California Conservative

That’s the title of a particularly poorly researched article in US News & World Report written by Danielle Knight. One of the things she wrote in the article is that Harry Reid “is even worried that the White House will prevent Petraeus from testifying openly.” The implication is that President Bush doesn’t want the public to know what’s happening in Iraq. The opposite is true; President Bush wants everyone to know what’s happening in Iraq.

Ms. Knight shouldn’t have let Sen. Reid get away with that statement, especially in light of this post on the Crypt:

The White House made clear today that the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Iraq will testify publicly before Congress next month, easing a brewing spat between the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the possibility of closed-door-only sessions.

That post states clearly that the White House wants Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker to testify for all the world to hear. Reid suggesting that the White House will interfere with Gen. Petraeus’ public testimony is pure showmanship on his behalf. When Sen. Reid tried starting this rumor, the Bush administration immediately made it known that they wanted Gen. Petraeus testifying in public. Here’s the full paragraph from the Crypt’s post:

Democrats are hoping this flood of new appraisals will be so bleak that congressional Republicans will be forced to change course. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is even worried that the White House will prevent Petraeus from testifying openly. If the president is going to continue to ask taxpayers to spend $10 billion monthly on the war, says Reid, “then those closest to the situation on the ground must give Congress…a frank and honest account of this war free of White House political spin.” The Bush administration has denied that closed-door-only briefings were under consideration.

The battle on whether we should extend the Surge is essentially finished. When asked by the Washington Post’s Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza what would happen if Gen. Petraeus’ reported good news from Iraq, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told them that good news would be “a real big problem for us.”

After hearing Clyburn’s now-famous quote, reporters should take anyone talking about gloom and doom scenarios with a grain of salt. I certainly wouldn’t take Sen. Reid seriously if he’d told me that he was worried about Gen. Petraeus not testifying in public. In fact, I would’ve likely responded by asking him why he was worried about that happening when it’s Democrats that are worried about people catching on that there’s lots of positive things happening in Iraq.

Here’s another stunningly naive section of Ms. Knight’s article:

Democrats will probably try to add amendments to the supplemental spending bill, including contentious proposals to withdraw troops. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, may propose an amendment that would require most troops to leave Iraq within six months. Murtha supports immediately ending operations in Iraq but acknowledges that it would very likely take a full year to withdraw most of the 159,000 troops now deployed.

The Senate will chime in with its own debate on the withdrawal of forces. Democrats, who hold a 51-to-49 majority there, must have Republican support to acquire the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. Whether such proposals would win approval—or face a prolonged veto fight with the White House—is unclear. But with GOP Sen. John Warner of Virginia, an influential Armed Services Committee member, now joining a small group of Republicans calling for troop withdrawals, Democrats are hopeful that they may be nearing the votes they need to at least begin the process of bringing U.S. troops home.

After reading the closing paragraphs to her article, I’m forced to ask what planet this woman’s living on. If and when President Bush submits his next Iraq supplemental request, the Democratic presidential candidates will vote against it so they don’t incur the wrath of the Nutroots gang. They’ll be joined by true believers like Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry & Robert Byrd. I’d be surprised if 30 Democrats will vote against cutting off funds to the troops. I don’t expect a dramatically different result in the House.

The bottom line is that the battle over war funding is essentially over because there’s good news reports coming out of Iraq on a daily basis. Now that people see that we aren’t spinning our wheels, they’re supporting the war in greater numbers. The only question left at this point will be how Hillary will rationalize her changing her position on the war for the umpteenth time.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Hillary, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Election 2008, Surge, President Bush

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 pm and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Hillary, Iraq, Media, Military, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.