To clean up corruption, to be a open and accountable house and to work in a bipartisan manner.
Those other promises that they have failed to keep can be discussed another day on another post.
The Democrats used the "change the course" strategy well but their major problem is even after the course was changed, Rumsfeld out, Petraeus and a fresh flow of troops in, counterinsurgency strategies being implemented and instead of clearing and moving on, clearing and holding the areas they have beaten al-Qaeda back from, the Democrats have not once acknowledged these course changes and that is where they have started losing their support from their moderates.
We showed you a poll yesterday, from Rasmussen, which said:
Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans favor the recommendation made by General David Petraeus to withdraw 30,000 soldiers from Iraq but leave 130,000 troops in place at least through the summer. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 38% are opposed and 19% are not sure.
The survey also found that Americans may have resigned themselves to the fact that U.S. troops are likely to remain in Iraq for a long time. Seventy-one percent (71%) say that it is somewhat or very likely that “a large number of U.S. soldiers will remain in Iraq five years from today.” That would mean a large troop presence in Iraq when the next President’s first term is drawing to a close.
Petraeus testified before Congress for two days this week and effectively recommended that the U.S. troop strength in Iraq return to levels that existed before the “surge” launched earlier in the year. President Bush is expected to endorse the Petraeus recommendation in a nationally televised address tonight.
Rasmussen isn't the only poll that showed that more trust General Petraeus than those that thought he would be biased.
UPI/Zogby from Times of India:
Nearly half (46 percent) said that an assessment delivered on Monday and Tuesday by top general David Petraeus would accurately reflect the situation on the ground, while 31 percent said they would doubt his report's accuracy.
Looking through their recent polls also showed a few other surprising results.
UPI/ZOGBY on Bush and Congress:
Fully 96 percent of those asked said the Democratic Party-controlled Congress was either poor (71.3 percent) or fair (24.7 percent) on handling the war in Iraq. Some 2.5 percent said the legislators were "good" and 0.3 percent rated them "excellent."
Bush's ratings nearly glow by comparison but were also low with 55.2 percent giving the Republican president a "poor" grade on Iraq and 15.8 percent rating him "fair." He was seen as "good" on Iraq by 21.8 percent of respondents and "excellent" by 6.6 percent.
Also, hidden inside of a UPI/Zogby poll regarding bin Laden was this little tidbit:
However, 40.9 percent of those asked said stabilizing Iraq was more important than catching bin Laden. Some 34.6 percent said both were equally important and 18.6 percent saying capturing bin Laden was more important.
Those polls were taken September 12, 2007.
I see, via Captain's Quarters, that some believe the President did not need to make that speech and I always respect Captain Ed's analysis, but here I disagree because not everyone had the chance to see "see" Petraeus testify, being it was in the day where many were working and I am sure they heard the high lights from the nightly news or online, but the president did need to make it clear that he was, indeed, listening to his General on the ground now as well as reiterating that the course has been changed and that is why the progress is being seen finally..
He did.
From the text of the speech:
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. And finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.
Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."
That was important to tell the American people that did not get to watch the full testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, it also points out the fallacy of the Democratic "Slogan" about changing the course in Iraq, it has changed and because of that change, as General Petraeus made very clear, success and progress is being seen in the areas the new strategies are being implemented.
In my opinion, MoveOn.org and their General Betray us ad, also played a part in the American people rallying behind General Petraeus, hence the poll numbers above.
Americans do not like seeing the military, especially a man that has devoted 35+ years of his life to protecting and defending our country in uniform, disparaged and the latest polls reflect that distaste of the ad.
The Democratic slogan, change the course was used and overused because the American people know the course was changed and after seeing the full compliment of troops finishing arriving into Iraq, the American people started seeing the progress that the media could not sweep under the rug, they started seeing Democratic politicians return from Iraq touting good news and speaking of progress, they started seeing that the change in the course and strategy in Iraq was responsible for the recent progress.
Which leaves many moderate Democrats wondering why their own leaders are so scared of that progress and why they are incapable of admitting that the new strategies have been implemented, hence a new course has been undertaken.
Americans do not like being lied to either and by refusing to change their own course of rhetoric, the Democrats are alienating the moderates while bowing to the extreme left of their party.
This is shown by the Democratic politicians refusing to denounce or condemn MoveOn for their attempt to disparage General Petraeus and going as far as to block a resolution from John Boehner that would have condemned MoveOn.
An article at RCP states this nicely "Dems Need to Break with the Outer Left".
Democrats need their "Sister Souljah moment" with the outer left, and they need it now. The MoveOn.org ad -- "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- was simply unacceptable. Not only was it dumb, but it created a distraction for Democrats trying to challenge Bush policy in Iraq.
"Sister Souljah moment" entered the political language in 1992, when presidential candidate Bill Clinton publicly rebuked black militant Sister Souljah over an outrageous remark. And he did it before a meeting of the Rainbow Coalition. Clinton took heat from Jesse Jackson and others, but he established his independence from radical elements within the Democratic Party.
MoveOn should be a positive force for Democrats. It raises lots of money and rallies disaffected liberals. But it has a history of dated tactics that -- while gratifying to some on the fringes -- alienates the moderate voters that Democrats need to win. Its messages too often make the left look juvenile.
Read the whole article, it does not bash Democrats at all, it gives them some very healthy advice.
The blogosphere is atwitter with what I called last night, heads exploding across the left side of the blogosphere and which was accurate, it seems, although I was being snarky at the time, many of which still touting "stay the course" when it has been aptly shown that the course was changed, the commander was changed, the strategy was changed and the potential outcome has also been changed.
.
