More Democrats are Admitting that Winning in Iraq is Bad for Them

First Congressman James Clyburn acknowledged it, and now other Democrats are too. Investors Business Daily has an editorial that further illustrates how the Democrats are now laying aside all pretense and are admitting that a win in Iraq is bad for their party:

If you have good news, they don’t want to hear it. Reid, Pelosi, Murtha et al. want to hear no progress, see no progress, speak no progress.

A spokesman for Pelosi admitted as much by saying Democratic leaders are “not willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq.

They are like gamblers who don’t want their team to score if it ruins the point spread. The Democrats don’t want us to win if it ruins their chances in 2008.

Not willing to concede that there is good news from Iraq, Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, got up and walked out at a recent hearing of the Armed Service Committee when retired Gen. Jack Keane said that “progress is being made” by the good guys, American and Iraqi.

Using the imperial pronoun, Ms. Boyda said that “there was only so much (good news) that you could take until we, in fact, had to leave the room for a while . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.”

You know, things like this from Gen. Keane: “We are on the offensive and we have the momentum.”

We have come to know how frustrating it can be for a Democrat to hear that we just might be winning in Iraq.

Boyda’s concern was that the rest of the country might hear it, too. She expressed concern that Gen. Keane’s remarks “will, in fact, show up in the media and further divide this country.” Too late.

How pathetic.

The New Republic questions report that Beauchamp recanted
Hot Lead And Blue Steal (I)