No, it's not Nancy Pelosi but California Congresswoman Linda Sanchez. Of course, she's a Dem: Via Townhall.com

For several years, the Dems were screaming about us being on "the wrong course" and criticizing the President for not listening to anyone, never accepting criticism, too cock-sure. Well, the President "changed course", listened to almost everyone, accepted criticism, and humbled himself to begin a new "way forward" in Iraq. Now Senators Leader-man and McCain in today's Wall Street Journal ask a great question: The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress? BY JOHN MCCAIN AND JOE LIEBERMAN Monday, September 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT Today, Gen. David Petraeus--commander of our forces in Iraq--returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq. Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%. As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congress man Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done." Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy. This reasoning is flawed for several reasons.

There is no debate: Chuck is a Schmuck. Here is his latest revision of history: And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting. J.D. Johannes, who has been there and has interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses in Iraq, slaps Chuck down: There are ...

James Taranto, editor of Opinionjournal.com's "Best of the Web," has a great piece on the tortured logic of the left in trying to explain why Germany (who has stayed out of Iraq) was targeted in a terror attack this week: Yesterday we noted an Associated Press story on the arrest of three alleged terror plotters in Germany, which contained the following statement: Germany, which did not send troops to Iraq, has been spared terrorist attacks such as the mass transit bombings in Madrid and London--although its involvement in the attempt to stabilize Afghanistan has led to fears it might be targeted. Several readers wrote to remind us that if Germany has been "spared," it is only because those who tried to attack a ...

There is an old saying in the law: If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. If you have neither the law nor the facts, obfuscate. One thing we can be sure of, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi, were paying attention in law school. Faced with the reality of progress in Iraq the Democrat leadership is on the move -- before the Petraeus report has even hit Capitol Hill -- doing their best to confuse the matter. The primary complaint is that General Petraeus -- the General who actually runs the Surge on the ground in Iraq -- actually talked with the staff of the Commander in Chief of the ...

Why would a congressman's honest assessment that he is seeing progress in Iraq create havoc in Washington? Hmmmmmm. Baird switch on Iraq sparks reaction By Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington bureaua WASHINGTON--U.S. Rep. Brian Baird's sudden support for continuing the U.S. troop escalation in Iraq has created havoc in Congress, where members on both sides of the aisle await a crucial report on the Iraqi government's progress.< Baird's statements that the troop "surge" is working and should be given more time are at odds with the rest of the state's congressional Democrats, who oppose the war and advocate a withdrawal. Republican leaders have played up the remarks by Baird, D-Vancouver, who represents the 3rd Congressional District, while Democrats have downplayed his ...

From Michael Ramirez at IBD Editorials, the best editorial cartoonist on the planet.

This is why we originally dubbed this site: Impeach Reid and Pelosi dot com. From Opinionjournal.com today (H/T The Corner): Propaganda Redux Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush. BY ION MIHAI PACEPA Tuesday, August 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT During last week's two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged "the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism" and vowed to follow Winston Churchill's lead and make Britain's ties with America even stronger. Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the ...

James Taranto of WSJ's Best of the Web tries to make "sense" of the defeatist Dems. Some of them can't even bear to hear the truth about The Surge.  Others admit victory for our forces would be a "real big problem" for the Dems. 

James Taranto at Opinionjournal.com whacks Barack Hussein Obama for his outrageous statement this week about genocide: Barack Obama's latest pronouncement on Iraq should have shocked the conscience. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, the freshman Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate opined that even preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq. "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and ...