Of course, we've known and been reporting this for months: the Surge worked. When will Harry Reid eat his words? When will Nancy Pelosi praise the American military and the Iraqi people for defeating al Qaeda? We won't hold our breath. The Surge Worked By JOHN MCCAIN and JOE LIEBERMAN January 10, 2008; Page A15 It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus. At the ...

IBD Editorial Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

From Michael Ramirez at IBD Editorials.

Given that the Dems were so focused on losing in Iraq this year, it is appropo that at the end of the day it is they who have been dubbed the losers: Dems Still Trumped by Bush in 2007 By LAURIE KELLMAN – 16 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence. By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war ...

Continuing our theme: Iraq is the "Turnaround of the Year." Not just militarily,  but legislatively and politically, as well. Barnes: An Astonishing Turnaround on Iraq December 19, 2007 By Fred Barnes An astonishing turnaround occurred in the Senate on Tuesday: 70 senators voted to fund the Iraq war with a fresh $70 billion and no strings attached. Think about this a moment. Last winter, after Democrats captured the Senate and House, it seemed likely they'd succeed in limiting or ending the Iraq war, probably by setting a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops. After all, both President Bush and the war itself were highly unpopular. The Democratic triumph in the election made that clear, even to those who doubted opinion polls. And ...

From the fantastic Michael Ramirez at IBD Editorials.

Peter Beinart writes in the WaPo that Iraq is fading as a political issue. Why? Because "fewer people are dying there." The reason Iraq is fading is simple: Not as many people are dying there. Fewer deaths mean fewer front-page stories, and fewer front-page stories mean less discussion on the cable shows, which were pretty sick of the topic already. Turn on the television these days, and you're more likely to think America is at war with illegal immigrants than with insurgents in the heart of the Middle East. Now there's some hard-hitting analysis: the reason Iraq is fading is because not as many "people are dying there." This sounds as if the mortality rate due to natural ...

IBD Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

In a great piece in The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery says that the Dems surge against the surge is a case study in political futility. The Stab That Failed The congressional Democrats' surge-against-the-surge -- a case study in political futility. by Noemie Emery 12/03/2007, Volume 013, Issue 12 Eagerly anticipating the defeat in Iraq to which they are so much attached, some on the left have also been preparing for another contingency: the assault that they think they see coming, a drive to pin the whole wretched failure on them. Apparently, this will be "stab in the back" redux, a new iteration of the theme deployed so successfully in interwar Germany by a resourceful, ambitious Austrian corporal, who managed to propel his rise to power with the claim that World War I would have been won by his country, if not for sinister forces at home. Then, it was subversion by Jews and other disloyal elements. This time, in the left's imagining, the blame will fall on the press and the Democrats who, by pulling the plug at just the wrong moment, caused the loss of Iraq. "Nobody I know in a rational condition believes that the United States is going to have any kind of a military victory," Mark Shields said in August. "So the idea is going to be, 'We were on the cusp of victory and the rug was pulled out from under us by these willy-nilly, weak-kneed, nervous Nellies back home.'" The problem with this is (1) that we may really win, and have no failure to blame upon anyone, and (2) that the nervous Nellies really did try to keep us from winning, indeed fought fang and claw to derail our best efforts. If they had had their way, Iraq would still be the quagmire they are so fond of invoking, and the United States--or George W. Bush, which may be the more relevant factor--would have incurred a definitive and, at least in his case, legacy-blasting defeat. It is unfair of course to call this a stab in the back, as the Democrats have been engagingly open about their intentions. In the course of the past year, they have gone from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done. If not backstabbing as such (see above), it is diverting enough a spectacle to merit a replay. Let us look back at this last year of battle and see how the story played out. When our tale opens, it is the last month of 2006, Democrats have just scored a blowout in Congress, Iraq is in shambles, and the country is calling for Bush to change course. He does. But he changes course in the other direction, radically revising his Iraq strategy, adopting aggressive new rules of engagement, and sending in 30,000 more troops. Even before the plan was announced to the public on January 10, 2007, Democrats launched their assault. Senator Christopher Dodd declared the plan useless: "A 'surge' of American troops will do nothing." Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrats in the new Congress, released an open letter to Bush on January 5, decrying his redoubled effort as futile: "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed." The surge was "a sad, ominous echo of something we've lived through in this country," according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. "I'm confident it will not work," said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama. "Verdict first, trial afterwards," said the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, unaware of her future as a role model for America's congressional Democrats. And then it really got strange.

The NY Times reports that though the Dems lost again on trying to hold up funding for the war, they have vowed to fight on. Democrats in Congress failed once again Friday to shift President Bush’s war strategy in Iraq, but insisted that they would not let up. Their explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: “What else are we supposed to do?” How about join the winning team? How about claim victory in Iraq? How about offer some praise for the bravery and sacrifice of the Greatest Military in the world? How about encourage the Iraqi people in their return home? I've got other suggestions . . ...