It's all about the Dems complete reluctance to recognize patriotism. Remember when, soon after 9-11, the furor was over whether "new" people could wear American flags on their lapels, or whether "news" people should say the word "Terroist"? I'm like the troops coming back from Iraq -- "What the hell is going on"?

BTW -- I picked this up from AbbaGav and I think it summarizes the Dems position very nicely regarding what they think about Republicans: Some Republicans question anti-war Democrats' patriotism just because we hope our troops are defeated by freedom-fighting Islamist insurgents in Iraq, even though we explicitly claim to support our troops in quite a few unspecified ways.

Bob is getting older and is trying to get into Heaven now.  :-^)

Wow, for a minute there, I thought I had fallen asleep and had awakened in an alternate universe. It does make a certain amount of sense, though, as there have to be a fair number of people out there in the liberal MSM who are no-doubt harboring a certain amount of anger toward the congressional dims who voted for the war.  Perhaps this is their subtle way of reminding them of it.

By letting them (congressional dims) know that this is a little more of a "you made your bed and now your are going to have to sleep in it" issue than they might be thinking (or hoping), they are thus relaying the message that not all members of the liberal MSM are prepared to let the dims off the hook as easily as the dims may have thought.

You're right, Noel. That was beyond extraordinary.

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

This is truly an amazing event and I applaud this candor from the left.  That said Noel, still missing and what most bothers me from the self-described "compassionate" left, is how the fate of the Iraqi people are left out of the conversation.

I think it is safe to state that the majority of Iraqis are counting on us to stick with them now that things have gotten tough.  It doesn't take much thought to consider the Iraqis fate if we split.  One can just look at what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were butchered by these thugs when we pulled out during the Iraqi uprising against Saddam in the 1990's.  The numbers of Iraqi citizens wanting to overthrow Saddam and build a better life for themselves were impressive, they were just outgunned by Saddams militants. If the US pulls out of Iraq now they will be outgunned once again.

This split voice coming out of DC, demoralizes not just US troops but the Iraqi people as well.  Small wonder there is such infighting between the different factions now.  No Iraqi is quite sure which position to take.  If the average Iraqi citizen stands with the US now and the US bails, their vengeful enemies will not forget.  This split voice is not the message we should be sending the Iraqis that desire a western-styled government. 

It would be a true disaster if the US pulled out and left the fate of the Iraqi people to the likes of the terrorists. I would be delighted if the talking-head conversation would focus on that reality instead of what is politically beneficial to either side here.  If the talking heads persist in looking at the situation without considering the Iraqis future, at least they could explore the long-term benefit the free world/US would gain by stabalizing Iraq. Having a long-term ally grateful to the US for providing them freedom and stability in the center of the Middle East cannot be a bad thing for the US.

But as we are all too aware, despite positive events like the one in your post, Chris Matthews and his political allies have invested their own personal credibility and political future in a US defeat in Iraq.  I can only presume that is more important to them than the fate of the Iraqis, US interests or winning the war against terrorism.  It's truly a shame that the "new direction" touted by the Dems doesn't include the once well-trodden direction of compassion for the oppressed.