Photo courtesy of Palomino

Ever since the first of the year, Democrats, particularly the ones in the United States Senate, have been all over the map in their comments about the war in Iraq. Comments have ranged from 'we need more troops' to 'we need to withdraw immediately', from 'the surge is not working' to 'General Petraeus is a disappointment', even said at a time when the surge had not even been fully implemented.
 
Now that the surge is appearing to produce its designed effects, namely providing a secure environment in which the political reconciliation process can begin from the ground up, Democrats here have moved the goalposts in their rhetoric, seizing on the most lagging of indicators of success, the political process at the national level, as the reason we need to declare defeat and get out of there.  Wednesday morning, George W. Bush gave an impassioned speech to the national convention of the Veterans for Foreign Wars.  For the first time since the war began, the President quantified the capture or kill rate in Iraq as averaging 1,500 per month since January. 

It was a serious speech, a well-received one by the audience at the VFW Convention, and a welcome one for supporters of the war effort, because the President finally articulated information that hadn't been readily available in recent months.  One of the reasons Americans catch ESPN is because they want to catch up on the scores of their team and see how they're doing.  When it comes to the war on terror, many Americans have soured on the war, according to the polls, because they're not getting the updates they need to stay interested in it.  When MSM only reports the losses U.S. forces are taking every day, Americans have felt like their team is on a long losing streak, and they naturally find something else to do with their time.  The President needs to continue to give these kinds of speeches, and go into more detail about what is going on, where we could use improvement, and how Americans can continue to help support our brave men and women.

Which brings us to the Three Stooges of the United States Senate.  Just a short time after Bush's speech, CNN put up on the screen the knee-jerk reactions of Senators Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid.  Here's Hillary's comment.

The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so.

I'm sure glad the French didn't tell us you've got a week to get your new government up and running, or we're out of here, and it's between you and the British on your own.  That might not have worked out so well for the founding of the United States.  And by the way, did that whole Bosnia thing get turned around in three months after U.S. forces were sent by Bill Clinton?

The surge got up to full strength around the end of June.  So according to Hillary Clinton, if the surge didn't completely pacify the country in three months and the government had reconciled, too bad, you had your chance, too late?  How idiotic of a position is that to take?  Can you name any country that is in the middle of a jihadist-induced sectarian war where you can stop the violence and stand up a government in three months? Of course not.  It's silly to use that kind of a time restraint as a way of scuttling the surge, because the surge plan had never proposed that that much progress could happen that fast.  Hillary knows that, but she's still trying to position herself with her lefty base in the primary, while maintaining her illusion as a centrist in the general election next November. Now we go to Ted Kennedy.

...political reconciliation continues to elude Iraq’s leaders.

Yes, Senator, and sobriety apparently continues to elude you, too. Look at the progress of the Democratically-controlled United States Senate this year.  Have they gotten their comprehensive immigration bill passed, the one that they spent much of the first seven months working on? No.  And that's just one piece of legislation. And there were no ied's to avoid on the way to work left by Iranian Quds forces.  You were a secure environment in which to negotiate, and yet seven months in, you couldn't solve one issue.  And yet you expect anyone to take you seriously that the Iraqi leadership should be faulted becuase it didn't go from insurgent war to pacification and functional government in three months?  Now let's hear from Harry Reid, a national political leader so feckless he makes al Maliki look positively Jeffersonian. 

It is time to change direction in Iraq, and congress will again work to do so in the fall.

Ah, the old off tackle running play in the Democratic foreign policy playbook. Change direction in Iraq. I wonder if Reid would be interested in taking a little survey of the locals in Ramadi and Baquba to see if they like the current change of direction in Iraq since the surge got to full strength, or if they'd like to pursue the kind of change of direction Harry Reid has in mind, the kind of change in direction that has occurred recently in Basra after the Brits bailed out?  My guess is probably not.  The phrase 'change of direction in Iraq' probably has polled well in the past for the Democrats, so regardless of what happens, good or bad, Reid will continue to blindly use those words, because that's all he's got to offer.  

As for the rest of his sentence, he's telegraphing that the Democrats will indeed ignore the September report from General Petraeus, the man they voted unanimously to send to Iraq to implement the same surge of which they are now trying to discount its success.  While Reid may be saying this to appease his fringe base, he is running into another trap, because as time goes by, and conditions on the ground in Iraq continue to improve, Republican resolve should continue to strengthen.  Mitch McConnell beat Harry Reid twice already this year on precipitous withdrawal resolutions when the chips were down in Iraq. Now that things are looking better in Iraq, don't expect Reid, Clinton or Kennedy to have their defeatist wishes granted anytime soon.