disagree with Rep. Bob Wexler’s position on Iraq, like we do on most other issues.  We support the war.  He doesn’t.  He wants to impeach Dick Cheney.  We’d vote no. The Nation magazine named Wexler the “most valuable congressman.”  We’re dubious of the source and the reasoning.

But here’s one thing that Wexler is doing we’re just giddy about: using MySpace to strengthen democracy and access to power.

Here’s what Wexler wrote yesterday on his MySpace blog:

As President Bush stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq, it grows increasingly frustrating for those of us who have been loudly demanding a withdrawal. I know you share my frustration. Every day, I receive letters and emails from patriotic Americans who want to - somehow – personally contribute to a solution.

Now it is your turn.

Next week, General Petraeus – the architect of the failed surge policy and our chief military leader in Iraq - will be testifying before the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

For too long the Bush Administration has been in a bubble – hiding from the truth and avoiding tough questions from outraged American citizens. This time I am turning the oversight powers of Congress over to you.

I want you to be the ones asking the questions to General Petraus.

Write me at contact at wexlerforcongress.com with a short reply and tell me what - specifically - you would like me to ask. Please include your first name as well as your city and state.

I will choose the best two questions and ask them to General Petraeus this Wednesday. You will be able to watch his answers directly on C-Span.

Please consider submitting a question. You already work so hard to bring accountability to this Administration and to bring our troops home from Iraq. I hope this provides you another opportunity for us to collaborate and directly influence the national dialogue.

Please keep your questions short and focused.

I look forward to your response, and thank you for participating directly in our democracy.

Congressman Robert Wexler
www.wexlerforcongress.com

Of course, my question would be “Why don’t you just leave Gen. Petraeus alone?  He’s a hero, and he’s the biggest reason we’ve turned the corner in Iraq.”

But since I’m unlikely to convince Rep. Wexler that he’s wrong on Iraq — I’ll just settle for applauding him for being right on Web 2.0.

Great to see President Bush is in Romania.
It gives us an opportunity to point out one of the coolest facts about the Iraq war: Romania has a military presence in Iraq. And where are Romania’s troops based? Camp Dracula.

Here’s a good article from The Cheers:

Romania has soldiers and paratroopers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, Romania’s largest presence is at Camp Dracula in near the ancient Sumerian City of Ur and the Ziggurat. Currently, Romania’s 495th Infantry Battalion called “Capt. Stefan Soverth” patrols the area and guards a strategic bridge.

CAMP DRACULA, Iraq¡ - Romanian paratroopers in 495th Infantry Battalion patrol 200 km daily in the Dhi Qar province of Iraq. The 495th is named after “Capt. Stefan Soverth,” a Romanian paratrooper who did not accept the Russia suppression of Romanian paratroopers in 1945.

Camp Dracula, a walled compound inside Logistical Support Area (LSA) Adder, is very close to the ancient city of Ur. Nasariyah is the Iraqi City that closest to the base.

Romania is supporter of the war on terror and also has a large presence in Kandahar, Afghanistan. In Iraq, the Romanian Area of Operations (AO) is the entire Dhi Qar province - over 12,900 square kilometers, of which they patrol daily.

“We secure, patrol and do reconnaissance missions,” said Lt. Col. George Constantin, the Battalion Commander.
….

The Philadelphia Inquirer poses this question in today’s Iraq/4,000 U.S. military deaths editorial:

Here’s the real question: Did there have to be any deaths in Iraq?

The Inquirer is very much against the war, as this test reveals.  But given the approaching Pennsylvania primary, wouldn’t it more provocative for the paper to ask that question directly of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?  Their responses would be quite illuminating.

The Washington Post editorial board continues to bludgeon Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over Iraq.

Snippets from today’s editorial:

Barely acknowledging the reduction in violence, the Democratic candidates insist that U.S. troops are, as Ms. Clinton put it, “babysitting a civil war.” In fact, the surge forestalled an incipient civil war, and U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq don’t hesitate to say that if American forces withdrew now, sectarian conflict would probably explode in its full fury, causing bloodshed on a far greater scale than ever before and posing grave threats to U.S. security….

With equal implausibility, the Democratic candidates say they would leave limited U.S. forces behind to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing bases. They assume that an Iraqi government that had just been abandoned by the United States would consent to the continued presence of American forces on its territory. In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets.

Anyone who thinks the Iraq war was fought for cheap gas clearly hasn’t been seen the price at the pump — $4 a gallon and climbing.  If this war was about oil, it certainly has been the worst war for oil ever.  Particularly considering that oil was $25 a barrel when the war started five years ago.
But the charge has been a great source of comedy — quite a long-running joke; as long, in fact, as the war itself.

The site Politicalhumor,about.com has a wonderful round-up of jokes based on the blood-for-oil premise.

This one in particular shows how laughable the concept has been — from the beginning:

“On the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq gas prices in L.A. reached three dollars a gallon in some places. Didn’t we win that war? I mean, I know there were no weapons of mass destruction but apparently there’s no gas there either.” –Jay Leno

What’s a tangible improvement for Iraq that John McCain might want to trumpet during the campaign?  It’s got nothing to do with troop levels or timetables — but everything to do with Iraq’s economy.  McCain should work on ways to improve Iraq’s stock market.

I was struck by how clunky and backward Iraq’s stock exchange is after this item in the February issue of Money:

Question: A friend told me the Iraq Stock Exchange is open for business. How do I buy shares that trade there? Also, how safe and secure is it? - Bryce Frederickson, Lawton, Okla.

Answer: Investing in Iraq takes some effort. Given the risks and costs, though, maybe that’s just as well. The ISX didn’t respond to e-mails, so Answer Guy consulted with Björn Englund, manager of the British Virgin Islands-based Babylon Fund - not open to individuals in the U.S. - which invests in Iraqi securities.

You’ll have to open an account with an Iraqi brokerage (Englund uses Commercial Bank of Iraq). And to do that, you’ll first need to get a copy of your passport notarized, then certified by Iraq’s U.S. embassy. (For more information go to isx-iq.net, where you can try to decipher the exchange’s baffling instructions.)

Once you’ve got an account, well, you’re not in Oklahoma anymore - and not just because you’re investing in a war zone. Only a minority of the 90-odd listed stocks trade even once a week. Commissions and spreads between bid and ask prices are large; company news, says Englund, “is late or absent.”

The fund manager figures the ISX should get a boost once telecom and oil service companies start trading. Still, he warns, you should invest money in Iraq only if you won’t mind losing it.

Helping Iraq improve its stock market — now there’s a way for John McCain to combine strong Iraq and growth-oriented economic policies.

Republican pandering in Florida just ain’t what to used to be.

Take Fidel Castro.  Used to be we could end that by saying ‘please.’  We can’t even do that anymore.

Castro merited but one mention in last night’s Republican debate.

Rudy Giuliani:

“The longest dictatorship, I believe, in the modern world, is the one of Fidel Castro. The presumption is that if you’re fleeing Fidel Castro, given decades and decades of murder, oppression — including, most recently, the way he cracked down on the Cambio Group, Brothers to the Rescue, all of these things — there’s a presumption in the immigration law that if you’re fleeing Fidel Castro, you’re fleeing political persecution.”

In the good old days, an opponent surely would have tried to trump Giuliani by saying, “Fidel, you ignorant slut.”  Alas, last night nothing of the sort.

Israel, too, came in for short rhetorical shrift.

John McCain was the lone voice in asserting this:

“There’s many people who are concerned and have a priority of the — the independence of the state of Israel. They know that I know how to keep Israel independent as well.”

Fine, but where was the thunderous acknowledgment that a strong Israel is in the best interest of a strong America?  And even McCain’s statement was a wee bit confusing — is Israel’s independence at stake?  Security, yes — always.  But independence?  From whom?  Perhaps McCain was confusing independent voters with Likud and Labor voters.

The only real pandering we could spot was courtesy Ron Paul.  Social Security got only tepid discussion from Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.  Ron Paul, however, said he’s still in favor of abolishing Social Security …. but ….”not overnight. As a matter of fact, my — my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly.”

Thank goodness.  A glimpse of Florida reality.  John McCain’s 95-year-old mother should feel socially secure if Ron Paul wins.