The New York Times reports today: “Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. Its two largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been for years.”

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (shown above expressing her true self), and the other fanatical left-wingers looking for any opportunity to attack George Bush, used to be all about the “benchmarks” that U.S. forces had not met in Iraq. Butr Abe Greenwald of Commentary magazine reports on Pajamas Media: “If the benchmarks were all-important to Democrats in the fall of 2007, they have become meaningless to them in 2008. When is the last time you’ve heard a benchmark reckoning from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? The reason for the deafening silence on this matter is simple. The military and political progress in Iraq has proved so monumental that the majority of the benchmarks have now been met.”

Even Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a hardened Bush foe, agrees: “Clearly, the surge has helped to dampen the internal conflict. Clearly, the Iraqi Army is performing better. Clearly, Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, by cracking down on rogue Shiite groups from his own community, has established himself as more of a national leader. Clearly, the Sunnis have decided to take part in the coming parliamentary elections. Clearly, Kurdistan continues to operate as an island of decency and free markets. Clearly, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been hurt. Clearly, some Arab countries are coming to terms with the changes there by reopening embassies in Baghdad.”

Nobody can dispute the revolting fact that there are Americans who, full of hatred for George Bush, have been rooting against American solidiers in Iraq, hopeing for them to fail so as to have an excuse to heap more scorn on the embattled president — something that couldn’t be further from the “liberal” ideals these critics supposedly favor.

But the fact remains: You can’t get rich betting against the U.S.A., and especially not agains its armed forces.