Despite the tremendous media campaign by Democrats and the media themselves, we seem to be winning in Iraq. Despite the despicable Harry Reid and Jack Murtha, our troops are winning and it is in the New York Times. This, of course, gives the Democrat defeatist Presidential candidates a huge problem with credibility.
As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.
I have news for them and you: Trying to change the subject will not make it go away.
The first question that must be asked of these folks is this: "Why should we trust you if you were wrong on Iraq in the first place?" Let's face it, their predictions and subsequent disparaging of our armed forces is indicative of only one thing. All they've cared about all along is politics. Their sole focus was entirely aimed at delegitimizing our strategy and efforts in Iraq. Their purpose is purely political.
Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.
It's called snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. If they are trying to shift focus to political gains, then someone needs to tell them that political gains will come as the violence declines. To pull out now would negate the impetus of the surge and return the country back to the factional fighting of before. And you want to trust our own security to these people? LUDICROUS!!!!!!
If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.
You mean we might just start paying attention to the other ridiculous things they are saying?
Check out Hillary's idiotic statement:
"Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.
"The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks," she said. "We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it."
Like I said, political gains will come as the violence subsides. There is no civil war. There is sectarian violence, but there are not huge sections of the country warring against each other. It's as much a civil war as Northern Ireland was considered a civil war and eventually, even they have figured out how to get along. Much of the Sectarian Violence has subsided. What little violence is taking place is mostly the lasts gasps of Al Qaida.
I think the Democrats may actually face some stiffer competition than they originally imagined if this trend continues. They may actually have to explain their defeatism and their plans for taking more and more money from working people.
VW
