Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe  this morning… a few clips, anyway, for discussion…:
For most Americans, positive developments in Iraq are very welcome. But good news is bad news for the Democratic left, where opposition to the war has become an emotional investment in defeat. House majority whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would think if Petraeus reports next month that the war is going well. “That would be a real big problem for us,” Clyburn candidly replied. 
The intensity of the left’s determination to abandon Iraq was reflected in the reaction to a single line in Hillary Clinton’s speech  to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week. “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq,” she said, referring to the surge, “and in some areas, particularly al-Anbar province, it’s working.”
That mild comment instantly drew fire  from Clinton’s Democratic rivals. John Edwards’s campaign manager, David Bonior, warned her against “undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war.” New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, another presidential hopeful, piled on: “The surge is not working. I do not give President Bush the same credit on Iraq that Hillary does.” When Barack Obama addressed the VFW one day later, he stuck to the defeatists’ script. “Obama Sees a ‘Complete Failure’ in Iraq,” The New York Times headlined its report  on Aug. 22.
Today the left insists on defeat in Iraq. It beats up any Democrat who strays off-message. It treats good news from the front as “a real big problem.” Is that any way to win an election? In the short term, maybe. But we’re in the midst of a long-term war — one that Americans don’t want to lose
These are points that David and I have both made here on several occasions. It’s a refrain that has become almost universal anywhere but the Democratic Underground and on Daily Kos.
But what interests me about this article the most, is a historical note which is also a warning to the Democrats:
That changed after Vietnam, where the Democratic left insisted on defeat and got its way, only to lose voters’ trust on national security for a long time thereafter.
Frankly, Jimmy Carter didn’t help matters much, either, but the point is taken. That way lies George McGovern for example. Indeed; in my view the kind of non thinking that caused our withdrawal from Vietnam, is precisely the same kind of thinking that led to the foreign policy disaster that was Jimmy Carter.
What can be said about Jimmy Carter who led us into disaster, and then blamed the American people for it? What can be said about a party that is heading the prayer mat every single night, for our defeat?
My friends, the lesson of the ’72 election, and the disaster that was Jimmy Carter, is that the American people detest a loser. As General George Patton commented:
“Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win – all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost, nor ever will lose, a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to an American.”
The idea that such a person would claim leadership of this country, Who would it as a part of their political history insist on leading us down the road of defeat, must on its face be considered even more hateful to an American.
But more… The dangers presented to both America individually and the world as a whole, as a result of America’s losing as the democrats currently council us to do, are two gruesome to seriously consider. And on what basis would they counsel us so? So that they might gain political power.
if as general Patton suggests, America it’s a loser, what should they feel about a supposed the leader who consuls us that we should lose ?
I submit that America cannot subject itself to such “leadership” in these times.