Never let the facts stand in the way of appeasing an interest group

As we’ve noted, the early returns on the troop surge in Iraq provide grounds for cautious optimism. Indeed, NBC anchor Brian Williams has noticed the progress.
The House Dems would rather not notice, however. Thus, according to Red State, this morning they turned down an invitation to meet with General Petraeus. Apparently, they would rather meet with, and get their cues on the war from, groups like the the Service Employees International Union and MoveOn.org.
JOHN adds: General Petraeus gave an excellent press conference in Baghdad earlier today, which you can watch in its entirety here.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that the House Democrats have come up with a new position on the war. They contemplate adding a requirement to the upcoming appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that all combat troops be removed from Iraq by September 2008. Of course, the House Dems face the same problem with this approach as with their previous efforts: it won’t get through the Senate. And if it does, the White House threatens a veto. How that would work if the pullout requirement is part of the supplemental appropriation, I don’t know.
Via Power Line News.
FURTHER UPDATE: Here’s the latest from the Senate Democrats:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today joined Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin [and others] to announce a new Joint Resolution to revise U.S. policy on Iraq. Iraq has fallen into a bloody civil war, and as conditions on the ground have changed so must U.S. policy change to meet them.
The Reid Joint Resolution … contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008.

The Democrats’ press release says that the President’s strategy in Iraq “is not working” and has “failed,” but never mentions the surge, nor does it address widely-acknowledged indications that the new approach seems to be working quite well, so far. All of this is side-stepped by calling the conflict in Iraq a “civil war,” a phrase the Democrats’ press release uses no fewer than five times. Apparently the Democrats believe that calling the conflict a “civil war” means that the administration’s policy has failed even if it succeeds.
I don’t know why the Senate’s “joint resolution” has a different end-point from the just-floated House strategy.
To comment on this post, go here.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line