In case you missed it this week, the International Olympic Committee banned Iraq’s Olympic team from next month’s games in Beijing because of the Iraqi government’s “political interference in the Olympic movement.” This “interference” was the naming of a new national Olympic committee that was not recognized by the IOC. According to the Iraqi government, a new committee was necessary because of corruption on the old one along with the fact that four committee members, including its chairman, had been kidnapped and their whereabouts were unknown. Of course, eight years ago, when Saddam Hussein’s brutal son Uday was in charge of the team—raping, torturing, and murdering athletes who fell short of his expectations—the IOC looked the other way.

An editorial from yesterday’s Washington Post describes the hypocrisy of the current situation:

“That [the IOC] has chosen to crack down on the democratically elected government that replaced the Hussein regime—while welcoming to Beijing Zimbabwe, Burma, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan, all of which it must consider innocent of any ‘political interference’ in sport—says a good deal more about the values of the international Olympic bureaucracy than it does about Iraq.”

Negotiations are underway to get the team reinstated. “We still have the hope the Iraqi flag will fly at the opening ceremony in Beijing,” said Jazair al-Sahlani, a spokesman for the disputed Iraqi Olympic committee.

In this weekend’s New York Sun (July 20-22), Lawrence Kudlow argues that, “While the Democrats stand against near all of the president’s wartime policies — and in the process court defeat — the stock market is standing with Mr. Bush, and the chance for victory.”

His argument: “…when the Democratic leadership…launched their latest anti-war offensive, stocks dropped about 150 points. …[A]fter Mr.Bush discussed clear successes in Iraq’s Anbar province, the Dow Jones soared nearly 300 points….” Wall Street’s biggest worry? Another 9/11.

“The stock market, in fact, is voting for the president to stay on offense.”

Kudlow’s partisan point, though nonetheless a true one,is that Bush’s presidency is actually quite successful if measured by actual performance in areas of greatest concern to the nation’s security. He asks, “isn’t it interesting that stock markets have been booming since early 2003, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the president signed his supply-side tax cuts into law?”

In the media, we hear selected bad news and a storm of despairing criticism. “But here are the plain facts: The president’s tax cuts helped reinvigorate investors and businesses. The nation has been safe from attack for nearly six years…. Petraeus’s counter insurgency strategy for Iraq just may be working. In other words, Mr. Bush deserves a lot more credit than most are willing to give him.”

Once again, this points to the president’s failure not of policy, but of rhetoric. If the president would be constantly in the bully pulpit, reminding us of these successes whenever he spoke, he could move public perceptions toward what is arguably reality. Instead, Americans think that the terrorists are winning, that the war in Iraq is a failure and that our best days are behind us, according to Rasmussen. That mood seems more like 1980 than 2007.