WaPo: “Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?”

“[I]t’s indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent[;] al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.”

Bush Administration talking points?


This morning’s lead editorial in The Washington Post.

To my surprise and its credit, the paper known as Pravda on the Potomac for its liberal leanings chastises the Democrat presidential candidates for refusing to acknowledge the successes of the troop surge and their unwillingness “to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president — a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made”.

Last year, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) allowed that progress in Iraq “would be a real big problem” for Democrats. His party’s presidential candidates are responding to that “real big problem” the same way they respond to the failures of their nanny-state domestic policies: They’re denying it, and, in denying reality, they continue to promote policies based on fantasy.

America and her troops deserve better.

Did you enjoy this post?

Join the Sancerres at Sunset VIP list!

2 thoughts on “WaPo: “Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?”

  1. Actually, we sent more troops to do what they should have done from the beginning. Bush’s biggest mistake was that he tried to straddle the aisle and fight a popular war, sending what they figured would be ‘just enough.’

    That turned everyone off to the war effort as we saw it. Republicans and Democrats both voted for the initial operation, and only a handful of people in either party had to guts to do things right.

  2. I may be a bit naive, but I believe the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the war in Iraq. Also, making “progress” in Iraq neither justifies our being there nor staying there. Considering this, why would anyone expect a Democratic candidate to highlight any examples of progress in Iraq?

    That aside, I’m trying to follow the logic here. We invaded a country and things got out-of-hand in a big way. Almost instantly the politicians realized that they were in way over their heads and didn’t have a good plan to finish what they started (and sold the public on using information proven to be false). We sent more troops to help stop the bleeding, and now the politicians at fault for the whole mess want us to believe that this “progress” justifies our being there and those who oppose our being there are doing “America and her troops” a disservice?

    Isn’t it extremely hypocritical to say something like “America and her troops deserve better” when Republicans were the drivers of putting those troops in jeopardy to begin with?

    This is why I left politics. It always comes down to waving the left hand while you hide what’s in the right hand.

Comments are closed.