If you've been wondering lately why liberal defeatist media outlets like the New York Times have suddenly been bullish on Iraq, here's the payoff: Democrats have begun to shift their political strategy in light of the success of the surge. While I have to give the Washington Post credit for reporting on the Democrats' failure to spin reality into defeat, I have to note that the following article came on page A4 of today's edition:
Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.
And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.
The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."
Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So...
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:08 ET by smitty031First they were for the war...then they were against it...now they are for it again...
talk about jumping on the band wagon...
And yet they still managed to get 48% last time around? Whose voting for these people...4 year olds?
And why is it that they quote the biggest surrender monkeys out there?
Imagine the quote from Joe Lieberman - " I told you so"
John Kerry Update To Follow?
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:09 ET by Mica the MagnificentI voted for the war before I voted against it but just before I am for it but I am against the political factors in Iraq not working, unless they work, then I am for it.
Anyone running for president with knowledge of a stained blue dress in their past? Anyone? - - What Mrs. Obama should ask.
The majority of the dem's
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:15 ET by bigtimerThe majority of the dem's are and have been in the last two weeks been playing both sides of the aisle now...called CYA...
It has been both despicable and amusing for me.
President Bush shoved it in their faces today with there constant reference of this war to VietNam......well he used VietNam back at them.
It was PRICELESS!
We will see which way their (the dem's) wind blows in Sept. with the polls too...after the Petraeus Report comes out.
As an aside....'The Pickle' David Gergen said after the speech on CNN Pres. Bush should not have used VietNam as an example for Iraq...he is a real piece of squirmy leftist work...too bad some people sell their soul.
Bush's vietnam:)
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:20 ET by TruthMongerHey bt
Maybe George could go back to JOHNSON'S (D-TEX) VIETNAM and win that one for us too:)
The leading Democratic
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:16 ET by Jack BauerBut Bush is busy outflanking them on that one as well. Today he is talking about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki having to go if he doesn't perform better.
As the election approaches,
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:24 ET by Ruths husband BenAs the election approaches, the Dems will be more and more hawkish because they know from the polls that the average American supports the troops. It really comes down to what will get them elected - has nothing whatsoever to do with a core belief system, because they don't have one. So, in this sense they are not flip-flopping. They have always been for gaining votes at any cost.
I remember watching the Democratic Convention when Al Gore was the nominee. His speech was, in effect, a laundry list of things he would do to buy votes from all the special interest groups he was seeking votes from.
A Liberal Trait:
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:31 ET by mattmPig-headedness.
One of the charges Libs make against Conservatives is that they're unwilling to change their views in the face of new information.
Here's a perfect example, once again, of how the accusations Libs make against Conservatives in reality describes themselves.
The surge, which they declared a failure before it started, is showing signs of working, but rather than get behind the effort, they need to "recalibrate" their strategy.
Charlatans!
Off topic
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:39 ET by RosGWB is in my home town this morning. Check this crazy piece out -
http://www.kansascity.com/679/story/242168.html
As if Nancy Boyda, education in Missouri, and the Westboro baptist church dont give my area of the country a bad enough name we have this tool at the KCStar bitching about a traffic jam caused because of GWB's security.
...
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 13:22 ET by mattmYeah, he was up in my neck of the woods yesterday... The obligatory "traffic jam" coverage was in full gear...
The dems are looking for
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:46 ET by bassndudeThe dems are looking for any part of the horse to beat. And they are running out of places to look on this horse. Their stick is getting smaller to.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
shades of pale
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 12:53 ET by the mad poleWe will soon hear that there are different shades of surrender flags. OFF white is for greater concessions, EGGSHELL white means we must tread lightly, opaque is for racist republican homophobes and is rarely seen!
Victory
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 13:01 ET by allanfAll of us can sleep securely tonight, safe in the knowledge that as conidtions improve in Iraq, the Democrat Party will claim credit for the success.
They will be aided by the usual suspects in the media (are you listening Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, Diane Sawyer, Harry Smith .... ) who will display absolutely no memory of the recent past.
New Democrapic Quote coming...
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 13:35 ET by JayTee"I would have NOT voted for the war, if I knew we were going to WIN !"
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Problem is not Democrats but the Spawn of Democrats
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 13:45 ET by Lame CherryIn getting banned from Huffington for stating here what I am about to state, the fact is I have written often that Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Biden. Obama, Feinstein etc..... they know very well the crap they come up with is not right nor real. They use it to gain power and to inflame the masses to vote for them.
The problem in this is Cindy Sheehan and the idiots at Kos and Huffington believe all of the things they read on Alex Jones, Cap Hill Blue and what there politicians state. I have been reading the Huffington mainstream blogs and EVERY ONE OF THEM is now on a rampage attacking the Democrats in charge.
Shearer yesterday was ranting in a one paragraph blog that should have been 3 about Iraq is a disaster and was pointing to a UK Independent report saying doctors were leaving Iraq. I pointed out that elitists always flee nations and Shearer would be the first one on a plane to Moscow when the Mexican Revolution hits America. For that I get banned.
I have mentioned here a trend is starting in the spawn of the Democrats where they are absolutely refusing ALL INFORMATION. Iraq will be a success and they will say it is a Democratic lie and find something like "date production falls in Iraq" to point to how bad things are.
The facts do not matter and the DNC has created a monster of anarchists who are literally in open rebellion. Obama wanting to invade Pakistan, Hillary going to nuke Muslims.......these bloggers have a growing fury in them and they will seek to ban Hillary.
The spawn is insane. Facts do not matter at all. I really believe the DNC is in store for a meltdown as Hillary or Al Gore in facing real issues are going to have to be moderate which means using weapons like Bill did.....and the bloggers are not going to stand for that.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Congratulations.......Lame C
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 13:56 ET by JayTeeYou've been banned from the Huffington site.....My CONGRATULATIONS ! !
They can't handle the TRUTH !
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Bush today
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 14:24 ET by JDWOur military has been killing/capturing an average of 1,500 terrorists per month.
Why was this information not available to the news media let alone libs?
Will they provide it now?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
JDW it's Politically Incorrect....
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 16:41 ET by JayTeeand it's not nice to tell Al Queda how many they are losing....
All in all, it's another reason to pursue news on the Internet....because it ain't being reported on MSM.
Bush is a lame duck, and he is pulling the trigger on the Dems...he let them speak for months with saying a word, and now he's shooting to Kill.....
Is it BUSH ? or is it Carl Rove's parting SHOT ?
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Precisely. One of the
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 18:42 ET by BDPrecisely. One of the best methods we have of stopping the attacks in Iraq by the Jihadi's is to convince them that:
1.) Going to Iraq to attack US forces is futile because the vast majority of jihadis are captured/killed before they can successfully attack.
2.) Most jihadi's actually perform un-islamic justified attacks on other muslims, usually blowing up a marketplace full of innocent civilians rather than US or Iraqi troops.
3.) Fighting US forces is a terrifying experience likened by some returning Jihadi's as "Being stalked by a machine" ala the terminator.
All three of these things NORMALLY would be disseminated by a free and open press to our enemies as part of their daily duties. But if you spend any time in the middle east as I have you never see anything LIKE that. Our press should be fighting hard to display this message to our foes.
Instead, our press has determined that success lies in failure.
Lib 'split'
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 18:50 ET by JDWJT, BD
Sen Clinton: The Iraqi Parliament should replace their Prime Minister
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
JDW, Another shining
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 18:57 ET by BlondeJDW,
Another shining example of the foreign policy acumen of the smartest woman in the world.
I can't wait for the general election. Her Highness is amassing a fountain of stupidity, upon which she is going to be hoist upon her own petard.
Lovely link, thanks.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The Iraqi's should replace
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 19:10 ET by BDThe Iraqi's should replace their leader? Just like we should have in the mid 1990's.
9/11
Wed, 08/22/2007 - 19:15 ET by JDWSen Clinton- 2003- Iraq, "I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
JDW.....That's a "Change the Subject" approach..
Thu, 08/23/2007 - 17:51 ET by JayTeeWe're getting to be like Rush, we can predict the NEXT Democrapic talking Point.
As I said in a previous post........The Iraqi's ain't listening to the English MSM channels, or the Dems.....if they were watching Pelosi and company pass stupid threatening legislation the last few months ..then they saw the VETO by Bush.....
Hillary is full of herself........and she has her foot in her mouth too much.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Clinton and Obama wanted to
Thu, 08/23/2007 - 00:00 ET by superconClinton and Obama wanted to play the doves to get elected in 2006.
Now if they want to get elected in 2008 they will have skate a little and play "hawkey".
They now want to fight every war except the one we're in.
They think no one remembers what they said just last year about the war.
Victory in Iraq.
Newt for President.