Via, Atrios and Yglesias, one of the Fox News liberal types, Michael O'Hanlon, writes a "stirring defense" of General Petraeus:

Sen. Harry Reid's recent statements questioning the forthrightness of Gen. David Petraeus in reporting on conditions in Iraq are unseemly and unfair. . . . It is true Gen. Petraeus was too optimistic about the training program of Iraqi forces when he was in charge of it. But he was not alone in having undue confidence about the course of events in Iraq at that point. . . It is also true Gen. Petraeus chose to highlight the "normalcy" of much of Iraq in recent comments about how things are going there. Such comments were indeed a bit forward-leaning . . .

Forward-leaning? You mean rose-colored glasses? The notion that Reid demanding candor from someone who has been "overly optimistic" as bad is just bizarre. I hope General Petraeus is more forthright than O'Hanlon has been, for he is one of those folks who believes in extended Friedman Units:

Although it has been said before about previous new years, it seems very likely that 2007 will be make or break time in Iraq.

Is it ok if we demand a little candor from Mr. O'Hanlon and would he please be forthright in telling us how and why he has been wrong on EVERYTHING about Iraq?

No, not Harry Reid. No, as Greg Sargent reports (while wrongly saying Reid called Pace incompetent on the infamous blogger conference call. Sargent does not know that. Bad job Greg. Will we be hearing how Gore invented the Internet next?), it is John Edwards criticizing General Petraeus:

General Petraeus’ comments are just the latest example of the Bush Administration’s disconnect from the reality on the ground. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving. Instead of talking about keeping our troops in Iraq for another decade, the Administration should begin bringing our troops home to the hero’s welcome they deserve."

On ABC's This Week, Senator Joseph Biden really crystallized what is wrong with the Beltway Democrats' view of the Iraq Debacle.

Biden said he won't support continuing the Surge while at the same time saying he had to vote to FUND the Surge. This answer echoed his debate answer:

We have 50 votes in the United States Senate. We have less of a majority in the House than any time other than the last eight years. Ladies and gentlemen, you're going to end this war when you elect a Democratic president. You need 67 votes to end this war. . . . We're funding the safety of those troops there until we can get 67 votes...

Leaving aside the Orwellian "funding the safety of those troops" by voting to keep them in a war, what Biden is telling you is that even though he opposes continuing the war, he will vote to continue funding the war indefinitely. So let's be clear, Senator Biden, speaking for a good number of Beltway Democrats, including Netroots darlings like Senators Webb and Tester, despite opposing continuing the war, will not use the Not Spending power to end the Iraq Debacle. As long as this is true, the Iraq Debacle will not be ended. And, despite the protestations of these Democrats to the contrary, this means they are effectively, even if it is against their will, supporting President Bush's policies on the Iraq Debacle.

Finding that his previous analysis of the Politics of Iraq has fallen flat, Jonathan Alter grasps at straws and argues that the Dems' problem is one of sloganeering. Steven Benen gently guts Alter's argument:

. . . Alter's broader argument is off-base. He argues that Democrats have the right policy, but it's not "getting through" to the rest of the country. I disagree -- they have the right policy, it's getting through just fine, but Dems are coming up short executing their own strategy. Indeed, Alter suggests what's standing between Democrats and broader acceptance of their policy prescription is "some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn't make them look like surrender monkeys." Alter's heart is in the right place, but he's missing a key point here -- the public has already accepted the Democratic war policy. The problem isn't in framing; Dems' poll numbers started to sag only after they gave in and gave the Bush White House the war funding bill the president demanded. The sales pitch was irrelevant. . . . I think he's fallen into the same belief that tends to dominate the DC conventional wisdom -- that the Dems have fallen short in convincing Americans that it's time to withdraw from Iraq. That's just not so; Americans already want out and are waiting for Washington to catch up.

What Steve said.

Glenn Greenwald and a recommended dkos diary by Tom Rinaldo again sound the alarm bells about the attempted gin up for a war with Iran. I must raise my previous objections to this line of thinking again -- any war with Iran will use the pretext of Iranian involvement in the Iraq Debacle. Glenn quotes Joe Lieberman's column I noted earlier:

Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.

Lieberman desperately wants a war with Iran but realizes the only way he can have one is by arguing that Iran is attacking our soldiers in Iraq. This central fact must be the lede in every discussion of potential war with Iran.

Joe Lieberman filed his yearly WSJ glowing report on Iraq:

I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy. The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.

Joe does not agree of course.

Via mcjoan, Harry Reid says:

"I understand their disappointment," Reid said. "We raised the bar too high."

. . . He admitted to us that it was a mistake to raise expectations and that it wouldn't happen again.

What won't happen again? Raising expectations of ending the war? Ummm, too late for that Senator Reid. That is what the 2006 elections were about. There is no lowering the bar now.

Democrats need to face this reality - the "expectations" are that they will do everything possible to end the Debacle. If they do not try to end it, they will suffer consequences. And for Gawd's sake, please stop listening to Carl Levin:

The proposal to cut off money for U.S. combat is particularly far-fetched. Many leading Democrats, including Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., oppose the move because it would be seen as Democrats turning their backs on the troops.

Amazing! If it will be seen like that it is in large measure because Democrats like Levin SAY it will be seen like that. Just incredibly stupid. Meanwhile, Charlie Cook, normally astute, drinks the Beltway water:

Matt Stoller and David Sirota lay into the Beltway Elite on their analysis of the Iraq Supplemental. Stoller lambastes Stu Rothenberg's thinking:

Why take a chance alienating swing voters, Rothenberg asks, completely oblivious to the fact that this vote cost Democrats ten points among independents. We're already seeing rural voters turn against the occupation, and towards the Democrats. . . . Note also the contempt for the left, for people who want to end the occupation in Iraq. Where are we going to go, if it's not for Mark Udall in Colorado or Hillary Clinton in 2008? Well, I can say that this energy is going to translate either into primary challenges or into apathy, but it won't go into helping this party leadership much longer. I'm going to encourage primaries as much as possible, because what they want is for us to go away. . . .

Good for Matt. Sirota takes on the Beltway Dem class:

Last night, on Countdown, Jon Alter repeated his belief that this fall and after, Republicans will pressure Bush into setting a course for getting out of Iraq. The point of reference was the Salazar (D-CO)-Smith (R-OR) proposal:

[F]ive GOP senators signed on to separate legislation that would enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which envisioned most U.S. combat troops coming home by early 2008. That legislation — proposed by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) — has the backing of several GOP loyalists, including Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Robert F. Bennett of Utah.

I sincerely hope Alter is right. I am extremely confident he is wrong. Indeed the details of the bill show it for what it is, Republican cover bill:

Neither bill sets a firm deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, a key demand of antiwar Democrats, who have fought for months to force Republican lawmakers and the White House to accept such a plan.

It is, to coin a phrase, weak tea. And bad politics for the Democratic Party.

Are they stupid or are they lying? Yet again, the pollsters seem incapable of accurately describing the Reid-Feingold framework. Let's remind again what is being proposed - after a date certain, March 31, 2008, the Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle. How could you ask the American People about this? Here's how:

Would you support a proposal that provides a binding withdrawal date from Iraq by announcing that after March 31, 2008, the war will not be funded?

Because that is the proposal. How does Gallup describe it?

[Would you support a] candidate who supports legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq.

This is obviously an inaccurate description. It implies immediate defunding. And that is a false description. Gallup insists on falsely describing the proposal. The question is why?

In the course of a silly screed against the Left blogs (I think it so silly that it really does not merit further comment), Joe Klein asserts something that requires some explanation from Senators Clinton and Obama:

The spitballs aimed at Harman, Clinton and Obama are another story. Despite their votes, each of those politicians believes the war must be funded. (Obama even said so in his statement explaining his vote.)

So what Klein is saying is that, in essence, Clinton and Obama are being dishonest in their votes in favor of the Reid-Feingold framework. This is a serious charge and I think these two candidates need to respond to this assertion from the Time columnist.

The question for the Senators is this: Do you believe the Iraq Debacle should NOT be funded after a date certain as proposed by the Reid-Feingold framework or not? John Edwards raised the issue of the lack of leadership shown by the two Senators on the issue. Is Edwards understating the problem? Are these two Senators being dishonest in their votes on the issue, as Joe Klein asserts?

Rudy Does It In One Sentence

It's unimaginable that you'd leave Saddam in power while fighting a war on terror.

That's the argument the GOP should embrace, seize and use to beat Hillary's campaign into a coma.

- National Review

. . . then how do we leave Iraq?

But of course it is not true. It is obviously false. But understand the mindset from Republicans. All of their Presidential candidates, save Paul, believe this. How in blazes will GOP Congresspersons then end the war? The September fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Republican will NEVER be part of ending the Iraq Debacle. And Democrats better make sure that they are perceived as having tried their hardest gto end it.