BUSH'S REAL WAR (THE ONE ON DEMOCRATS): A MORE AGGRESSIVE ATTACK BY PETRAEUS?

I was just telling you that, according to ABC's Jake Tapper, the pro-surge op-ed by Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon won't change minds in Congress. But it looks as if the op-ed isn't an isolated event. It's apparently the first hint of a new hawk party line -- instead of trying to remain credible by acknowledging the real and persistent problems in Iraq, it appears that hawks are all about to shoot the works and say we're winning. Including David Petraeus.

That's the point of this Washington Post story by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

...Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

...Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us." ...

Various right-wing idiots have misinterpreted what Clyburn's saying here. He's not saying that actual success in Iraq would be "a real big problem" for Democrats. He's saying that a deeply politicized piece of GOP propaganda from Petraeus disguised as an honest report would be a problem, because Petraeus is so well regarded. (If you think Petraeus deserves his straight-shooter reputation, Frank Rich's most recent column sets you straight.) And, post-O'Hanlon/Pollack, it really seems possible that we'll get a glowing report from the general, not just a mixed but pluckily optimistic one.

The aggressiveness of Bush's real war, the one against his political enemies, continues to surprise. You half-wonder if he and the underlings who have masterminded this and other propaganda offensives would have made good soldiers, even generals, if they hadn't all been too cowardly to apply this level of aggression to situations involving actual bloodshed.

****

UPDATE: I'm not sure the full interview (video here) supports my interpretation of Clyburn's words. It does appear that Clyburn thinks Petraeus is going to tell the whole truth -- in which case, I think he's being naive.

And for those coming here from The Weekly Standard: Brian Faughnan chides me for "ignoring ... plain words in favor of something that fits the paradigm" -- but that's exactly what he's doing with regard to Democratic congressmen Jim McNerney and Keith Ellison, who still want to get us the hell out of Iraq.