Abu Wabu

Idiots are surrendering their fight against funding the rescue of Iraq and have adopted a new strategy. From now until their next surrender, they're going after President Bush's plan to form a long-term military security and co-operation agreement with the Iraqi government:

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

Interesting to note that what adults see as commitment, idiots refer to as having their hands tied. Nothing new there: that same reasoning got a million souls murdered and their skulls and bones stacked in the killing fields thanks to the idiots who managed to get the US prematurely yanked from Vietnam. It's all bullshit anyway: the entire world takes it for granted that a President Hillary or President Ubama will immediately welch on damned near everything built during the Bush years. Democrats say the U.S. needs to rebuild friendships around the world yet they're ready to abandon the newest and best ally they have in the part of the world where we need more functional friends than ever.

That's just the latest reason I call them idiots.

The New York Times reprints the latest Soros Memo in the comforting ambience of its Editorial Page:

Don’t Tie the Next President’s Hands
President Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq. With so many Americans adamant about bringing our forces home as soon as possible, a sentiment we strongly share, Mr. Bush must not be allowed to tie the hands of his successor and ensure the country’s continued involvement in an open-ended war.

Captain Ed:

The effort to undermine the alliance between Iraq and the US points to a much different agenda than pacifism or a "humble" foreign policy. It reveals the underlying hostility towards American influence in global politics, and especially an underlying partisan motivation against the Bush administration and the possibility of long-term success in Iraq as part of its legacy. It's a purely electoral calculation, trying to throw a monkey wrench in a critical area of foreign policy just to get more Democrats elected in November -- as its advocates admit.

They can expect the same level of success they saw in 2007 while trying to sabotage the war effort. Harry Reid and John Murtha's declarations of defeat resonate ever stronger as Iraq progresses both militarily and politically. Voters will remember that in November as they envision what would have happened in Iraq if Democrats had had control of military policy in 2007.