News portal

No decision has been made; but given the makeup of the committee planning the Democrats’ strategy, and the individual members’ penchant for making futile frontal charges against fortified political positions, the result is little in doubt. Van Hollen will consult with House Speaker, and America’s Mother-in-Law™, Nancy Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, and House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Jack Murtha, among others. Not mentioned by The Hill but sure to be a part of the discussions are Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel. It is a sad commentary unto itself to note that Steny Hoyer might be the most reasonable member of that illustrious grouping.

Van Hollen is the message guy. It will be his job to coordinate campaign activities with House activities. Or is that the other way around? Because Van Hollen’s statement on the supplemental appropriation mentions nothing about Iraq, or the troops, but it sure does mention the campaign.

“There are some people who would say, ‘OK, why are you going through this exercise again, if the president is going to veto this?’ We have a responsibility to do everything we can to follow through on the changes we say we want made,” Van Hollen said. “I think it is a question of demonstrating where you stand, and what you will do, and continue to push to do, if you are elected in November.”

So this is what all the Democrats’ bluster about violence in Basra, the supposed lack of political progress, and the alleged “civil war” between Sunni and Shia boils down to: “demonstrating where you stand…if you are elected.” Shallow, cynical, political posturing.

Van Hollen is right, of course. Democrats in the House will pass withdrawal language in this year’s supplemental. If Senate Republicans have the political instincts that God gave lettuce, they will not filibuster the measure and it will pass the Senate as well. And then the president will veto it. Not content to have another Iraq failure hung around her neck, Pelosi will attempt an override and lose before completely caving in to the president, again. Just like last year.

A smart political party might look at the recent successes in Iraq and conclude that it would be politically advantageous to find a way to jump on the bandwagon. A political party interested in the least bit in getting the policy right might even try to one-up the opposition by calling for more spending, or troop increases, or a parade for returning soldiers as they are withdrawn. But Pelosi et al. think that losing to the Administration on Iraq is good for them politically. They don’t care about the policy, or the troops, or the effects of their vote. They think that by failing to stop the war that almost every impartial observer now acknowledges the Iraqi government and the United States is winning they will better their chances at keeping the House in November.

But we’ve known this for quite a while now. What’s different here is that Van Hollen admits it so clearly. And that in itself is an indication of just how bad a position the Democrats are in on Iraq. The Democrats’ opposition to the troop surge was vocal and hysterical. The party has adopted the anti-war agenda completely. Couple that with the fact that the success in Iraq as a result of the troop surge has been so sudden and complete, and it is clear that there is no way the Democrats can now claim to have supported the surge all along, or to want to see it continue to succeed. They have no credibility on anything war related, except to try and end it.

All they are left with is hollow, partisan, political stunts, like their upcoming pretend vote to end the war. One could say that they are just playing the cards they were dealt. But Democrats have been dealing since the beginning of last year. And no matter how they try to stack the deck against them, Bush and Petraeus keep drawing the inside straight.