Pelosi & Murtha Still Seeking To Declare Defeat in Iraq

This is difficult to believe, but Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has scheduled a vote on a bill to force U.S. to cease combat operations by December and begin a withdrawal from Iraq. Jack Murtha has stated that the only way he will allow a funding bill for the Iraq War out of his committee is if the President agrees to begin withdrawing troops per this new bill. And to top it off, in an apparent burst of what passes for patriotism among the neo-liberals of today’s Democratic Party, Pelosi has scheduled the vote for Veteran’s Day.

The Democratic leadership lacks any semblance of principal and is motivated by nothing more than the desire for power. Iraq is of course still problematic and its future uncertain, yet the news coming out of Iraq now is very positive. Al Qaeda, who chose to make their central stand against the US in Iraq, has been all but defeated. The casualty figures are dropping significantly, displaced Iraqis are returning to Baghdad, and there is a return to normalcy in many parts of Iraq. This is not to minimize the problems Iraq still faces, but the Democrats’ ostensible justifications for leaving Iraq – that Iraq is a “quagmire” and a “civil war” – have clearly been invalidated.

But that does not stop the leadership of the Democratic Party from trying to snatch a defeat from what is looking more and more like the jaws of victory. They are fully invested in defeat.

As Alan Dershowitz wrote in the WSJ a few days ago, that could be a major problem for his party:

. . . Most of the Democratic presidential candidates are seeking partisan advantage from what many Americans see as the Bush failures in the war against terrorism and especially its extension to Iraq and possibly, in the future, to Iran.

This pacifistic stance appeals to the left wing of the democratic electorate, which may have some influence on the outcome of democratic primaries, but which is far less likely to determine the outcome of the general election. Most Americans--Democrats, Republicans, independents or undecided--want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans may watch Michael Moore's movies or cheer Cindy Sheehan's demonstrations, but tens of millions want the Moores and Sheehans of our nation as far away as possible from influencing national security policy . . ..

. . . Unless the Democratic Party--and particularly their eventual candidate for president--is perceived as strong and smart on national defense and prevention of terrorism, the Bush White House may be proved to have made a clever partisan decision by refusing to make the war against terrorism a bipartisan issue. The Democrats may lose the presidency if they are seen as the party of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich and those senators who voted against Judge Mukasey because he refused to posture on a difficult issue relating to national security.

Update: There is a good article on the absurdity of the Pelosi / Murtha surge towards defeat against all odds in the NY Post.