The Dems have a problem--how to lose a war without being blamed for it. They pulled it off in Vietnam, but I hope that they can't do it again.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus March 8.

Make sure the next president is an Republican, and they won't have to worry about it. Because in the short term, the next president is going to be "blamed", no matter what happens.

Anyone else notice how silent Harry Reid was when the rate of killings in Iraq was cut in half as the surge began; but the very day after an Al Qaeda "surge" he touts it as proof the surge had failed in his infamous "the war is lost" remarks?

The proper forum for a discussion with Gen Petraeus
is a hearing. Transcripts, public record, media
and the armed services committee.

A little private meeting with the speaker is grossly improper.

Bryan has a point. No significant war has ever been fought without a serious reaction immediately afterward. The reaction was powerful enough after the First World War to send Democrats into the wilderness for 12 years. After the Second, followed very closely by Korea, they enjoyed another eight years in the doghouse (and only barely climbed out in 1960 with JFK's good looks, Nixon's scowly jowls, Daly's machine, and a bogus "missile gap").

Late in a war -- even a successful war -- it's usually a good idea, politically speaking, to position yourself as not being part of its leadership, of having many criticisms for how it was waged. Wars inevitably involve more burdens and sacrifice, and less immediate success, than anyone imagines at the beginning. Buyer's remorse is inevitable. It takes years before the pain of the unexpectedly high price fades enough for the disappointingly modest benefits to start seeming worth it.

So the smart politician portrays himself, near the end of the war, as having been somewhat aloof from it. Well, I might have prosecuted this war, but certainly not in THAT boneheaded way... You're helped along by 20/20 hindsight, of course. And when the inevitable reaction comes, when people are tired of the war and want someone "new" -- why, there you are, ready to serve.

It may be cynical, but it's good politics. I don't even object in principle. The close of a war is a good time to change leadership. Frequently the guys really invested in the war aren't so good at keeping perspective, seeing the big picture, and retargeting the country's efforts, after it's all over.

But on the other hand, it looks as if today's Democrats are so eager to get to the post-war reaction phase that they're willing to skip the part where we actually win. Idiots.

Everyone in favor of the Iraq war could chip in money for this.
30% of the American people believe in this, if 80 Million people
could chip in $1000 each, that would be the Supplemental

Anonymous coward, that was a stupid comment, even for you.

Everyone in favor of the Iraq war could chip in money for this.

I'm game. As long as -- fair's fair, you know -- I get to disfund the crap that Nancy Pelosi and friends want my taxes to fund. Say, the $20 billion in vote-buying pork she spread around so she could get a symbolic vote against the Iraq war in the last bill. Or the entire Department of Education. Or Social Security benefits for people who are "disabled" and can't work because they feel sad and worthless a lot of the time.

Where do I sign up?

I want all of my income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare to go completely towards the war effort.

Oh yes I'll sign up! In fact, after defunding all the crap I don't like and DOUBLE funding what I do I should still get a tax break over all.

I'll pay $2000, and cut off all my funding to social security. I'd still have plenty of money left over to take care of my own retirement plans. My wife will pitch in another $2000 as well.

I'll take the deal Leland is suggesting.

Sign me up too. Thanks to Bush, I get 5K a head on five children at tax time. So I can donate that...at least until the oldest turns 18 or so...