Democrat wistful dreams vs. reality

In an interview yesterday, General David Petraeus sketched the reality on the ground for the news media, as reported in the Wall Street Journal;

Gen. David Petraeus, in an interview yesterday, cautioned that it was too soon to conclude that al Qaeda in Iraq, which has focused its attacks on Shiite Muslim targets, has been defeated. But he said the group had been weakened by a U.S. and Iraqi campaign to kill or detain its leaders and cut off its supplies of weapons and ammunition.

“At some point there has to be a sign to the people that security is enabling the beginnings of a better life, which obviously garners their support for the security effort. I do think there has been a pretty substantial recognition among Sunni Arabs, in particular, that al Qaeda Iraq is not for them.”
Another factor, he said, has been unexpected, “robust” measures by Syria to reduce the number of foreign militants crossing into Iraq to carry out suicide attacks. Gen. Petraeus estimated that the number of foreign fighters coming into Iraq through Syria has fallen by at least one-third.

“Al Qaeda has been dealt substantial blows,” Gen. Petraeus said. “It certainly still remains dangerous…but it is a threat that has been diminished.”

Despite these real and significant gains the Democrats are mired in their political morass (Wall Street Journal);

Last week, the House agreed to provide $50 billion for the war, but also insisted Mr. Bush embrace the goal of ending combat operations in Iraq by the end of next year. On a 231-192 vote, Republicans failed to strip out these conditions, but Senate Republicans blocked the bill Friday.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) sought to shift the blame to Senate Republicans. But hours after the Senate votes last week, influential House Democrats with large military bases in their states were already meeting privately with Tina Jonas, the Pentagon’s comptroller, to assess the problems ahead.

“We’re going to have to do something in December to reconcile this, or else we have a real crisis,” a House Democrat said.

The goal is to open a window to press for a change in policy, even if it means risking being criticized for capitulating later. To buy time, Mr. Murtha joined Mr. Obey at a Capitol news conference in which they appealed again for the administration to reach some compromise with Democrats. The weeks before Christmas will be decisive, and the important numbers to watch are the operations accounts for the Army and Marines, which bear the brunt of the fighting in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

So, to summarize, the Democrats, who promised bipartisanship before the November election last year, are holding up funding of combat operations in a war zone because they refuse to compromise. But what worries Democrats worse? (Washington Post);

The Defense Department warned yesterday that as many as 200,000 contractors and civilian employees will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress acts on President Bush’s $196 billion war request, but senior Democrats said no war funds will be approved until Bush accepts a shift in his Iraq policy.

Not the troops who face the emboldened enemies of our country, but the civilian employees in their home districts. From the aforementioned WSJ story;

But hours after the Senate votes last week, influential House Democrats with large military bases in their states were already meeting privately with Tina Jonas, the Pentagon’s comptroller, to assess the problems ahead.

And, oh, yeah, Murtha wants a Job Corps program for terrorists;

Mr. Murtha’s trip to Iraq includes meetings with U.S. commanders about a strategy to win over and provide future employment opportunities for Iraqi detainees held by the U.S.

And even though he admits violence is down, Murtha won’t admit it’ll last very long – yet he wants our troops pulled out;

He said there is “no question” the level of violence has fallen in Iraq but argues that the administration should do more to take advantage of “this lull” to improve the lot of Iraqi civilians and accelerate the departure of U.S. combat troops.

Murtha doesn’t even understand the concept of military operations and their relationship to the political realities (S.A.Miller, Washington Times);

“To change the political law, it doesn’t seem to me you need the military stability,” Mr. Murtha told reporters on Capitol Hill.

So, I guess Murtha would’ve expected a new allied-installed German or Japanese government in 1944. Doofus. 

There’s your “combat veteran”, Democrats. This is the guy you’re holding up as the voice of reason in Congress. Robin from Chickenhawk Express is still sifting through mounds of research on Murtha and the money that connects him to the Haditha incident. You can read her latest posts here and here.

Category: John Murtha, Politics, Terror War