Contortions

The Democrats have a big problem. Success in Iraq is a problem for them politically.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn is the House Whip, so it's his job to count heads for votes. He has to know that the cut and run leftists in his party do not have the numbers, and the facts on the ground are such that the rest of the party is in a bind. If they want to keep the House in 2008, they've got to show that they are committed to winning in Iraq. Cutting and running - aka defeat and retreat - are not an option, especially when the media reports and military briefings are encouraging that the surge is working and Iraq is stabilizing. The situation is by no means perfect there, but it is heading in the right direction.

This situation is a huge problem for the Democrats in Congress. It would be great for the US if the good news continues to flow from Iraq.

Therefore, with the continuing good news from Iraq, if you're a Democrat you have to engage in Escher/Mobius contortions to stay ahead of the changing tide.

The Democrats have predicated their entire Congressional efforts on cut and run. They've followed the Murtha wing of the party into a quagmire of recriminations and empty threats, which has only enraged the far left of the party because it shows their impotence. That, in turn, gets them frothing at the mouth even more and gets the likes of Sheehan to come out and demand impeachment or else she'd run against Speaker Pelosi.

Trying to defund a war that we're looking like we're able to win is a losing proposition for the Democrats, which is why they're changing strategies - instead of going after Bush on Iraq, they're trying for the low hanging fruit of other Administration officials - AG Gonzales for example - claiming that they've lied or withheld information, etc., because they simply have no where else to turn.

They can't lead on the issue of Iraq since they've been leading towards defeat and retreat and the facts do not warrant such a position. Even some Democrats in the House, including Rep. Ellison, are noting the progress.

What this also does is put people like Obama and the other anti-war candidates in a bind going into 2008. Hillary can stand by her support of the war and use it as a club against the others who have either flipped on the issue, or were against the war - showing that she knew that holding the course was the right decision (yes, I know she's flipped as well, but she can pull this off better than the other Democrats).

Still, all this does is show that the Democrats cannot lead on the issue of national security since they continue to put politics ahead of national security.

All these folks on the Left who keep frothing and demanding impeachment and investigations and those on the Right who attack the Administration's policies seemingly ignore the fact that Bush isn't running in 2008. This goes double for the Presidential candidates for 2008 - from both parties.

Most people know this - and as the 2008 elections move closer, that will hit home. Trying to run against Bush may sound great now, but he's not in the field. It is, however, a great way to separate yourself from other candidates in the field and make you sound tougher on an issue than you really are. It's real easy to run against a guy who is prohibited against running for President.

It's far more difficult in coming up with a coherent foreign policy that maintains national security and takes into account the fact that al Qaeda continues to pose a threat and that AQ considers Iraq to be a main battlefield for the fight.

Don Surber notes that Speaker Pelosi, who prior to November 2006 was calling for FISA reform, is now ignoring calls to amend the intel law to deal with the ongoing threats posed by international terrorist organizations.