VIETNAM PLAYBOOK

Posted at 8:07 a.m. ET

One of the tragedies of Vietnam was the refusal of the liberal press to acknowledge any progress in the war. The 1968 enemy offensive, the Tet offensive, ended in a spectacular victory for our side, but was reported to the American people as a defeat, possibly the greatest journalistic scandal of modern American history. 

Today's Democratic Party seems to have learned well from the Vietnam playbook, as the Wall Street Journal notes in a column today:

Even Barack Obama, who opposed the Iraq troop surge, has finally acknowledged its success. But some of his fellow Democrats in Congress apparently remain unconvinced. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin teamed up to block a vote on a bipartisan resolution "recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq" and thanking our men and women in uniform for their efforts.

Real class. 

Under General David Petraeus, who relinquished command of U.S. forces in Iraq on Tuesday, sectarian bloodshed has almost entirely abated, daily attacks have fallen to 25 from a high of 180 in June 2007, and overall violence has declined by more than 70%. In July, U.S. combat deaths were lower than in any month since the beginning of the war. All of the troops sent to Iraq as part of the surge have now returned home and are not being replaced.

Must be a fluke of some kind.  Or some propaganda from the Israel lobby.  Yes, that's what it is.  No doubt about it.

The resolution is sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.  That may explain things, especially the Joe part.

The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it. Democrats have often claimed that while they may oppose the war in Iraq, they wholeheartedly support the troops. That's a defensible position, and this resolution honoring our soldiers and Marines for a job well done gave them a chance to back up their rhetoric. Yet they still balked.

How can you say you "support the troops" while your presidential candidate constantly tells them that they're wasting their time.  Must be great for the morale.

The reality is that success in Iraq has confounded the political left, which placed a huge political bet on our defeat. Senator Reid famously declared the war lost in April 2007. Joe Biden introduced a resolution opposing the surge.

Where else have you read that about Biden?  But if Sarah Palin used a state-supplied pen to write a grocery list, it would be on the front page of The New York Times.  And the subject of a CNN documentary.

As for the Iraq campaign's supposed diminished importance in the war on terror, earlier this month General Petraeus told the Washington Post that Iraq remains "the central front" for al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

It's intriguing to think of how a President Obama would deal with Petraeus.  How do you deal with a man who's been too successful?

The Lieberman-Graham resolution is a chance for Democrats to show that their support for the troops is more than rhetorical. It changes no policy and in that sense is only symbolic. Yet it is precisely the political symbolism of admitting they were wrong that is stopping the Democratic leadership from letting it come up for a vote before the Senate adjourns. Unfortunately, the last thing that Democrats want to discuss in this election season is success in Iraq.

Thus, the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy finally changes the shingle outside its headquarters.  Party of George McGovern and Dennis Kucinich might be more like it. 

September 20, 2008.