GM said that $9.1 billion of the losses were from one-time charges and writedowns . . . still leaving them more than $6 billion in the red.

To put GM’s losses in perspective, ExxonMobile announced yesterday that its 2nd Qtr profit earnings were $11.68 billion.

Newsweek said, “The end of America’s love affair with SUVs hit General Motors hard,” and that’s undoubtedly true. But at what point do we start pointing the finger at the obvious that the mainstream news report are slower to mention: Unions. The problem with the U.S. auto industry in general is too many years of overpaid workers leading to vehicles that were too overpriced. Or, as someone put it a little more bluntly earlier today, “U.S. auto has become a middle-class welfare system.” Sometimes the truth hurts.

The significant overhead, much of it related to salaries, has tanked the auto industry. As Stephen Frank points out: Unions killed the steel industry. They’re on the verge of killing the auto industry. And Hollywood is staggering under the blow brought on by unions. When will we learn our lesson?

To that end, the pending collapse of GM may be a good thing for America. Undoubtedly, it will significantly compound our already ailing economy, but in the long run, we may learn our lesson this time around. Lessons hard learned tend to stick with us the best, and this lesson will hurt as bad as the doses of hickory tea ol’ Dad used to hand out by the time all is said and done.

Union supporters will argue that at the same time GM closed plants producing 150,000 trucks per year, Volkswagen opened a plant producing 150,000 cars per year. So in theory, GM wouldn’t be in financial distress if it’s focus was more on compact and midsize cars and less on gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. But within that argument is the key to what makes it void. VW bypassed Michigan and chose a site near Chattanooga, Tennessee, for its new plant. Why? the Detroit Free Press has its thumb on the pulse of the matter:

A clear driver of the southern strategy by foreign automakers has been to avoid union workforces, which could raise costs by forcing higher wages or hiring more workers. The UAW has only once successfully organized a foreign auto plant that it had not been invited into — VW’s first U.S. manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania, which closed in 1988.

After the McCain camp harshly criticized Obama’s statements as “shameful,” Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the Obama campaign does not think McCain is playing the race card and that Obama’s statements weren’t about race.

“There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene,” Gibbs said. “It’s not about race.”

Really? “He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills”? What, then, if not race?

This is not the first time that Obama has stated that McCain will try to use his race and name against him. But McCain has yet to draw any inference to Obama’s race or his name. As Race 4 2008’s Alex Knepper says about Obama: “rly wants to be attacked for his race, and he’s sick of waiting for it to happen, dammit.”

What we may see happening is a hint of desperation from the Obama camp, as polls still don’t show what Democratic pundits have predicted and prematurely named a “McCrumble.” That is to say, that Obama will soon begin to leave McCain behind in the dust. The hyped world tour last week netted Obama only the slightest of bounces in the polls, and that bounce appears to have ended less than a week later. After the Gallup daily tracking poll pushed the lead to 9 points for Obama by Sunday, it has already narrowed the gap to 1 point again. And national poll averages have McCain polling over 44% for the first time since the first week of June. Obama, on the other hand, hasn’t polled over 47% the last 2 weeks.

If there’s anything we can gather from the poll data, it is that this race is increasingly looking like a battle to the wire. Obama was not able to soar away from McCain on the heels of his primary momentum, and he was not able to do it with his trip abroad. He’ll have just one more substantial opportunity to do so, at the Democratic convention in Denver next month.

The Democrats had already targeted Stevens, who had been the subject of a long-running federal investigation linked to renovations at his Alaska home, as a possible seat pickup this fall, as they aim for the coveted “super majority” in the U.S. Senate. If not this year, the Democrats hope to reach 60 seats in the Senate by the 2010 midterms. An Obama presidency, coupled with a super majority in the Senate, would make the Democrats an almost unstoppable force in Washington for the next 4 years, as the GOP would be powerless to stand in the way of the left’s agenda.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican Senator in history, was already embroiled in a tough re-election campaign against Mark Begich. The Begichs may not be Alaska’s version of the Kennedys, but they are a popular family nonetheless (Mark Begich enjoys high favorability as the mayor of Anchorage. His father, Nick Begich, was a U.S. Representative from Alaska at the time of his death in a 1972 plane crash. That had already moved what is perhaps the safest GOP state in the union to the toss-up column. In fact, most polls have found Begich narrowly leading the race. A Rasmussen poll released last week found Begich 8 points ahead of Stevens with only 4% undecided.

Rules of the Senate will require Stevens to give up his leadership positions, but do not prohibit him from seeking re-election.

Stevens should abandon his plans for re-election. For one, because it’s the right thing to do. An elected official cannot properly govern when under the cloud of suspicion of criminal wrong-doing. And, for another, because it’s best for his party. Several Republicans have filed paperwork to oppose Stevens in the state’s Republican primary, and a fresh face will give the GOP an opportunity to hold on to Stevens’ seat, despite Begich having a head start.

His office denied such rumors, saying the meeting was merely “an informal conversation . . . about issues,” but that did little to squelch the rumors. Even respected conservative columnist Robert Novak penned in a Washington Post piece that Powell was on the verge of bolting from the GOP: “Looming on the horizon are two big possible Obamacons, Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel,” Novak wrote. “Powell probably will enter Obama’s camp at a time of his own choosing,” he added.

An LA Times editor blogged that Powell had given indications that he would make a public endorsement, and characterized him as “the potential endorser whose backing would cause quite a stir.”

Yesterday, Steve Forbes opined that Powell might be “an eye-popping choice” as Obama’s running mate.

But, wait. Isn’t Powell on McCain’s veepstakes short list? It’s true, supposedly. A source close to the McCain camp told reporters late last week that 6 names were on McCain’s VP list: Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Tom Ridge . . . and Colin Powell and Joe Lieberman. So how can Powell be on McCain’s short list if he’s considering endorsing Obama, or (if some pundits are to be believed) is even being considered in Obama’s own veepstakes?

One possibility is that the “leak” by the McCain advisor is the stuff of smoke and mirrors. After all, from everything that we know about this closely-guarded secret of who the bottom name will be on the GOP ticket, McCain’s decision is already made or has been narrowed to a couple of either/or choices. Lending credibility to this possibility is the inclusion of Sen. Lieberman’s name. A McCain/Lieberman ticket probably can’t be totally ruled out, but it seems highly unlikely. McCain would benefit among independents with Lieberman as his veep selection, but the risk of a crippling backfire is quite high: Such a choice could cause already bitter conservatives to abandon the ticket in droves.

Regardless, it doesn’t seem very likely that Powell is considering an endorsement of Obama, despite the reasoning (that Powell, who did not support the Iraq war despite helping the Bush administration make the case for it, is bitter with the Bush administration, the war in Iraq [of which McCain is a strong supporter] and the GOP in general. Powell also openly criticized the Bush administration on a number of issues after leaving his State Department post at the end of Bush’s first term). Powell was opposed to the Gulf War in 1991, disagreeing with many members of George H.W. Bush’s cabinet on the issue. He didn’t defect from the Republican Party then, obviously, and has remained a friend and political ally of McCain.

But for the most damning reason why Powell isn’t likely to defect? As is often the case, follow the money. Campaign finance records show that Powell donated $2,300 to McCain’s campaign in August 2007, the maximum allowed by an individual. He has not donated to Obama’s campaign. Obviously, the 10 months between his donation and his June meeting with Obama brought some changes; Obama had not emerged as the Democratic front-runner by August ‘07. But little has changed with McCain, so there’s no reason to think that Powell is going to bolt for the Democratic Party.

It’s entirely plausible that Powell will sit this election out . . . that he will not offer a public endorsement of either candidate. But I would be a bit surprised if he doesn’t endorse McCain after the GOP convention and as the race nears an end.

As for those rumors that Powell will wind up on the McCain ticket? It seems highly unlikely. For one, there is the McCain comment that he may be a single term president, and speculation within the party is high that whomever the veep selection this fall, that person will be the likely GOP candidate in 2012, regardless of the outcome in November. Powell is the same age as McCain (71) and running for the Oval Office in 2012 as a 75-year-old presidential candidate seems doubtful, at best.

Also not to be missed is the story’s hint at a “resemblence to the third-party Swift Board campaign that denigrated Kerry’s service in Vietnam.” The line was subtly placed deep in the story, but screams for attention, since Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was a 527 organization, and 527s have received so much scrutiny in this campaign from the media and the Obama campaign. It seems quite a leap to compare the compare ad with the campaign mounted by SBVT in 2004.

But I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the lead-in, or teaser, to the story: Directly beneath the headline, “McCain takes aim at Obama’s character,” is the text, “The Democrat’s Achilles’ heel is a sense that the new arrival on the national stage isn’t American enough.” The implication seems to be that McCain is playing on the illogical fears harbored (and, in some cases, promoted) by some conservatives that Obama is unpatriotic, a Muslim, or any of a number of other rumors that have emerged thus far in the election cycle.

Obviously, McCain has done nothing of the sort, and the lead-in is misleading. Politico does attempt to make the argument, though it offers little in way of support, that McCain’s attack will be benefited by those illogical fears, and even — incredulously — attempts to bring race into the equation, saying, “It’s also an attack that taps into another major source of unease — Obama’s race — and is especially likely to pay dividends with a relative newcomer to the national stage such as Obama, whose public image is not yet as clearly defined as McCain’s.”

Talk about reading a lot into a 30-second ad. How about taking the ad at face value: As an attack on a botch by the Obama campaign in Germany. Simple as that. Then if we want to speculate, we can speculate on a point truly worth speculating: Whether McCain intended the ad as an attack on Obama’s patriotism. I don’t think it was an attack on Obama’s patriotism; it was simply an opportunity to take a swipe at his opponent. And, let’s face it, the Germany debacle was pretty big, as political gaffes go. Nevertheless, if one assumes that McCain did intend an attack on Obama’s patriotism, then we can also assume that the ad was an attack on his character rather than his platform. All of that is legitimate speculation. But to speculate that McCain is taking a “tempting” approach to playing on fear because 55% of Americans (according to a recent poll) find Obama as a riskier choice for president? That’s a pretty far slip down the slope of illogical speculation by a normally thoughtful political news source.

It should be noted that Politico’s GOP blogger, Jonathan Martin, was co-author of the story (along with his Democrat counterpart Ben Smith). Of course, Martin isn’t necessarily a McCain-supportive blogger. Not that he is supposed to be; Politico bills its blogs as political bloggings with a focus on the respective parties. Focusing on either party and serving as a homer for either party hardly go hand-in-hand. But the Martin blog does have a decidedly less pro-McCain feel than the Smith blog has a pro-Obama feel. Of course, that’s just more speuclation.

Nobody said speculation couldn’t be fun, however illogical it may be.

When likely GOP voters alone were considered, Huckabee’s favorability was even higher, at 68% . . . but trailed Romney’s 69%. And, Lieberman continued to fare well, at 58%.

As for the markets this week, Rasmussen Markets say 36.5% Romney and 34.9% Pawlenty, while InTrade says Pawlenty 34.8% and Romney 34%. Either way, it looks like those 2 are clearly the frontrunners in the eyes of the people . . . and, by all indications, in the eyes of McCain as well.

There had been some whispering over the weekend that today might be the day McCain unveiled his veep selection. Marc Ambinder reported a rumor Friday that McCain would be announcing his selection today, while TNR reported Saturday that Pawlenty was clearing his schedule of events for today, furthering speculation that McCain might be on the verge of an announcement.

Regardless, it would seem that McCain has his mind made up in what is one of the best-kept secrets in modern politics. A close advisor told the Washington Post on Thursday that McCain was weighing whether to announce his selection before the start of the Olympic games in Beijing next month, and was “in a position to make [the decision] on short notice if he wanted to.”

The reason for Barack Obama’s cancelled visit with wounded U.S. troops at a Landstuhl, Germany, military hospital on Thursday varies from source to source, depending on party allegiance.

The initial reason for cancelling the visit, which was to have been a part of Obama’s sweeping European trip that ended Friday, was that it would be “inappropriate,” Obama’s camp said.

John McCain’s campaign wasted little time seizing the opportunity to question Obama’s decision. Lt. Col. Joe Reypya, a spokesman for the McCain camp, said that “Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers added, “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”

What the McCain camp wasn’t doing publicly was speculating on why Obama canceled his visit. They left the dirty work to bloggers and the news media, who were all to happy to say what the McCain camp wouldn’t. “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit,” MSNBC quoted a military spokesperson at Landstuhl as saying. “Apparently, it’s more important for him to have the media take pictures of him at the Ritz Carlton gym lifting weights, than to take a moment leave the press behind and talk to the people who defend this country,” declared one of several blogs commenting on the fact.

Soon, whispers in Democratic circles was that the Pentagon had declared the military hospital off-limits to the Obama campaign. The liberal Talking Points Memo blog quoted Pentagon spokesman as saying that, “because of longstanding Department of Defense regulations, Pentagon officials told Obama aides that he couldn’t visit the base with campaign staff.”

Meanwhile, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed to CNN that the Pentagon had concerns about Obama visiting the wounded troops as a presidential candidate rather than as a U.S. Senator. One can read between the lines of Whitman’s reasoning and reach their own conclusions, but the most plausible theory would be that military officials wouldn’t want the media entourage that would inevitably follow a presidential candidate to be traipsing through a hospital of wounded veterans.

“Generally speaking, the military tries very hard not to get involved in political campaigns,” Whitman said said. “Conducting a campaign speech for example on a military installation is not something that would be appropriate to do.” But, he added, “the Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator that he could not visit Landstuhl.”

So couldn’t Obama have left the press outside and visited as a Senate candidate, alone? No, according to Talking Points Memo, which said, “This left Obama with little choice but to cancel the trip, since the plan to visit with campaign aides had been in the works for weeks.” And, it added, “It’s unclear how Obama could have made the visit at all, given the Pentagon’s directives. No Senate staff was on the trip . . .” But no “Senate staff” is required to accompany a Senator on such visits. Whitman said, “Quite frankly, I expected them to have [Obama] visit.” Indeed, Obama visited Walter Reed upon returning stateside Saturday.

By Saturday, the McCain campaign had unveiled a 30-second ad that had been rushed into production, hammering Obama on the issue. Says the ad, “Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hadn’t been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops. And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.”

The Obama camp is attempting to portray the situation as one where Obama refused to visit the hospital because he didn’t want to politicize the troops’ injuries, but that McCain did just that with his ad. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Saturday, “This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid, and it’s not worthy of Senator McCain or the ‘civil’ campaign he claimed he would run.” The Obama campaign accused McCain of being “an honorable man running an increasingly dishonorable campaign.”

Central to the debate now is whether Obama ever intended the press to accompany him to Landstuhl. Insinuations in some Democratic circles is that the visit was never a part of the public itinerary, available to the press, which would hint that the press was never intended to be part of the visit. But a press briefing Friday clearly indicates that the media was aware of the plans to visit. An Obama spokesman even said the visit had been part of the schedule “for some time.” But, he added, the press “would have stayed on the plane.”

The truth of the matter will be forever debated. The Obama campaign will continue to insist that the press were not to have been part of the visit to start with, and that the visit was canceled to avoid the appearance of politicizing the troops’ injuries. To be sure, the McCain ad is a risky move on his part, because the risk is run of having it backfire if independent voters view it as the Obama campaign insists it is: An attempt by McCain to use the troops’ injuries for his own political gain. However, the claims that are being made by McCain are not without merit. Certainly, Obama could have visited the hospital; that much is crystal clear. The argument that the visit was canceled after the concerns of it being political were raised seems to be nonsense; campaign advisors are paid to analyze and re-analyze every aspect of a campaign, and would certainly have realized without the Pentagon telling them so that a stop by a presidential candidate on a campaign trip would have been viewed as a campaign stop. Thereafter, everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why the Obama campaign opted out of the visit.

Despite Obama’s overseas jaunt and the accompanying media blitz (the effects of which will not be reflected in the polls for several days yet), the trend has reversed itself. To be sure, the potential for a blowout victory is still there. But conservatives are smiling about the latest poll releases . . . and emboldened.

“McCain should win big on November 4th,” predicts perception50 in comment at Politico.

“Wow, what a great day for J-Mac. These polls . . . are simply amazing news,” crows Joshua Lawson in Race 4 ‘08 comments. Fellow Race 4 ‘08 reader Brett Passmore is a little bolder: “The Obam-a-bust is coming.”

The news they’re responding to are the latest Quinnipiac-Washington Post-Wall Street Journal polls of select battleground states, released today.

In Colorado, the poll finds McCain up 2 points (46%-44%). That’s a 7-point swing from a month ago, when Obama was up 5. In Michigan, McCain closes the gap from 6 points to 4 (46%-42%), and in Minnesota, the gap is significantly closer, from 17 points in June to just 2 points now (46%-44%).

These polls come on the heels of a jaw-dropping Rasmussen poll in Ohio, which found McCain ahead of Obama by 10 points (52%-42%) in polling that ended Monday. Rasmussen has been more favorable towards McCain in Ohio than other polls, but the most recent Rasmussen release (June 17) had found McCain up just 1%.

The news isn’t all good, of course. The latest Rasmussen poll in Colorado, released Monday, has McCain trailing by 3 points (the June Rasmussen poll in Colorado had Obama up 2 points). And, the latest Rasmussen poll in Florida, a do-or-die state for McCain, finds Obama ahead by 2 points (49%-47%), a 10-point swing from last month. In fact, while the RCP poll average in Florida shows the state tied, its chart is swayed by a GOP-financed Strategic Vision poll, which found McCain ahead by 8 points and appears to be the outlier among Sunshine State polls.

And if McCainiacs are smiling about polls, they’re probably also smiling about — get this — an editorial from the mainstream media criticizing Obama. The USA Today asks this morning, “Why can’t Obama admit the obvious? The surge [in Iraq] worked.”

VEEPSTAKES NOTE: Despite Pawlenty being the flavor of the day in the veep guessing game (don’t worry; tomorrow it’ll be someone new), Michigan Democrats have apparently bought into the speculation that McCain has settled on Mitt Romney, unleashing an attack ad on Romney.

Marc Ambinder seems sold on the probability, opining that McCain will not announce his veep selection this week because . . . Mitt Romney is out of the country.

But as quickly as rumors began flaring in GOP circles this week that Romney was to be unveiled as the long-awaited selection this week, anti-speculation began. The old man from Arizona is a bit more saavy than his critics give him credit for, the anti-speculators said; his campaign is releasing juicy tidbits of nothingness to the press in order to take some of the attention off the lust of the Obama global jaunt.

Politico’s Mike Allen, typically reliable, quoted campaign insiders earlier this month as saying that McCain planned to hold off on an announcement until after Obama had released the name of his running-mate. If that’s true — and Ambinder is right — the buzz about the incoincidental press nuggets could be correct.

But even if it is, Romney remains the odds-on favorite to be McCain’s running mate . . . to the delight or chagrin of conservatives, depending on who they are. Social conservatives tend to despise Romney’s past stances on abortion and gay marriage, while fiscal conservatives like his strong business track record. Fear of Romney’s Mormon affiliation seems to transcend sectors of conservatism. And it all adds up to an oft-asked question throughout the blogosphere: Would Romney on the ticket be an aid or hindrance to the McCain campaign?

There’s no doubt that Romney has his baggage, and the LDS religious ties are just the start. The media would have his track record for dinner; his long-term flip-flops make Obama’s pale in comparison. But, there isn’t a VP candidate (besides, perhaps, Sarah Palin) who doesn’t come with baggage. And Romney also brings positives for the table. For one, McCain insiders estimate that Romney would be a fundraising boost, perhaps able to raise as much as $50 million in 60 days (although the skeptics will point out that, if he has such fundraising prowess, why was he forced to use so much of his own cash during the primary campaign?). And, that LDS negative actually becomes a positive in the West, where Obama is hoping to carve serious inroads this election cycle. States like Nevada and Colorado could hinge on the 50,000 or so potential Mormon votes available in each state.

As for the concern that Romney on the ticket would endanger the usually-reliable vote of the evangelicals, there is recent polling data to suggest that McCain is already suffering in this regard. Pew Forum data suggests that McCain has the support of just 61% of white evangelicals as of June, compared to the 69% that Bush had in June 2004. That’s obviously a huge chunk of the bloc, and one that could help tilt the race in Obama’s favor. But then there’s the flip-side of that data: Obama has in his hip pocket the support of just 25% of white evangelicals. At the same time in ‘04, Kerry had the support of 26% of that voting bloc.

So it isn’t as if the evangelicals are rushing to support Obama. No, they’re still fuming that the GOP didn’t nominate someone more accepting of their agenda. But, they’ll likely come around. Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson had said that he could not vote for McCain in good conscience; now he hints at a forthcoming endorsement of McCain. Like Dobson, evangelicals will come around for McCain . . . and they’ll probably come around whether or not Romney is on the ballot.

Besides, evangelical votes are most important in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky . . . the Southeast. Most of those states aren’t going to be in jeopardy regardless of who is on the ticket. An exception might be Georgia, but it’s a long shot. Missouri and Virginia are likely to be close enough that a handful of evangelicals voting one way or the other could tip those races, but that’s nothing but pure speculation at this point. And, not to be forgotten is the fact that Romney, his family ties there withstanding, delivered an economics message to Michigan voters during the campaign that resonated. And if Romney could tip Michigan in McCain’s favor, that alone might be reason enough to put him on the ballot.

Above, firefighters stand at attention Sunday as Patriot Guard motorcycle riders pass as part of an escort for a hearse carrying the body of Cpl. Jason D. Hovater, who was killed in Afghanistan.

If you listen to the Democrats who constantly criticize the war in Iraq, you’d think we are doing our service men and women a great disservice to force them to fight a war they don’t want to fight. We consistently hear left-minded types argue against the war in Iraq by saying we need to bring our troops out of harm’s way immediately.

Consider liberal Democratic activist Bob Fertik — co-founder of Democrats.Com — who turns against members of his own party if they supported the war in Iraq. In a plea on his website, Fertik says of Tennessee Congressman Lincoln Davis, a Democrat:

On 5/10/07, Rep. Lincoln Davis betrayed the voters and troops of Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District by voting to continue George Bush’s disastrous Iraq War forever. Democrats.com is looking for an “aggressive progressive” Democrat who will challenge Davis in a Democratic primary in 2008.

Betrayed the troops? By voting to continue the war in Iraq? Has Fertik, or any of his fellow activists on the left, considered what the troops want?

Without a doubt, there are plenty of soldiers who want to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a few who say we shouldn’t have been there to start with. But the overwhelming majority support the war effort, and the justification for it.

I’ve interviewed many soldiers returning from Iraq, and to a man, they’ve all said the same thing when I’ve asked them if they felt their duty was worth it: “Yes.”

Consider Bear Myers, a Marine who was recently honorably discharged after his Humvee was hit by an IED in Iraq, leaving him with only partial use of his left arm. Myers was engaged in his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq when the incident occurred. His friend, Marine Cpl. Rusty Washam, was killed in Iraq 2 years ago when his own Humvee was struck by an IED. I asked Myers whether he’d return to Iraq if he could, expecting him to be bitter. His answer? Without a doubt, yes. He didn’t beat around the bush about the original justification for the war; Marines shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first place, he said. But now that they’re there? “If we leave now, all our efforts have been in vain,” he said. “The politicians and the media don’t get it when they talk about bringing the troops home. The troops don’t want to come home until the job is finished.”

If anyone had reason to be bitter, it would be Cpl. Washam’s mother. Beverly Washam’s family has a long-standing military tradition. Her husband was a career military man, and her brother-in-law died in Vietnam. All 3 of her sons served, or are serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2005, she and her family was jolted by news that her middle son, Sgt. Dustin Washam, had been wounded in Iraq. Fortunately, the injury wasn’t life-threatening, and Sgt. Washam returned to duty. But only a few months later, on Valentine’s Day 2006, her youngest son, Cpl. Washam, and fellow Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Barnes, died when their Humvee was struck by a roadside attack. She and her husband received the news during a Valentine’s dinner.

As she and her family mourned, it was important to Beverly Washam that her son’s friends and neighbors know that he was proud of the work he did, and that he had died in defense of his country.

“He was very proud of what he was doing,” she said. “He felt like he was making a difference in those people’s lives. It was a job to him, just like anybody, except that his was a little more important.” Cpl. Washam was just weeks away from the end of his 2nd tour of duty, but planned to volunteer for a 3rd tour. “We talked about it (three days before his death),” she said. “He was going to volunteer to go back to Iraq one more time. He just felt like he was helping those people and he was proud of what he was doing.”

Consider Sgt. Tom Stephens, a school teacher who left his civilian job for a tour of duty in Iraq as a member of the National Guard.

“There are good things going on over there,” Stephens says. “Every day, groups go out with authorities to establish government and establish a better way of life. But the media doesn’t portray these things. For the most part, people know that the media sensationalizes things, but they don’t know to what degree it is and what the other end of the stick is. They don’t see the good things. We’ve seen what’s happening. When you see the politicians getting up on TV and saying the Iraqi troops aren’t ready and blah, blah, blah, we’re seeing the reality.”

“They never show the hope,” says Sgt. Tom Tinin, also a school teacher who did a tour of duty with the Guard. “When you go out there on those humanitarian missions and you see those kids, you get the feeling that, hey, there’s hope.”

Sgt. George Harless agrees: “The media portrays mostly the bad stuff,” he said. “I think that’s really disappointing. I talked to a Kurdish guy who told me that Saddam forbade them to speak in their native tongue. And if his soldiers caught them speaking their language, they’d just shoot them in the head. These guys were glad that we were there.”

Sgt. Mike Brown says the war was justified. “They talk about weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “I saw pictures where Saddam had gassed innocent women and children. As far as I was concerned, he had to go just for that. The war was worth it.”

“It’s a shame that American GIs are dying over there, but I think back to what I learned in school and about what happened when America was forming,” Stephens added. “How many people came from Europe and fought on American soil and died so that we could have what we have today? Therefore, maybe this is our turn to help some other country reach a level of prosperity and to have a better way of life. I don’t think American GIs are dying in vain.”

Sunday, a scene that has become all too familiar in small towns across America played itself out once again in my hometown: Hundreds turning out for a solemn affair as the body of another fallen soldier was escorted home. This time, it was Cpl. Jason D. Hovater, who was among 9 soldiers killed by Taliban militants last week in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces there since 2003. Among the many who turned out were soldiers who had themselves served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They could’ve used the event as a platform to criticize the war efforts, but they didn’t. Why? Because they understand that ending the wars prematurely will mean that the lives of their fallen comrades were sacrificed in vain.

One has to wonder: As the troops insist that continued fighting is justified, does the left get it?

Firefighters hang a large American flag high above U.S. Hwy. 27 in northern Tennessee as part of a tribute arch under which the body of Cpl. Jason D. Hovater passed on its final journey home.