Yesterday, Chuck Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, took to the Senate floor and inexplicably denied any success of the surge in Iraq, when even elected members of his own party who have been staunch critics of the President's Iraq policy have come back from inspection tours of Iraq touting the surge's success.  But he did so in a way that slandered the American troops, denying they were involved in anything that could be perceived to be a success regarding the surge.  Here's what Rush called this morning Schumer's macaca moment:

The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: "We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves."

Again, Schumer is saying the only perceived success in the al-Anbar region is specifically due to the failure of our American troops. 

Today, Schumer again rose to speak on the floor of the Senate, and attempted to walk back from what he said yesterday.  You can see the video for yourself.  Here's his three minute prepared statement he read:

First, I know we all have the deepest gratitude and respect for the sacrifice of the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, the troops are doing their job.

Yesterday, the inability of U.S. troops to provide protection caused tribal sheiks to give up on expecting any help from the U.S. military. Today, after receiving the ire of people furious that he slagged on the troops, Schumer feels the need to praise the troops.  It is hollow praise.

I'm concerned, however, that their mission is not worthy of their great sacrifice, especially the President's surge.  The surge, despite earlier reports this week, has failed to meet the objectives set out by the President. And the President can't change that fact by changing the goal. He's now claiming progress in Iraq as evidence that the surge directed at Baghdad is working.

Here, Chuck Schumer is introducing another historical rewrite, one newer than yesterday.  The surge was directed at Baghad. Get used to that meme, because that's now the measure by which Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will try and claim failure.  They will want you to believe that the surge was never meant to do anything except try and pacify Baghdad.  It wasn't.  On the White House's website, a site that's available to Schumer's staffers, dated January 10th of this year, the outline of the surge says the following:

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security

Coalition:

• Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.
• Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.
• Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.
• Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants

So Schumer is lying about the original goal of the surge.  It wasn't just to pacify Baghdad.  It was to fight al Qaeda where they were, which at the time was in Anbar, and to help locals hold those areas.  That's now happened.  Schumer's denial is not based on anything resembling facts or evidence.

While the President has claimed progress in Anbar, it was not the surge that brought the momentary calm to this region, because the surge was focused mainly on Baghdad.

Chuck Schumer thinks that by scripting out hollow support for the brave men and women in the military, he can walk back from the criticism he's received for slandering them.  But he's not walked back from anything.  He just doubled down.  He denies that our military had anything to do with the progress in Anbar, and he does so by using the false reality that the surge was focused mainly on Baghdad.  So he's now lying while using another lie as evidence.  

It's objective, as stated by the President himself, was to create breathing room for the central Iraqi government to make political progress.  Our brave troops have been in Anbar for years and years doing the first rate job they always do, in what is a very difficult environment. Now, however, some elements of the local population, and some of their leaders, have made common cause with the brave men and women of our military. They've cooperated with our troops out of distaste for the brutal methods of al Qaeda. While this is a welcome and helpful development, it's neither the foundation upon which a successful long term strategy can be launched, nor is it a result of the surge, which was targeted mainly in Baghdad.

One of the more nuanced pieces of disingenuousness in a while from Senator Schumer.  The surge is creating breathing space. And yes, our troops have been to Anbar before. But unlike the previous policy, once we cleared an area, there was no mechanism in place to hold the area once our people cleared it.  Now with the surge, that policy has changed, and the locals have taken notice of it.  That's one of the reasons why they're now cooperating.  But Schumer is now contradicting what he said yesterday and earlier today.  Yesterday, our troops' inability. Today, the local sheiks are cooperating with us.  You can't have it both ways. 

Senator Lieberman just said on a segment that will play back on tonight's Hugh Hewitt Show that Chuck Schumer's comments yesterday "were an insult" to the troops. He's right.  Chuck Schumer's denial of the surge yesterday was an insult, and today's attempt to reword it is nothing less.