Hillary's "next war"

NY Sun Editorial:

As Democrats scramble in the wake of the realization that President Bush's surge is working in Iraq, Senator Clinton is suddenly talking about preparing to fight a new war. She's always been a master at hedging her bets, but her speech Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars where she admitted that the surge she opposed is "working," beats all. In the same breath she added, "We're just years too late in changing our tactics We can't ever let that happen again We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."

New Yorkers can take that to mean that, for all her flailing, she will press for passage of the retreat she has sought to legislate, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction of 2007. She co-authored the measure, which, her campaign Web site says, "will end the war before the next president takes the oath of office." Like every other Democrat running for president, Mrs. Clinton opposed the troop surge she now concedes is working. Some of her other legislative meddling would cap the number of troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels.

So what exactly is going on here? It turns out that General Petraeus has been masterful in presenting the data of the military campaign to both Democrats and Republicans. He has made it clear that the president understands that his mission requires bipartisan tolerance, if not support from both parties. Another thing that is happening is that for the first time Iraqi sheikhs of both the Sunni and now Shi'ia stripe are joining arms with our GIs against Al Qaeda, the Iranian terror network, and the followers of Moqtada al Sadr known as Jaish al Mahdi.

All of these entities have sought to destroy any hope for a stable Iraqi democracy from day one, but in the case of Iran and Mr. Sadr it took nearly three years to unleash the military against the Mullah terror masters in Iraq. The new strategy in Iraq also commits our soldiers to protecting civilians and openly patrolling with Iraqi security forces the neighborhoods we left to the terrorists in 2005 and 2006. This means that the daily revenge killings and the ethnic cleansing are stalling. Baghdad may not be safe Â-- yet Â-- but in many swaths normal life is returning and with it the prospect of political reconciliation.

Neither Senator Clinton nor Senators Levin and Durbin and other Democratic party leaders are fools. They understand that the new strategy in Iraq presents the best chance we've had in a long time to leave Iraq better than we found it, which the Left needs to be forever reminded was a failed state in every sense of the word. Yet we have not won just yet. General Petraeus next month will say many things, but we hear one of his key points will be to say how fragile the progress in Iraq really is. Should Congress pull the plug on him now, we would be betraying the best allies we've ever had against Al Qaeda and Iran, pro-American Muslims.

So what exactly then is this Â'new war' that Mrs. Clinton says we ought to be preparing to fight? And how does she think we will win it if we just allow our current allies in Iraq to be slaughtered by the enemies we will have to fight elsewhere if they drive us from Iraq? And how are the Democrats going to lead in a new war after beating the drums so avidly for retreat in the current fight? The truth is Mrs. Clinton doesn't believe all the clap trap she's been spooling to her party's base. We hear that in private conversations with military brass, she pointedly says she will not run the war, if elected, as she promises to during the campaign Â-- which is one of the most astounding things we've heard of late.

...

What? A Clinton is trying to mislead voters? How can this be? After expending all this energy making a fraudulent case that Bush is a liar, when he was not, Democrats are actively supporting a candidate who is telling them what they want to hear while planning to continue to do what Bush has been doing in good faith. When will the Democrats who are serious about wanting to lose start calling her a liar?