Democrats' Strategy to Unequivocally Oppose Surge

Washington has begun a titanic battle about whether the United States or
Israel should launch a first strike attack against Iran. There are
intelligence and military officials in both Nations arguing strongly
against this. The stakes are deadly. The danger is real.

This is the context of the strong dissent I express here, about some
characterizations
of Democrats in Melinda Henneberger's post.
I once worked for Congressional Leaders,
know many senior Democrats today. Lets understand their strategy.

It is: to unequivocally oppose the surge. To create space for
Republicans to join us. To
turn around the escalation. To create a
vehicle to end the policy and prevent future war.

Ms. Henneberger headlines: Democrats are
divided. In truth the Republicans are far more
divided than Democrats. We debate tactics
to reverse the escalation. Republicans are now
divided and many are joining us against the
President's policy.

That is the big news in Washington.

Second, of course Democrats have different
opinions about tactics. That is good, not bad.
We are not the Republicans, where the Decider
dictates the policy and Congress kneels.

We respect the opinions of Jack Murtha, Ike Skelton, Russ Feingold, Jack
Reed, Jim Webb,
Ted Kennedy and others. That is a plus, not a negative. The war is four
years old. The new Democratic Congress is days old. We have begun the
fight effectively and well.

Next: Ms. Henneberger writes: "But couldn't
we worry about the soldiers first and the blame
later." Exactly which Democrats are not putting
the soldiers first?

Here is my list of Democrats who are not
putting the soldiers first: zero.

Next: our Presidential candidates in Congress
are unanimously opposing the surge. Yet Ms.
Hennenberger writes: "And I have never heard
such a compelling argument for sitting out an
election."

Excuse me?

Exactly which presidential candidates, all of
whom oppose the surge, should inspire this
contempt? Please name them. I will cite
only one, the Senator from New York, who
disappoints, again, by calculating and waiting.

Democrats in Congress running for President are speaking for the people
when they oppose the surge. This is a reason to participate in the
Presidential campaign, not to sit it out. We
we should be fighting to elect a Democratic President to end unjust war
and save the Supreme Court. Not insulting candidates who oppose the war,
suggesting they are reasons to not participate.

Next: Ms. Henneberger writes: there is still
lots of room at the front. The Generals at
the front are Reid and Pelosi and for my
money, they are doing a fine job. There
is an excitement and enthusiasm among
Democrats who are waging the fight in Congress every day.

Of course leadership will emerge with new
ideas. There is always more room at the front.
But criticizing Presidential candidates who oppose the surge as being
excuses for sitting out the election, is suggesting that those at the
front, on our side, should shoot each other, in the foxhole.

We should challenge Democrats when they fail to lead. When the Celinda
Lakes make
preposterous comments that the voters did
not elect Democrats to solve the Iraq war,
we should join that fight loudly and clearly.

But Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the House and Senate Democratic Caucus
have listened
to us, not them.

Leaders like Jack Murtha will create the consensus that will unite the
party, from his powerful perch that he has used so wisely.

Not one Democrat should be lectured to put
the soldiers first.

That is what Republicans say to Swift Boat Democrats.

Our Democrats came here to support our troops and their families. That
is what they
are doing. Lets fight to end the Bush policy
in Iraq and prevent a Bush war against Iran,
not shoot each other in the foxhole, while
we fight together at the front.