In an editorial printed today, the Washington Times is claiming that with yesterday's vote to cut Iraq funds for our troops within 120 days, liberals in Congress are "Clinging to Defeat."  This bill, supported by MoveOn.org and the SEIU (a staunch supporter of Sen. Obama), ignores the gains made in Iraq by the surge strategy over the last year.

The Feingold plan — which is pushed by a coalition that includes MoveOn.org, former Sen. John Edwards and the Service Employees International Union — is an example of what happens when ideologues become captive to their own hatreds and mythology. In this case, it is the pre-surge notion that the situation was hopeless when the facts say otherwise. For example, violent civilian deaths in Iraq were 76 percent lower last month compared with January 2007. Meanwhile, U.S. combat deaths were down by more than 50 percent. So, Democrats dismissed evidence of military progress by pointing to a lack of political progress. But in the past two weeks, the Iraqi Parliament approved three critical measures: partial amnesty for prisoners (more than three-quarters of whom are Sunni); provincial powers and elections to Iraqi provinces by October; a law allocating government revenue (more than 80 percent of which comes from oil) to the provinces.

What is clear is that anti-war Democrats don’t care about victory in Iraq – they only care satisfying the demands of MoveOn, the SEIU, and the rest of the defeatist caucus.  We saw that in yesterday’s op-ed in the Washington Post by John Podesta, Larry Korb, and Ray Takeyh urging anti-war Democrats to stick to their withdrawal pledge – no matter the facts on the ground.  Their argument is summed up this way:  The party activists don’t like this war, so you’d better be for withdrawal if you know what’s good for you.  The Weekly Standards’ Tom Donnelly argues this means that “a Democratic president must put promises to MoveOn.org above the interests of the nation.”  We shudder at the thought.

Meanwhile, Roll Call is reporting that even some Democrats are beginning to question the Senate Majority's decision to continue with a debate that now seems to be a moot point in the face of the military progress being made.  At a conference lunch Tuesday, Senator Harry Reid faced tough questions from his own party in regards to why the Feingold Plan was presented for a vote in the first place.

Democratic frustrations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to renew the Iraq War debate bubbled to the surface Tuesday during the Conference’s weekly luncheon, including complaints over a lack of broad consultation and questions over the utility of the debate, Senate Democrats said.

During the closed-door luncheon, a number of Democratic Senators raised questions about Reid’s decision to honor an agreement with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to hold two votes on Iraq-related measures — particularly since violence in Iraq is down and the public’s attention has turned to domestic issues, according to Democratic sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

It looks like MoveOn and Big Labor are calling the shots in the Senate.

The Los Angeles Times has an op-ed this morning by Craig Morford, the Acting Deputy U.S. Attorney General, calling for crack offenders to remain incarcerated until the effects of their release can be fully assessed.  The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently decided to lighten sentences for crack offenses - meaning thousands may be subject to earlier release, but many communities to which they would return are not supportive of this decision.

When I speak with people who live in these communities, they tell me that they struggle with the scourge of crack cocaine every day: Children can't play outside, elders can't sit on the front porch, families are imprisoned in their homes. And they have asked prosecutors like me to do something about it. Simply put, we prosecute crack offenders because everyone has the right to be safe in their homes.

When I speak with police chiefs across the country, they ask for federal assistance in their fight against crack-dealing gangs. U.S. attorneys have worked with local law enforcement and used the tools that Congress gave us, such as tough sentences for crack dealers, to address this gang violence.