The retreat of the Dems

NY Sun Editorial:

"All we just have to do is look at what's going on in Iraq, that's my direction, to do something to change the course of this war so I don't have to continue making these calls back to Nevada back when these deaths occur."

— Harry Reid, September 7, 2007.

New Yorkers who listened last week to the speeches of leading Democrats can be forgiven for supposing they were still trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq. We have no doubt that, in their hearts, Mr. Reid, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer do favor a retreat from Iraq. But the most astonishing thing about what has been happening in advance of the hearings that begin today is the subtle shift that has taken place in the posturing of the Democrats from the promises to end the war immediately or by a date certain next year. They are signaling in subtle ways that they know they will not get their wish.

Hence they have unveiled a strategy to bring "a responsible end to the war," aimed as they say, at cajoling Republican fence sitters to compromise proposals that only two months ago they spurned as half measures. For now this looks like legislation floated in July by Senator Warner, the Republican from Virginia and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Last week he announced his retirement from the senate. His plan would call on the Pentagon and White House to provide Congress with a detailed plan of withdrawal from Iraq, surrendering the debate that has raged since January in Washington over what branch of government can determine troop levels in Iraq.

This legislation is different than what Mr. Reid supported as recently as July 16, when he and his comrades held a sleepover in Congress to "end the war." Back then, Mr. Reid and his colleagues were pushing an amendment to declare next April the date when the troops had to at least begin the betrayal to abandon the field. Only two months later, amendments to force withdrawal on a date certain are not even being discussed by the Democratic leaders. It is a remarkable fact considering that the temporary funding for the war expires this month and its renewal is the only legislative leverage Congress has to affect the war's course.

So what exactly is going on here? It turns out that a number of Democrats visited Iraq in August and concluded that it is no longer a sure bet to presume that America and the Iraqi people will lose. It's true that the elected government in Baghdad is divided and frighteningly corrupt. But as anyone who has spoken with a Sunni or Shi'ia tribal sheikh can tell you, the tide against Al Qaeda and the Iranian death merchants is turning. The deadlock in Baghdad is offset by the forward push in Anbar.

...

The "compromise" proposals are also misguided. Decisions on troop deployments to a war zone should be solely the responsibility of the commanders limited only by the available force and what others in the pentagon may deem necessary because of other threats. To turn these decisions over to congress is to be led by the ignorant many of whom do not support the mission. While the willingness to compromise reflects the recognition of their over reach in July, the Republicans would be mistaken if they accepted the offer. Compromising with the Democrats only helps them avoid an embarrassment of their own making and does not help one Republican regardless of the outcome of the war.

Democrats scheduled all those votes about the war in order to put Republicans on the record and to use them as a political point in 2008. Instead they have put themselves on record as favoring defeat while the troops were winning. We should not let them or the voters forget this perfidy.