National Security

"My responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture." -- General David Petraeus 

The war in Iraq has spurred intense debate and raw emotion reminiscent of the Vietnam War era in America. At a time when patience and perseverance are waning, perhaps even non-existent, public support for a long struggle with a difficult enemy that large numbers of the population neither understand nor have the interest to investigate continues to erode. Although it has been a mere six years since the 9/11 attacks that were unlike anything ever experienced on American soil, the central issue in public discourse has turned to visceral hatred of the president and his actions rather than a resolve to unite against radical Islam that is sworn to destroy America.  

The obsession for election, re-election, and majority control of Congress and the White House tempted by the anti-war sentiment has corrupted the political environment to a point seldom seen before in our history and detrimental to the safety of our troops, the success of their mission, and the security of our nation.  

Congress had insisted that in September, the commander of our troops General David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report on the current state of affairs regarding the "surge" strategy and political and economic progress in Iraq. Why they asked for a report is highly suspect now, as there is abundant hard evidence that at least the leadership who made the request was already discrediting and discounting the report well before it was made. 

It would have been one thing for the occasional established anti-war crusader to find a microphone, but the Democrats had their Senate leadership (Reid, Durbin, Schumer) and Speaker Pelosi trashing the distinguished 4-Star General and dismissing the report as partisan cover for the President before he even arrived on Capitol Hill. How Gen. Petraeus could suddenly morph into a pawn of the White House, a liar, and a partisan hack in a mere few months of being unanimously praised and confirmed by the Senate is a transformation that can only happen in the wacky world of Washington politics.  

The Democrat mouth piece, MoveOn.org stooped to a record low in running a full page subsidized ad in the New York Times playing on the general's name and implying he was a liar and betrayer. That scurrilous attack is being followed now with more media attacks for the extreme leftist organization. Democrats are nearly unanimous in their unwillingness to condemn this atrocity of attacking the commander of our troops during a time of war. This, we suppose, is their latest incarnation of "supporting the troops".  

It is fair game – in fact healthy debate -- to take exception with the strategy as drafted and executed by General Petraeus, the military leadership, and the Bush Administration. It is also within anyone's right to interpret the results of the efforts differently. But, it is not helpful, nor fair, to discredit – even before he issued the report – General Petraeus the way the Democrats and their minions did.  

Even Colorado's Mark Udall, who has been awarded a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, succumbed to the anti-Petraeus tsunami that was unleashed by the Democrat leadership and the left. Before even hearing the report from Petraeus and Crocker, Udall told reporters there "is no strategy" in Iraq now. The 2nd District Congressman who wants to be a senator must have been reading from Nancy Pelosi's talking points, because he knows better.  

He knows that Democrats like Brian Baird and Carl Levin have returned from Iraq recently and reported of the success they had seen.

He knows of numerous press reports [link requires membership] of success that has been documented from the efforts of our troops with the increased cooperation of Iraqis, particularly in Anbar province.

He knows of decreased violence since the surge was implemented, and he knows that much still remains to be done.

And, he knows that supporting our strategy and the troops that are executing it is critical because of the consequences of failure.

Udall knows there very much is a strategy. It has a leader in David Petraeus and is being executed daily at great risk and with measured results by our troops. Representation to the contrary is an insult them and to the intelligence of the American people.  

The Democrats have lost objectivity on Iraq. They have become so obsessed with their majority power and the prospects of winning the White House in 2008 that their judgment and perspective on the war effort and the Islamic jihadist enemy is completed warped. The troops deserve more. The tenuous situation in the world demands more, and yet the Democrats, while wanting positions of leadership, are failing to deliver on the responsibility of leadership.  

Just days before Petraeus and Crocker delivered their report to Congress, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius posed the right question in his headline "Can the Democrats say yes?" His essay goes on to outline how the Democrats' political strategy for the 2008 elections is committed to failure of the current administration and by extension everything that has Bush fingerprints on it – including Petraeus and Crocker. To enhance the chances for political victory in '08 the Democrats have decided they have to oppose, malign, attack, and destroy everything Republican and/or Bush connected, no matter the consequences. Ignatius quotes a "prominent Democrat" as saying "the challenge for us is whether we will be able to take 'yes' for an answer."  

Obviously, the Democrats have decided they not only cannot accept "yes" from the messenger, but they have to eviscerate the general in the process. There are reasons behind this willingness to ignore the facts, be objective, and support the troops. It's called political expediency.  

As there are consequences to failure in Iraq, there are also consequences to Democrats who don't toe the party line. Remember what happened to Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election cycle when he bucked the powers that be? Currently, MoveOn.org is running negative ads aimed at one of the most liberal members of Congress, Brian Baird (D-WA). What crime did he commit? Following an Iraq and Middle East trip, Baird said "One of the things that gets very little attention is that virtually every other country I visited says it would be a mistake to pull out now." Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee and the most senior member of the House, John Dingell (D-MI), got the same treatment from MoveOn.org when he bucked the leftists' agenda to attack the auto industry with increased mileage standards.

Democrats, you see, aren't really just afraid of Republicans or the truth. They have to fear their own far left base. And, to keep their seat at the table of power, member after member gets in line with the talking points, the agenda, and the strategy to discredit our military during a time of war so long as they believe it may further their political chances in the next election.

Like many observers of the Petraeus/Crocker testimony on Capitol Hill, I fully expected the Democrats to take credit for bringing the president and the military to their knees. After all, it was they who insisted on the personal testimony from the general and ambassador, they were the ones insisting a troop draw-down if not complete withdrawal, and they have been calling for an exit strategy and new plan in Iraq. All of these "victories" were ones I fully expected to be claimed by the Democrats. 

But, the Democrats couldn't say "yes" even to a report that contained much of what they have been demanding. Their anti-war agenda demanded by the MoveOn.org faction of their base is, as the Washington Post reports, more about continuing a war with the president rather than ending one in the Middle East. Iraq is simply a means to their end. 

The Washington Post analysis provides evidence that many Democrats were in fact ready to claim victory and take credit for the Petraeus report, but that was quickly bashed by their leaders. Meeting in Pelosi's office as the first day of testimony wrapped up with the general, the leaders decided that their base was demanding more than a "yes" – they had tasted the blood of Bush and Petraeus, and they wanted more.  

So, rather than acknowledging progress being made by the surge, and concurring with the announced troop reductions, Pelosi announced the coordinated Democrat message would be "the general's plan meant 10 more years of war, or even 'endless war'."  

Someone is invested in "endless war" and it is the Democrats who are at war with George W. Bush. They need to keep that war going – escalating, if they can – at least for 14 more months. Perpetuating that conflict, they believe, is central to election victories in '08, and that guides every move they make, every talking point they issue, and every reaction to any issue or event. 

Pelosi-Reid and the Democrats decried partisan politics when they were in the minority. Promising to work across the aisle and with the president in a "fair and open way for the good of all the people" they asked the American people to give them a majority to lead in a different way. And the voters complied. But, the voters' trust has been violated. The pursuit of raw political power has never been more transparent. The Democrats cannot refrain from personal attacks on General Petraeus – commander of the troops during a time of war, and a soldier's soldier – and acknowledge factual progress and strategic objectives. 

So much for truth, justice, and the American way... this is about politics.