But when a recent Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll asked Americans, "How important is a U.S. victory in Iraq?" 42 percent said, "Very important," and 24 percent said, "Somewhat important." Only 13 percent said, "Not at all important." Yet 70-some House Democrats -- in an act of true genius designed to keep the enemy off-guard -- formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, to erroneously convey the impression that this reflected popular American sentiment.
Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. (who also voted for the war), purports to want to go even further. He actually brags about a back-door scheme to cut off funding: "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work." Our enemies' heads must be spinning.
If I had been president in 2003, I never would have started this war, and if it is still going on when I am president in 2009, I will end it. -- Sen. Clinton, Feb. 12, 2007
So, there we have it. Congress -- with substantial Democratic support -- votes to authorize the war. Many of the same people who voted for the war now oppose it. So they pass a resolution, non-binding, and therefore lacking any legal ability to stop a troop increase. The Senate unanimously confirms, as top commander in Iraq, a new general with counter-insurgence expertise -- then opposes the very troop increase that he supports. Democrats, with some Republicans, assert that last year's election showed Americans want out of Iraq, even though polls show otherwise.
This might explain why Muqtada al-Sadr reportedly took a powder to Iran. The Democrats' clever scheme rattles al Qaeda, militant Baathists, Sunni death squads and Shia militias, who now tremble, thinking, "What are these guys gonna pull next?"
Sun Tzu, in "The Art of War," says, "It is the same in all battles. You use a direct approach to engage the enemy. You use surprise to win." Brilliant, Democrats! Absolutely brilliant!