The Democrats were successful in the 2006 elections, and may be successful again in 2008. Their success in large part was due to their negativity towards the war in Iraq and the demonizing of the President in charge.
Democrats say the war on terror is a "bumper sticker." They tell us that we must set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
They tell us the war is lost.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it influences both the attitudes of our enemies and the attitudes of the Iraqi Government - it encourages the former - and discourages the latter from making the reforms necessary for the fledgling government to move forward.
In the words of John Burns: "...the more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions. They’re much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect, of an effect that persuading people well, if the Americans are going, there’s absolutely no…and we’re going to have to settle this by a civil war, why should we make concessions on that matter right now?"
Where are our statesmen? Where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adams and other principled leaders who think beyond the next election? Somewhere winning elections became more important than winning the war.
But at what cost?