Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy failing

The Washington Post’s lead story this morning is General Petraeus’ impending recommendation of drawing down one combat brigade from Iraq. The Weisman/Wright written piece begins;

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has indicated a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 U.S. troops from Iraq early next year, with more to follow over the next months based on conditions on the ground, according to a senior U.S. official.

The pullouts would be contingent on the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to sustain what the administration heralds as recent gains in security and to make further gains in stabilizing Iraq. President Bush signaled the possibility of drawdowns after visiting Anbar province earlier this week. After meeting with Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Bush said he was told that “if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats have hit a brickwall in their “redeployment” scheme – the Republican Administration. From the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller;

Rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are criticizing the party’s leaders for allowing the White House to sap momentum from the antiwar movement during the August recess.

“The White House is taking great advantage of the Democrats not pushing back,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus.

“We need bolder steps from the Democrats,” she said. “The people of this country are waiting for some leadership — some bold leadership — from the people that they elected to be the majority of the House and the Senate.”

Um, the people also elected the Republican Administration, Ms Woolsey, because they don’t trust Democrats to protect us and the country. I don’t know what bolder steps you can take – neither does the Democrat Leadership as quoted by the Washington Post;

“Clearly, we don’t have the numbers to override the president’s vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), “nor do we expect to for a long time.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

So while the Democrats try to make the withdraw from Iraq look like their plan and their idea, the President is actually getting ahead of them and doing it without a time schedule from Congress and as the tactical situation permits – like he has planned to do all along. And the Democrats can’t keep their promise to force an immediate withdrawal of troops so they can have photos splashed across the front pages of newspaper of people climbing on the last helicopter out of the Baghdad Embassy in time for the election next Fall.

But the Democrats are cherrypicking which reports they want to believe from WashTimes’ Miller;

Democrats planned to seize upon other war studies presented this week that, in part, highlight failures of the fledgling Iraqi government, including a report on Iraqi security forces yesterday by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe.

The report, however, did not support calls for a speedy troop withdrawal, which Democrats say would extract U.S. forces from a civil war and force the Iraqi government to take charge.

Commission member John Hamre, president of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a House panel that continued U.S. military presence in Iraq safeguards the United States’ many strategic interests in the Middle East.

“Every one of those interests would be seriously diminished if we have to crawl out or run out of Iraq,” he told the Armed Services Committee.

The report concluded that Iraqi security forces would not be ready to police their country alone for at least 18 months. It recommended giving Iraqis a lead role but with substantial support and training by U.S. forces.

Frederick Kagan in The Weekly Standard why the Post is cherrypicking and leaking the Jones report in “What the Jones Report Really Says“;

SOME IN THE MEDIA have been remarkably quick to report on leaked copies of reports about Iraq before the average person has a chance to read them. There is a reason, apart from the usual journalistic desire to be first with a story. The reports often don’t say what the reporters want them to. First leaks about the National Intelligence Estimate and the report of the Government Accountability Office turned out to have painted them darker–and in the case of the NIE much darker–than they actually were. That is even more true of the report of Retired Marine General Jim Jones about the state of the Iraqi Security Forces. 

Roy Blunt, House Minority Leader, farting in a hurricane, asked Democrats to be objective;

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt urged members to take a “broad, objective look” at the reports, noting that the Jones report showed “that real progress is being made in raising a reliable Iraqi army.”

“As Congress continues to take in these reports and evaluate the merit of their recommendations, we owe it to our men and women fighting abroad to take a broad, objective look at the conditions in the field, the progress they continue to make, and the ways we can come together as an institution to help — not hinder — their continued success,” said Mr. Blunt, Missouri Republican.

Here’s the farting in a hurricane part;

Democrats have attempted to discredit Gen. Petraeus ahead of his delivering the administration’s war assessment.

Mrs. Woolsey said Gen. Petraeus’ report would be “packaged spin” from the White House, echoing early criticism of the report from Democratic leaders.

Mr. McGovern also took a pre-emptive swipe at the progress reports.

“What the president has to say doesn’t carry much water here,” Mr. McGovern said. “I don’t trust the president on this war any more. I know those are strong words. I just don’t [trust him].”

Yeah, well, when you talk like that, Congressman, we don’t trust your party with the keys to the White House. The Post quotes McGovern as threatening a revolt from the hairy-armpit crowd;

The new effort at compromise by the Democratic leadership could alienate liberals. “You may end up with a revolt from my wing of the party if we do something that doesn’t pass the smell test and, quite frankly, infuriates our constituents,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a firm opponent of the war.

Sorry, but your constituents don’t have a say in a representative Republic – they voted for you they didn’t vote for the other 334 representives. They only get a voice once every two years – pity they continue to waste that vote on you, Mr. McGovern.

The Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades reminds us that Petreus had not one nay vote for his confirmation. Including Schumer.

COBDanny (who, by the way has first hand experience with General Petraeus’ briefings) says this won’t sit well with the peace-at-any-cost Left.

Robin at Chickenhawk Express trolls the depths of Democrat.com and comes back with trophy gems like this;

General BETRAYOUS told the conservanazi republikan caucus what he was going to report BEFORE HE EVEN WENT TO IRAQ. GEN. BETRAYOUS IS A CONSERVANAZI STOOGE THAT WANTS TO KEEP THE conservanazis IN POWER.

Gateway Pundit explains their derangement – apparently 42% of Democrats think President Bush had something to do with the 9-11 plot.

The NY Sun wants Petraeus to run for President. (h/t Micheal Goldfarb)

Sweetness and Light catches Schumer’s edits to his anti-troops statement earlier in the week. Shades of Orwell’s Winston Smith.

Wordsmith at Flopping Aces tempts the Paulians in with red meat.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Foreign Policy, Politics, Support the troops, Terror War