And the Democrats become ever more disconnected from reality regarding Iraq, as Charles Krauthammer points out:
How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide. Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?
And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.
Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.
John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements on the ground while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton -- do you think are acting in the same spirit?
None, of course. For the smarter Democrats - like Hillary - the main project is to tack and trim through the kook-left until success in Iraq is achieved and then, hopefully, go on to other issues. For most Democrats, they have thought Iraq a defeat for about two years now, and no amount of fact will sway them from this point of view. None of this would matter except for the prospect that one of those Democratic clowns could actually wind up in the White House in 2009. These are serious times and we need serious people who try to do the right thing, come what may.
Once again I'll just repeat my observation that it staggers the mind to think that Democrats actually believe that a few thousand ragged terrorists are more than a match for the United States military. Here's a hint: never bet against the American fighting man and woman, ok?