| I just heard Republican official Leslie Sanchez on TV saying that Democrats have 'bet on failure' in Iraq and Republicans must 'bet on success'.
I read yesterday Karl Rove in Newsweek saying the same thing:
Be strong on Iraq. Democrats have bet on failure. That's looking to be an increasingly bad wager, given the remarkable progress seen recently in Iraq.
And I remembered a few weeks back Soren Dayton,, discussing the success narrative as a commonly accepted theme among right-wing bloggers:
Jerome Armstrong from MyDD and Markos from DailyKos, among other lefties, argued that Iraq was going to be a driving issue. They, furthermore, argued that success wouldn't matter, because the failure was the initial decision, and Americans will stop paying attention The righties, Hugh Hewitt, Rob Bluey, John Hinderaker, and others argued that success would matter. Dean Barnett seemed to argue that it should but wouldn't.
My sense is that the lefties are wrong. Iraq will come out of the headlines if we really start to succeed.
Here's Nancy Kruh, admirably pointing out that this is a deluge of right-wing columns, replete with Joe Klein's sad dupe-like role play.
Unconvinced the progress in Iraq can be sustained, Joe Klein looks askance at the "fair amount of triumphalism from the usual suspects on the right," declaring it "premature."
Yet the refusal of the anti-war movement in Congress to acknowledge the encouraging developments also "isn't helping its credibility," the Time magazine columnist writes.
"Too much time, and political capital, has been wasted fighting (President) Bush legislatively on the war. I'm sure the president and the Republican Party are salivating over the prospect that Democrats will waste more time and capital over it this month, especially at a moment, however fleeting, when the situation on the ground seems to have improved in Iraq.
And there has been a shift in perceptions on Iraq.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 1-5, 2007. N=1,509 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5 (for all adults).
"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?" Half sample,MoE ± 3.6 (Form B)
| Approve | Disapprove | Unsure | | 11/1/11/5 | 27 | 68 | 5 | | 9/10/9/12 | 30 | 66 | 4 | | 7/9/11/7 | 22 | 72 | 4 |
There's been about a five point shift in perceptions for Bush and Iraq, so now, merely an overwhelming majority of around 65% dislikes his handling of Iraq instead of a stunning 70%. Quite a ramp-up there.
According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post Poll, Democrats have a 16 point advantage on Iraq over Republicans, being more trusted by a 50-34 advantage on the issue.
The 'success' narrative in Iraq has been tried before by both right-wing pundits and more 'respectable' Republicans. It has a long and storied history since 2003, but I'll focus on the 2006 electoral piece, since we're coming up to another election.
Here's Kevin McCullough at Townhall.com in 12/2006.
The nation and economy known as the new Iraq is succeeding, and those who dispute this are simply lying.
Even James Baker, a 'realist', made the success argument in 1/2006 in the Washington Post in an Op-Ed called 'Focusing on 'Success' In Iraq'.
Both alternatives have unattractive or even unacceptable aspects. The real challenge is not to choose between them but to make the option that is most likely to advance the overall U.S. national interest -- the "success" option -- both more acceptable and more likely, by reducing its cost and risk. Clearly, progress has already been made, but we should do everything possible to enhance the prospects for success.
The right-wing has called Iraq a success since the invasion. Democrats have been told that success in Iraq would jeopardize their political positioning, even as late as 2006. Both polling numbers and the situation in Iraq show that this is a crazy notion. |
