Paul Krugman has aptly predicted what will happen when General Petraeus makes his much-ballyhooed September report:
Here's what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq - as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.
Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.
Krugman goes on to explain why Petraeus' report is cooked: the White House is writing it, it counts only certain types of deaths (folks shot in the back of the head, say, as opposed to folks shot in the front), it leaves out car bombings, and counts enclaves already "ethnically cleansed" as progress.
All independent reports show no progress in Iraq.
Krugman also points out that the majority of Americans are against this thing and want it to be over.
Naturally, then, Congressional Democrats are going to cave in to Bush:
In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a "goal" for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate - but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters - political cover.
And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left on his recent visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success.
Let's face it. The Democrats won't be hurt by this pussy-footing in the 2008 election, largely because the Republican position on the war is even worse. In fact, as long as the war continues, it'll be the main issue in the election, and it'll work to the Democrats' advantage.
That said, if the Democrats end the war now, their honest representation of their constituency will be amply rewarded in 2008. Folks are starved for good old fashioned principle. It's time for our Congress to display some.
And as I've said before, we're quickly running out of time to extract ourselves from this mess. When, and if, a Democratic president inherits this mess, it's not likely she'll want to pull out of the country. Then it'll be a Democratic war and could split the party.
...the American people sent this Congress a mandate in November of 2006, and that mandate was to force George Bush to end this war in Iraq. We need the Congress to meet its responsibilities. They should not submit a single funding bill to this president that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal. If he vetoes it...if he vetoes it, they should send him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal, if he vetoes that, they should send him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal, they need to force this president to end the war!
And remember: this doesn't require a veto-proof majority in the Senate. All it requires is forty one Senators who would filibuster any funding bill that doesn't contain withdrawal timetables.
