The Democrats' Dilemma

[red states rule]

This is the Dems biggest dilemma - the US military is winning in Iraq. After investing so much time and energy into telling the nation the war was lost, Iraq was a mess, our troops are being slaughtered; the men and women in uniform are making great progress

Coping with Victory
The Democrats' dilemma.
by James W. Ceaser
11/15/2007 10:11:00 AM

WILL ANY OF the Democratic candidates be able to summon the courage to concede an American victory in Iraq?

No one, of course, can know the ultimate outcome of this long war. But the vaunted "facts on the ground" now at least admit a trend leading to what might reasonably be called victory: a suppression of the insurgency; a steep reduction in the level of domestic, sectarian violence; the existence of a constitutional government not unfriendly to America; a gradual reduction of American force presence with diminishing American casualties; and the assurance for a period of a continued base of operations from which to handle other possible contingencies in the region.

But if this outcome "on the ground" can be called victory--and why should it not be?--there is a huge potential problem looming in our ability to acknowledge it. Generic opinion polls for the presidential election all indicate a much better than even chance that a Democrat will be elected president next year. All of the Democrats now have been running on a platform that, if it does not recognize defeat, certainly does not envisage victory. And moving beyond the candidates, a large part of the Democratic base is heavily invested in defeat, which is seen as condign punishment for a despised president.

Imagine then the dilemma facing a Democratic president with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. It might be too much to think that steps would be taken to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, although a
lack of firm policies and rigor in the endgame could have that effect. More plausibly, if victory is near, could the new president proclaim it and cement its benefits for America's future strategic role? Could the new president suspend his or her disbelief and accord the full measure of praise to a general who had saved the day? Could that president give full honor to the American troops, not just for their service--that's always easy--but for their achievement in winning. Could that president show up on an Army bases and declare, in full-throated pride, well-done and mission accomplished?

for the complete article
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/352hmudx.asp

[red states rule]

November 15, 2007
House Approves Iraq Withdrawal Bill
Rick Moran

Democrats in the House got their way and passed a $50 billion troop funding bill that would force the President to begin withdrawing troops immediately and have all troops out of Iraq by December, 2008:

"We want a plan in Iraq. . . . We want stability in the Middle East," Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said minutes before the vote. "We want to put a plan in place that holds the president accountable."

The bill stands virtually no chance of being enacted. Amid recent reports of progress in Iraq, Bush, who is determined not to let Congress restrict how he conducts the war, has threatened a veto. Democrats know that but say that their efforts to limit the war since taking control of Congress in January are a political -- and, some say, moral -- necessity.

"The American people voted for change," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. "We ought to extricate American men and women . . . from refereeing a civil war." The measure angered the Bush administration.

"This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups," chiefly MoveOn.org and Code Pink, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday.
Until a few days ago, the measure seemed doomed to fail. Liberals didn't think it went far enough and conservative Democrats believed it went too far. But Pelosi and House leader Stenny Hoyer twisted enough arms to make the bill a reality.

The Senate will surely reject the measure so it won't even end up on the President's desk. It's just one more example of liberals standing on the battlements, waving the bloody shirt, telling their rabid supporters on the internet that they tried, by gum, but those war mongering Republicans and bloodthirsty President are against us.

At least it looks good on a press release...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/house_approves_iraq_withdrawal.html