Why we must fail in Iraq*

*in the view of today's Democratic Party

We said in an earlier post that today's Democratic Party is no longer the party of Truman but the party of Benedict Arnold. Harsh? Yes. True? Upon further reflection? ABSOLUTELY.

What is Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, the architects of the 2006 Democratic congressional sweep, as well as newly minted Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the sanctimonious Harry Reid, not to mention Hillary Clinton, most AFRAID of in 2008?

Success in Iraq.

Even clear progress and stability is a problem. The foibles of a handful GOP representatives certainly helped but Democrats overall swept to victory on a single issue - the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Even so, the combined margin of victory in the 16 closest races in the House was less than 80,000 votes. And the Senate was lost due to a horrible campaign by George Allen.

In other words the margin of victory was not really that comfortable.

Since virtually every Democratic member of Congress of note and certainly the Presidential candidates, have tacked left or hard left on Iraq, success or progress in Iraq could easily leave Democrats once again out in the cold.

Is this just politics? Democrats surely will become saner once they are in control of the war - meaning once they occupy in the Oval Office. However, Pelosi and Murtha - he of the "slow bleed" strategy - aren't even pretending to be supportive; they are just afraid of openly de-funding the war. Mostly likely a Democrat in the Oval Office will simply cut his or her losses; after all it was Bush's War. That it will severely damage the Middle East, our standing with our allies and give great succor to the Islamists for whom the issue is our way of life, not what we do, be damned.

Democrats have clearly cast their lot. Success for America in Iraq will mean failure for them.

The party of Benedict Arnold.