I would, if he was the nominee. Rumsfeld is gone, and Bush ain't running next year.

It's the Democrats who have had nothing to contribute during this entire war except calls for surrender. They firmly opposed adding more troops all along, tried to stop this surge, attacked Petraeus, and are still trying to shut down our military over there. If the surge is now supposed to be a great idea, and everybody is supposed to have known this all along, somebody needs to clue the Democrats in Washington in.

If Iraq is doing well at the end of 2008--and anything could happen in the next several months, so who knows--it won't matter a hill of beans if Bush gets no credit for it, or even gets blamed for not doing it sooner.

Everyone will know that the Democrats would have given up and let Iraq burn if they had won the presidency in 2004, or assembled enough political power in Congress. Failing that, they have been an anchor tied to the legs of our war effort the whole damn way.

Nobody excels at reengineering history, or even their own brains, as the Left does, but this one's going to be tough. I suspect more than a few Democrats in Washington are praying for a bloody disaster in Iraq. In between hopes for economic collapse in America, of course.