April 20, Senate Leader Harry Reid announced that "This war is lost."
And on June 3, Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the debate audience at Saint Anselm College, New Hampshire: "The Iraq War is Bush's war."
Those views were amplified and supported by every negative story coming out of Iraq the mainstream "news" media could find.
And now, one month before General Petraeus issues his report on the surge, the news and political dynamic is shifting. And the shift is being engineered by the very same "news" media that said we can't win just months before.
The first hint of this change was the astounding July 30th op-ed by Democrats O'Hanlon and Pollack in the New York Times. Their theme, "A War We Just Might Win" was echoed by other Democrat opponents of the war. Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison observed the change himself in once violent Ramadi. Democrat Whip, Senator Dick Durbin, who two years ago compared the actions of our troops in Guantanamo to Nazis, also found military progress in Iraq on a trip a week ago.
At the same time, the drumbeat from the liberal pundit class has been pounding out the message that we can't leave immediately from Iraq, no matter who the President is. And that same message is now being worked into Democrat presidential candidate's campaign positions.
Defeatists can put the following in their pipe and smoke it!
Hope and Despair in Divided IraqDemocrats Doing Triple Flip Flop
By Ullrich Fichtner in Iraq
August 10, 2007
When describing Iraq, the word "peace" is seldom used. Truth be told, the Americans have restored order to many parts of the county.
The Iraq war came within a hair of returning to Ramadi in early July. The attackers had already gathered four kilometers (about 2.5 miles) south of the city, on the banks of the Nasr canal. Between 40 and 50 men dressed in light uniforms were armed like soldiers and prepared to commit a series of suicide bombings. They had already strapped explosive vests to their bodies and loaded thousands of kilograms of explosives, missiles and grenades onto two old Mercedes trucks. But their plan was foiled when Iraqis intent on preserving peace in Ramadi betrayed them to the Americans.
Since June, Ramadi residents have only known the war from televison. Indeed, US military officials at the Baghdad headquarters of Operation Iraqi Freedom often have trouble believing their eyes when they read the reports coming in from their units in Ramadi these days. Exploded car bombs: zero. Detonated roadside bombs: zero. Rocket fire: zero. Grenade fire: zero. Shots from rifles and pistols: zero. Weapons caches discovered: dozens. Terrorists arrested: many.
An Irritating Contraction
Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.
Hillary Clinton, who was for sending more troops to Iraq before she was against the surge pledged at her official campaign web site that she would take aggressive steps to end the war in Iraq. Yet Hillary and the entire top tier of Democrat presidential candidates have begun making statements which run counter to any immediate end of the war.
We might be witnessing a unique triple flip flop by every major Democrat and their media allies. First they were for more troops, then against the idea when Bush proposed it and now for the surge when it is shown to be working.
You can laugh all you want about Democrats political opportunism and indecisiveness, but we all remember how quickly it was that Democrats who insisted Iraq was an "imminent threat" (full rundown here) flipped to denying the Iraq War was anything but a mistake. And there is no denying they've ridden that lame jackass with some success.
Will Democrat Kook Base be So Forgiving?
At a June appearance in Washington by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rae Abileah protested American involvement in Iraq. NY Times Photo.In the past, Democrats knew they can count on their media allies to ignore the laughable contradictions and weakness implied by ever shifting Democrat policy positions. And of course the extreme left which has hijacked the Democrat Party was a willing accomplice to the charade as long as it supported their demand to undermine and weaken the United States military.
But with Democrat presidential candidates openly declaring that if elected they will not immediately pull U.S. troops out of Iraq one wonders if the left wing kooks will continue to go along for for the ride?
Hillary poses as the militarist to win votesWith Cindy Sheehan turning on House Democrats and vowing to run a largely symbolic campaign against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it's no wonder that Congressman James Clyburn, Democrat Whip in the House of Represenatatives declared that a succesful surge "would be a problem" for Democrats.
by Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
WHAT IN the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
Given her sorry record of cheerleading the emergence of a new military-industrial complex, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question Clinton's commitment to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field.
Great, so forget the hope that a woman president might prove to be more enlightened than macho men in the matter of peacemaking, and instead rest assured that Hillary would have the cojones to "push the button" that would kill us all. Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.
While the 2006 election, which handed both the House and Senate to Democrats had more to do with Democrat's successful strategy to exploit Mark Foley or former Senator Allen's "macaca" comment; in several key districts it would be impossible to ignore that a virulent "get out of Iraq now" feeling drove defeatist Democrats to the polls.
Hillary Clinton can't win the White House without the left wing kook base. Many Democrat Congressional candidates would also be imperiled if the kooks stayed home in key districts.
So, you see the dangerous position that embracing the surge and VICTORY in Iraq brings to Democrats.
And voters will need to ask themselves one question before casting their ballot in 2008: If VICTORY is a good thing, which party has been for VICTORY all along?
Also posting at: