During the 2006 election campaign, it was often pointed out that Democratic Party candidates would, if elected, seek to cut off funding for our troops, and try to enforce a timeline for retreat from Iraq.
Often, the response from many Democrats, many liberals, and many antiwar activists was something along these lines: "No, not at all! We're not against the troops! We won't cut off funds or force a precipitate withdrawal! That charge is a false accusation - just Republican hyperbole!"
Such denials became more and more common during the campaign, especially as November approached.
Despite their sincere lack of interest in a victory strategy, the Democrats knew that they could not win the elections if the voters thought that in power, they would cut off the funds and enforce a timeline for retreat.
That, by the way, says volumes about where the American people actually stand with regard to the war against terrorism, support of our troops, and the desire for success and victory in Iraq.
Almost immediately after the November elections, the Democratic Party leaders started claiming a mandate for withdrawal timelines, defunding, "ending" the war, etc. Although this was not really the position of the American people, it was the sincere goal of the Democrats.
Turn to 2007. In the early stages of the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, the leading (and even the non-leading) candidates tried to trump each other's antiwar credentials.
Recently, especially since encouraging progress in the military situation and the backfiring of the ultraleft Moveon.org attack on General Petraeus, and reflected (for example) in the most recent Democratic candidates debate, the Democrats (especially Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) have started to verbally distance themselves from timelines and funding cutoffs.
In fact, just as Kerry in 2004 at the Boston Demcoratic convention sought to portray himself as a military hero who would do a better job of fighting and killing the terrorists, we can expect the 2008 Democratic nominee to similarly claim they would not retreat, not surrender, not cut off funds, etc.
The Democrats have already begun to slightly distance themselves, and as November 2008 approaches, they will continue to incrementally distance themselves from the far left. The better to get elected, you see.
Some Democrats, some liberals, and some antiwar activists falsely claim that the 2006 elections represent a "mandate" to "end" the war. However, if it were really true that the American people agreed with retreat from Iraq, there would be no brake stopping the Democratic candidates from pursuing their misguided, but sincere, "exit strategy." (Besides, even retreat from Iraq would not "end" the Islamic fascist war against us.)
As in 2004, they will fail, I believe. But in order to make sure that their disingenuous effort fails, Republicans and convservatives and others who support victory must hold the Democrats' feet to the fire. We must constantly point out that the Democrats' sincere desire and sincere goal is to force retreat from Iraq, and to go back on the defensive with regard to the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Steve Beren
http://www.berenforcongress.com/iraq.html