“To use the ratification of his nomination as key evidence of full support of The Surge, or anything else in the war strikes me is simply off the mark.”

I never considered it proof of support for the surge. Rather, I took it as proof that Senate leadership is gutless, and knows how to make noise, but doesn’t know how — or care enough — to make a difference.

However, people much smarter than me have pointed out that failure in Iraq is such a terrible prospect that the Democrats will do everything they can to distance themselves from Iraq (by harping on All Bush All the Time) while letting Bush take the blame for what they see as impending failure.

Joe Lieberman and Blue dog Democrats are the only secret weapon bush has at this point.

My point is that we essentially expect the Senate to endorse the President’s choices in matter such as this unless there is an egregious problem with the candidate. There is no denying that Petraeus was (and is) qualified. To use the ratification of his nomination as key evidence of full support of The Surge, or anything else in the war strikes me is simply off the mark.

I will certainly allow a lot of petty politics are involved here–and, for that matter, I am not trying to defend the Democrats, per se.

What I am annoyed about, however, is this notion that having Petraeus in the position he is currently in equals victory if we just let him do his job. I see no evidence that that is the fact and attachment to Petraeus himself doesn’t really make logical or empirical sense. If anything it is the reductionism of the argument to being about Petraeus that I don’t understand beyond the fact that is obviously gives proponents of the policy somewhere to hang their hats.

I suppose that to me it isn’t about who said what or when they said it or who is in what position, but rather what the actual problems are on the ground and what needs to be done next. I fear that we cannot simply stay the course and hope any longer.

Another rather major problem is to assume that the Iraq war in general can be summed up now by Petraeus and The Surge. Evaluating what to do next isn’t just about Petraeus and never has been.

And, really, it isn’t as if the issue is whether to fire Petraeus of not–if it was, then perhaps the Senate confirmation vote would have more sway as an argument.

The funding thing appears a non-issue, except to point out that the criticisms of the strategy started almost immediately after the ratification, and not after trying to gauge the results.