Lucy, Democrats may have a problem!

At the very least they’ve got some s’plaining to do! Democrats are attempting to beat back any positive news, message or event related to the war in Iraq or President Bush. They would love to keep the political conversation on these two subjects all negative all the time but a crack seems to be developing in Democrat strategy.

First Michael E. O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings two long time liberal anti-war critics published a piece in the New York Times that offers hope that the war can be won and possibly is being won!

And then, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford D. May, Senator John McCain, Mackubin Thomas Owens, James S. Robbins, Peter W. Rodman, Joseph Morrison Skelly, and Michael Yon all chime in that, yeah there are some positive things happening in Iraq.

Finally, U.S. HOUSE Majority Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third ranking Democrat in the House is interviewed by Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz of the Washingtonpost.com when asked concerning Gen. David Petraeus September progress report on Iraq the Congressman seem to view it as problematic if the General’s report would come back positive. (see interview)


The UnionLeader.com writes:

U.S. HOUSE Majority Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., [the third ranking Democrat in the House] acknowledged on Monday that his party has called for withdrawing from Iraq while victory, or at least a better situation than exists now, might yet be attained.

If Gen. David Petraeus delivers a September progress report showing real gains, instead of the mixed report many have expected, it would "be a real big problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.

Why would American success in Iraq be "a real big problem" for Democrats? Oh, yeah. They've already called the war "lost" (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), have tried seven times this year to end it, and have staked their majority in Congress and their hopes for winning the White House on an American failure there.

But all of a sudden things are starting to look a little more positive in Iraq -- the "surge" is producing results -- and some Democrats are getting nervous.
"We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report," Clyburn said of any more Democratic calls for specific action in Iraq.

Now there's an idea. Wait to see if the new strategy is working before demanding an end to the war. Why didn't the Democratic leadership try that before?
Oh, right. Because pledging to end the war was more politically beneficial. Now that sticking around and trying to win might, just might, turn out to be the better political choice, Clyburn suggests that his party gather all the facts before making the call. –UnionLeader.com

I couldn’t have said it better myself UnionLeader! What next Democrats claiming that they always knew that President Bush was a good President?

Think about it if Democrats would not have bad mouth this effort and actually used their acumen for political fighting to work with the Bush administration instead of almost 8 years of undermining the Presidency, maybe just maybe this war could have been waged and won already with a united front.

We’ll never know. But this thing is certain if this war is won and the United States is successful in Iraq no Democrat can take any credit for it.
And no Democrat should expect to be rewarded by being elected President of these United States of America because it is obvious that as, House Majority Whip James Clyburn inadvertently exposed, success in Iraq in a real big problem for the Democrats.

That is only so because Democrats chose to politicize this war, in essence hyping the negative aspects of the war for Democrat political gain.
So if America wins the only ones who lose are the terrorist and the Democrats. And that’s just sad!