US politics is Iraq all the time. Pelosi and Murtha think they have a mandate to ensure that America is defeated in Iraq. They are wrong. How do we know? Why, we just have to read the Democrat house organs. Here’s the Washington Post:

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush’s supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn’t attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn’t hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year — a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government’s weakness. It doesn’t explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world’s second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with “massive civilian casualties,” as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

Here’s the L.A. Times:

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.

Congress should not hinder Bush’s ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president’s ability to maneuver at this critical juncture.

Bush’s wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. But he has made adjustments to his team, and there’s little doubt that a few hundred legislators do not a capable commander in chief make. These aren’t partisan judgments — we also condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President Clinton’s conduct of military operations in the Balkans.

Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the United States now faces — to stay or go — and putting their money where their mouths are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln.

It will take a while for the New York Times to follow suit, but they will, when their polling tells them that snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq doesn’t fly with the electorate. Big question: can the big MSM outbid the Kos Kids for the Dem’s hearts and minds.

Hopefully, Pelosi will learn that using power irresponsibly is a path to electoral oblivion. Her blue dogs already know that.