17 SEP 07 / "Post Petraeus"

Most Democrats in Congress were incredulous of General David Petraeus during his three sessions of testimony reporting on the war in the Iraq, but those who doubt him must necessarily disregard the facts on the ground, his 30-year record as a professional soldier, his expertise in waging counter insurgency, his Ph.D from Princeton, and his level-headedness under fire both in combat and in the political theatre of Capitol Hill.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer were particularly disagreeable. Clinton said that Petraeus's report "required the willing suspension of disbelief." called into question the legitimacy of his testimony before 3 sessions and in so doing ignored. This kind of treatment did not befit a man of his stature and level of achievement.

The Democrats who are skeptical of Petraeus are simply unable to put the national interest ahead of their own political interest.

But the facts are incontrovertible. The surge is providing security for the Iraqi people. American soldiers and Marines are clearing territory and denying it to the enemy. The situation on the ground in al Anbar province has improved dramatically. Sunni sheiks have sided with U.S. forces. Other provinces are also improving.

Iraq remains a dangerous country, but the point is we are now moving in the right direction. And as we are successful, we will be able to draw down our force levels accordingly. And the Iraqi government has not made a great deal of political progress, although there has been oil revenue sharing taking place at the local level despite the fact that there is not yet a national deal / agreement brokered.

Conciliation between Sunni and Shia factions is occuring at the local level, but not nationally.

The president has the power to continue the fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq until at least March. The Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything ... And would need 2/3 to override a presidential veto.

War is unpopular. It should be. But the American people are standing fast in this war. Support has not fallen to a level that would necessitate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Our sacrifices have been great, but not nearly as great as in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. And, as Somalia and Lebanon have demonstrated, defeat and acquiecence have dangerous consequences for our national security.

In January of this year, Democrats in Congress were telling the American people that they should listen to the generals and not the president about the way forward in Iraq. Last week, the Democrats were seemingly poised to continue attack the president on Iraq during the time General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were in Washington, but with the mainstream media now reporting that the situation on the ground in Anbar and other provinces is improving and with polls ticking up, they chose instead to attack the messenger.

Back in January, the Democrats were saying that we should listen to the generals in order to decide the way forward. Many of them were not listening in the three Congressional hearings on Monday and Tuesday.

The Democratic Party is invested in our defeat in Iraq. And it therefore constitutes a threat to the national security of the United States.

Petraeus and Crocker testified that the goals of the United States can be achieved in Iraq.

MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times "General Petraeus or Betrayus?" was absurd, when his actions as a professional soldier have only been honorable. None of the Democratic presidential candidates repudiated the ad. When a Republican member of Congress suggested that members should distance themselves from the ad, she was interrupted by the chairman who said "we don't need to distance ourselves from something we have no association with" thereby distancing himself. Considering the milliions of dollars MoveOn contributes to the Democratic Party each year, lawmakers should distance themselves from the ad and most of what the organization purports to be about ie "Bush Lied, People Died." Sheer brilliance.

Hillary Clinton said "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." Clinton either remembered the quote attributed to Samuel Taylor Coleridge or one of her young staffers fresh out of a Romantic poetry class fed her the line. In either case, she considers Petraeus a liar. For Clinton, progress in Iraq is simply unbelievable. And, of course, she has to placate the left wing of her party. So the line, repeatedly aired on the evening news, scores points with that group.

Senator Barbara Boxer used all of her time to criticize and admonish the general.

On the Republican side, Senator Chuck Hagel asked "Are we going to continue to invest blood and treasure at the same rate we're doing now? For what?"  Hagel supports legislation for a timeline for withdrawal. As does Senator John Warner, who asked the pointed question which seemed to catch Petraeus by surprise "Are we safer?" (Senate Foreign Relations Committee)

Political theatre of the highest order. Petraeus and Crocker rose to the occasion.

In his televised address to the nation on Thursday night, President Bush's built a convincing case on the foundation of the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Most foreign policy and national security experts now believe that the president has at least another six months before enough political pressure builds to require a significant drawdown of military forces in Iraq. If the United States can continue to demonstrate measurable progress, a victory may yet be won in Iraq.

Success in Iraq is a matter of national security. Failure would be an indication of weakness and would invite further terrorist attacks.

Defeatism is not confined to the Democrats. It exists in the ranks of Republicans as well. Most notable is Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. While Hagel has the exprience of combat, he does not presently recognize that the war in Iraq is not lost.

"legislate defeat"