Retreat from Iraq not a winning issue

Karl Rove:

One out of five is not a majority. Democrats should keep that simple fact of political life in mind as they pursue the White House.

For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they'll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office -- without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America's security -- a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn "on a timetable as soon as possible." And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.

It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe "the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops." The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda "would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations" if the U.S. withdraws.

Just a year ago it was almost universally accepted that Iraq would wreck the GOP chances in November. Now the issue may pose a threat to the Democratic efforts to gain power. For while the American people are acknowledging the positive impact of the surge, Democratic leaders are not.

In September, Mrs. Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." This week, she said "we'll be right back at square one" in Iraq by this summer.

In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to admit progress, arguing, "The surge hasn't accomplished its goals." He said a month earlier there was "no progress being made in Iraq" and "it is not getting better, it is getting worse."

Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 9 if she was worried that the gains of the last year might be lost, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: "There haven't been gains . . . This is a failure." Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told the Associated Press the same month that the surge "has failed."

This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq's changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration's expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.

...

There are more problems for Democrats on national security. Led by Ms. Pelosi, House Democrats are digging their party into even deeper difficulty by holding up the bipartisan Senate Protect American Act reauthorization. The reason? House Democrats want personal injury lawyers to be able to sue telecommunications companies for having the audacity to cooperate with the government in monitoring terrorist communications after 9/11.

It appears that in Ms. Pelosi's warped world, the monetary needs of the Democratic Party's most generous financial benefactors take precedence over the nation's security. How else could one rationally explain her opposition? Sens. Clinton and Obama, both of whom opposed the bipartisan Senate reauthorization bill, have joined in her approach.

That is a mistake, both on the merits and politically....

...

When asked whom they agree with, Americans side with Messrs. McConnell and Mukasey over Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi by a 54%-37% margin. And this is without describing why House Democrats are fighting this battle: campaign donations from wealthy trial lawyers. The more this issue is discussed, the more Americans will come to see Democrats have put their campaign donors -- an unsavory group of lawyers, some of whom have been in the headlines recently with guilty pleas in fraud and bribery attempts -- above the country's security.

...

The Democrats are just dead wrong on the merits and politics of opposing immunity for those who help us intercept enemy communications. It is so irrational a position that the contributions appear to be the only explanation.

On the war they have built themselves a record of voting more than 60 times for retreat while our forces were winning in Iraq. I am surprised that Republicans have not made more of this fact, but hopefully they will before November. If they don't some 527 should. Just because John McCain wants to run a "respectful" campaign does not mean that we have to ignore the Democrats desperation for defeat in 2007 and 2008.