FLASHBACK – Sept. 9, 2007: “Tomorrow – as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress – the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: ‘General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.’” (The Weekly Standard, 9/9/07) “Few Democrats have called MoveOn.org on its calumny. … Worse, Democratic leaders and MoveOn.org directors appear to have coordinated the plan to besmirch the general personally, according to reports in the New York Times Magazine and elsewhere. MoveOn.org would do the nasty heavy lifting and Democratic leaders merely would allude to Petraeus' ‘lies.’” (The Arizona Republic, editorial, 9/13/07)

The progress our troops have made in Iraq is significant, but reversible. Since General Petraeus’ security strategy was implemented last year, violence has declined throughout most of Iraq and terrorists have been denied safe havens, particularly in Baghdad and al Anbar province. Democrats who have traveled to Iraq and seen our troops’ progress first-hand, including Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), have admitted this important fact. In addition, the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Presidency Council have enacted a budget and passed important laws to bring political reconciliation to Iraq. More progress needs to be made on the political front, including passage of a final oil revenue law.

Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA): "I think the violence has been significantly reduced. … We've got a group now that has got the strategy right." (The Fresno Bee, 3/6/08) Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): "Democrats would be making a mistake if we say there haven't been improvements.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/22/08) Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): “I think the ‘surge’ is working.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/30/07)

From an Institute for Peace report released last month: “It may be that February 13, 2008 will be remembered as the day when Iraq’s political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation—or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation. That day, the Council of Representatives (CoR) simultaneously passed a law setting forth the relationship between Baghdad and the provinces, an amnesty law, and the 2008 national budget. Each piece of legislation is significant in its own right.” (From Gridlock to Compromise, March 2008)

The consequences of failure in Iraq are clear and unmistakable: a precipitous, arbitrary withdrawal of American troops would offer terrorists a well-situated safe haven, leave behind an unchecked Iran with nuclear ambitions, and pave the way for humanitarian disaster and genocide like we saw in the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia in the 1970s.

From a new Institute for Peace report, written by experts who advised the Iraq Study Group: “Unconditional, Near-Total Reduction of Military Commitment … This policy risks a complete failure of the Iraqi state, massive chaos and even genocide. Should genocide occur, advocates of this policy believe the U.S. would have to intervene to stop it.” (Iraq After the Surge: Options and Questions, 4/2/08)

Kimberly Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War: “Above all, the U.S. must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq. Iranian agents and military forces are actively attacking U.S. forces and the government of Iraq. Every rocket that lands in the Green Zone should remind us that Iran's aims are evidently not benign – they are at best destabilizing and at worst hegemonic. The U.S. must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq, and protect Iraq from the direct military intervention of Iran. Failure to do so will invite Iranian domination of an Arab state that now seeks to be our ally.” (The Wall Street Journal, 4/3/08)

We cannot and must not slow-bleed our fighting men and women in harm’s way, nor can we load up a bill providing for the resources they need with unrelated, wasteful spending. Regardless of what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker say in their report this week, Democrats intend to go ahead with the slow-bleed strategy that bipartisan majorities defeated last year, Version 5.0. Our fighting men and women who have sacrificed so much should not be forced to shoulder the burden of Democrats’ wasteful spending proposals, nor should they be micromanaged by politicians in Washington. Congress should pass a clean emergency troop funding bill by Memorial Day.  

The Hill: Murtha “said he would make the same recommendations as he did last year: setting a goal date for troop withdrawals and mandating standards for troop readiness.” (The Hill, 2/7/08) Associated Press: “A top Democrat [Murtha] said Thursday he is preparing legislation that would give President Bush the war funding he wants this year, but on the condition that troops leave Iraq by the end of the year.” (AP, 2/7/08)

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD): “There are obviously needs in addition to Iraq that are being discussed… A decision on what may or may not be added in addition to the supplemental that may be necessary for Iraq – there may be other things – that decision has not been made at this point in time.” (Remarks on House Floor, 3/3/08) FLASHBACK – March 2007: Democrats try to use our troops as oxen to carry unrelated spending across the President’s desk. “Congress has loaded up President Bush's request for ‘emergency’ spending on the Iraq war with more than $20 billion in ‘pork’ for members' districts. Money for peanut storage in Georgia, spinach growers in California, menhaden in the Atlantic Ocean and even more office space for the lawmakers themselves is included in what has ballooned into a $124 billion war bill.” (Washington Examiner, 3/14/07)