If the Petraueus report does come out on 9-11, you can rest assured that the timing was deliberate, since the Bush Administration has made a point of timing things to come out on 9-11. Nobody here ought to be surprised by the Democrats' continued support for the war. When has any of the top Democrats taken a clear antiwar position? Some here might recall that when John Kerry was running for president, he promised that one of the first things he would do as president, would be, you guessed it, launch a troop surge in Iraq. Working for and supporting the DP has proven to be a dead end for the antiwar movement. In fact the antiwar movement has all but disappeared from public view, a testimony to the strategy of working within the DP.
-- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote: [Amazing that the Petraeus report is likely to come on Sept 11.]
<http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/Story?id=3105288&page=1>
August was supposed to be the month that crystallized Democratic opposition to the Iraq war, in time for a fall bipartisan push by Congress. Yet nowhere is the political tentativeness more on display than on the war -- with members of Congress sharing impressions that something is working. "Staking out positions that could complicate efforts to achieve party unity in September, a few Democratic lawmakers have returned expressing support for a continued troop presence," writes Jonathan Weisman of The Washington Post.
The broad argument Democrats are making: The security situation is improving, but it's too late for the Iraqi government to take advantage of it. "The Democrats' reframing of the war debate helps them avoid criticism for naysaying U.S. military achievements while still advocating a speedy pullout from what they say is a civil war the Iraqi government cannot quell," writes the Washington Times' S.A. Miller.
Two leading senators -- Levin, D-Mich., and Warner, R-Va., are out with a new report with nuggets that play off of that (rather muddy) message. "The 'surge' is having 'measurable results' " that should make compromises possible, they write, per ABC's Z. Byron Wolf. But they're calling for new Iraqi leadership because "we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises." Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is going the furthest, in calling for a new prime minister if Nouri al-Maliki can't force quick compromises.
Cue the Republican talking point: Democrats want to pull out of Iraq when they acknowledge that we've finally got the right strategy. This has the makings of a national-security trap (not that Democrats have ever walked into one before). And there were mixed (if not contradictory) messages everywhere when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John McCain took their turns yesterday before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City.
Clinton, D-N.Y., facing a crowd that's to her right on the war, said elements of the new military strategy are "working" (what will Sen. Barack Obama say about that?) but added that it's unlikely to make a difference. "I know we may disagree about whether there is or isn't a military solution to this war," Clinton said, further defining her evolving position on Iraq, per The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk