The War Within’s Bob Woodward: ‘I never found a Democrat who wanted to lose the Iraq war’

Talk about reporting with blinders.

In a Bill O’Reilly interview last night, Bob Woodward said that in more than five years he hasn’t found one Democrat who wanted to lose the Iraq war.

Democrats who declare the war lost, sure. Democrats who want to retreat while democracy remains in peril, fine. Democrats who want to set surrender dates, oh yeah.

But no, as Woodward researched his new book, “The War Within,” he found no evidence that a Democrat wanted to lose the war.

O’Reilly: When you were researching the book, there has been a fissure in America politically between the Democratic and Republican parties, about Iraq, and it seems to me in some -- and I’m not saying this about Barack Obama. I’m not. I want to make that clear. Some Democrats actually wanted America to lose that war because it makes the Democratic Party stronger. Did you find any of that?

Woodward: No. I don't think they wanted to lose. I think they wanted to get out. They felt.

O’Reilly: Wouldn’t that have been a loss?

Woodward: Pardon?

O’Reilly: Wouldn’t that have been a loss if we had cut and run from there?

Woodward: It looks like it would have been. And it’s very interesting. There was a big debate about this issue, you’ll recall, in 2007. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, actually said we had lost the war.

O’Reilly: Yes. Murtha did, too.

Woodward: I asked President Bush about this. I said, ‘Did you ever talk to Senator Reid about this?’ And President Bush said no. I said, ‘Were you shocked that a majority leader in the Senate would say this?’ And the president said, ‘Nothing shocks me in Washington,’ and then went on to say that one of his, President Bush’s, failures has been to not change the tone in Washington.

O’Reilly: OK. But you don’t see the Democratic Party as -- see, they were willing to -- maybe I phrased the question wrong. It seems to me the Democratic Party was willing to accept defeat.

Woodward: Well, I think what they thought is that it wasn’t working. And, you know, I think you yourself have said it may turn out in history to have been the wrong battleground.

O’Reilly: I think that’s true, but you don’t -- that doesn’t mean we have to lose it.

Woodward: ... support that. Yes. I never found a Democrat who really wanted to lose. I don’t -- I hope they’re not that cynical. The idea that somebody would be an elected representative in our country or even a citizen and want us to lose the war, I did not see that. But there was so much evidence of year after year after year that it wasn’t working and getting better.

Democratic heroes. This is the problem with Democratic “reporters” covering the news. In their team-spirit mentality, the Democrats can do no wrong. The Democrats are sincere; Republicans are to blame for every problem, even for the Democrats’ minor imperfections. The Democrats would solve every problem, given the chance; Republicans produce only “failures.”

This is the problem with “The War Within.” It gives the impression most Democratic leaders wanted to help win. The fact is, as soon as the enemy started shooting back, Democratic leaders backed away from the fight, cynically angling for votes in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

OK, they showed a tiny bit of interest defeating the fascists in 1991 and the first month after the 2003 invasion. But after that, where’s the evidence the Democratic leaders -- with the exception of Joe Lieberman and perhaps one or two others -- wanted the victory of Iraqi freedom?

Was Harry Reid ever for success in Iraq? When was his “Hey, let’s pull together and win this” speech?

Frank Warner

* * *

UPDATE: Democrats already regret that Barack Obama admitted the "surge" worked because now, if Obama is elected, he won't be able to lose in Iraq. See a pattern, Woodward? Of course not.

Comments

[Neo]

I think the distinction is between "wanting to lose" and "being willing to lose".
The Democrats were credited, correctly, as having lost the Vietnam War. They don't want to lose another war, but are willing to lose another war if it gets them to their next place.

[Frank Warner]

We have serious evidence the Democrats wanted to lose. What else explains Barack Obama's continued refusal to use "Iraq" and "victory" (or "Iraq" and "democracy") in the same sentence? It was the same with John Kerry four years ago.

Obama recently said we have no choice but to win, as if he had been backed into a corner, forced to expand the Free World when he'd rather not.

It's disappointing, to say the least.

[dg]

The U.S. did not "lose" in Vietnam. The U.S. left Vietnam and the Vietnamese high and dry. And, by the way, the "dominoes" did fall, with disastrous consequences.

[Frank Warner]

Two years after the U.S. left South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon, capital of South Vietnam, and imposed Communist repression on all of Vietnam.

In a major way, the U.S. had won the war in early 1973. It won the North Vietnamese Communist government's promise, in writing, that it would allow a freely elected government and all other democratic institutions in South Vietnam.

Thirty-five years later, we and the South Vietnamese are still waiting for the Hanoi government to honor that obligation.