The Democrats' big mistake on Iraq funding

Michael Goodwin:

... President Bush finally made some sense on Iraq yesterday. His forceful attack on the Democrats' deadline for withdrawing our combat troops hit the bull's-eye.

Bush had a fat, easy target. The House version of the military funding bill, which includes a September 2008 deadline, is loaded with domestic spending bribes needed to get members to support it. And immediately after passing their bills, the House and the Senate went on spring break without bothering to reconcile their differences. Until they do, lawmakers can't send the measure to Bush for his certain veto.

That amounts to a stalemate, with the Democrats overplaying their hand and playing into Bush's claims they are undermining our troops and setting us up for failure in Iraq. Bush, no doubt tired of being on defense over the war and the problems of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seized an opportunity to shift the blame. Conveniently ignoring his own poor performance as commander in chief, he warned that, unless Dems give the military the money it needs and let the troops finish their mission, Iraq would become a "cauldron of chaos" where Islamic extremists could "plot attacks on America."

Painting Democrats as soft on terror is familiar turf for Bush, and some of the old swagger was back. He sounded like Dirty Harry's "make my day" when he demanded Congress get back to work. "They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."

For Democrats, there are hypocrisy and risk in the move to force a troop withdrawal. They derided the President's surge in January by saying that most military commanders opposed it. Yet, as Bush crowed yesterday, not a single commander has voiced support for their withdrawal timetable. With the added talk of tax hikes under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Dems are on the verge of reinforcing their stereotypes of being anti-military and pro-taxes.

...

It is about time that someone noticed that no one who is knowledgeable about the military supports the Democrat plan. Where are all the retired generals who criticized the earlier strategy? They are quiet because the current strategy is what they supported all along. It is what the Democrats supported before Bush adopted the Petraeus plan. The Democrats are just being oppositional for opposition sake.

Another big lie that the Democrats have used to support their strategy for defeat is that it is what voters wanted when they were elected. You can not find any example of new Democrat members of Congress who campaign on a slow bleed strategy. Most of them campaign on issues that avoided the war.