In an attempt to discredit the O'Hanlon/Pollack piece on the success of the surge (commented on here earlier today by my colleague Mike Goldfarb), bloggers on the left are trying to depict the two as long-time supporters of the war. Glenn Greenwald, in particular, assembles an array of quotes (amidst 4 updates and some 4,000 words) from O'Hanlon showing his optimism about the mission in Iraq as late as May, 2004. To give a sense as to just how long ago that was, it was before the rise of Moqtada al Sadr, before the withdrawal of Spanish troops, and before the transfer of authority to the new Iraqi government. In other words, it's been a long time since O'Hanlon could be classed as the sort of supporter that Greenwald seeks to make him out as. Be sure to read Tom Maguire on this topic. He does a better job than Greenwald in showing how O'Hanlon and Pollack got to where they are today. Maguire notes that with the ever so slight improvement in polls on Iraq, and the good news on the ground, "the Dems need to pin down Bush's defeat before it slips away from them." In related news, the House will again vote this week on one or more proposals designed to embarrass Republicans with regard to Iraq--without actually withdrawing funds or ending the mission:
The raft of Iraq votes is the latest installment of the Democrats' political strategy, which calls for using floor votes to demonstrate their commitment to bringing U.S. troops home while forcing Republicans to either support them or risk voters' anger by voting against the measures. With Democrats' core supporters restless over the party's role in ending the war and Congress' standing with the public at historic lows, the political pressure on Democrats is greater than ever. The pre-recess Iraq votes are an opportunity to relieve it, if only temporarily... Party unity is under a strain over the Democrats' latest troop-withdrawal proposal, by John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the outspoken anti-war chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. His measure would require a pullout to begin 60 days after the measure's enactment but would not set a deadline for completing it. A number of liberal Democrats are not happy with Murtha's amendment because it does not establish a firm deadline for the pullout of U.S. troops.
The Congressional leadership could move to rescind the funds they provided for the war earlier this year. Such a measure has as much a chance of being enacted as any other proposal currently put forward, but it would actually accomplish what they claim to favor. The only downside: it would remind the Democratic base that it was this Democratic Congress that funded the war, and thus would expose them to a more obvious charge of hypocrisy. But ending the war is more or less a moral imperative for the Democratic leadership, right? Surely they won't be scared by the prospect of being labeled hypocrites--or by fact that this is "a war we just might win"?