Democrats anger over good news

Rich Lowry:

...

The Democrats are angry at Petraeus because they hate his message so much - that we have achieved some progress with the surge. This might be the first time ever that a messenger has been shot for bringing good news. Petraeus did it in a sober and careful way, leaving little doubt that he has a better command of the war - and a more realistic appreciation of all its devilish difficulties - than his congressional interlocutors.

For a man accused of being a partisan liar, he was resolutely nuanced. He noted that the "situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult, and sometimes downright frustrating." Achieving our objectives will be neither "quick nor easy." But he believes that achieving them is still possible, and a premature withdrawal "would likely have devastating consequences."

It is that conclusion that so infuriates the left. It has no patience for Petraeus' proposal to withdraw the added surge forces from later this month to July 2008 in a deliberate manner that won't give back security gains that we have made this year and that will hand over responsibility to Iraqi forces only when they are ready. The opposition to the war prefers the simple and simplistic expedient of getting out - consequences be damned.

...

Many Democrats actually want disastrous consequences to flow from an Iraq withdrawal so they can blame them on President bush and Republicans. That is what all those silly votes in the Senate have been about this summer. The thought of getting success instead is more than just a "problem" for them. Success is a disastrous consequence for them. They are seeing Chuck Schumer's 2008 election strategy blow up in their face.