Update: Some anal grammar Nazis on the left fail to understand posts (written in haste while at work) because they can’t help but shore up their shallow egos by pointing out editorial nits and missing the point (which is why most liberals miss most points, they are playing dictionary and not comprehending). So I fixed the grammar so our liberal friends have a shot at getting a clue. – end update

Too funny. The SurrenderMedia, in a panic to spin anything they can against Bush on Iraq, have shown the attention span (and memory) of a gnat. They think they can throw out some wild spin and nobody will notice their complaints concerning decisions in the past also include those same decision by their beloved Dems in their plans for Iraq today! For example, USA Today is panning Rummy, Rice and Cheney for basically following the current Democrat proposals on Iraq back prior to 2006:

But a USA TODAY investigation shows that the strategy now used to defeat the bombmaking networks and stabilize Iraq was ignored or rejected for years by key decision-makers. As early as 2004, when roadside bombs already were killing scores of troops, a top military consultant invited to address two dozen generals offered a “strategic alternative” for beating the insurgency and IEDs.

…

Bush administration officials, however, remained wedded to the idea that training the Iraqi army and leaving the country would suffice.

Gee, this sounds familiar. Where have we heard this before? “Sen Clinton:

However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.

Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government “if the Iraqis ever get their act together.”

We hav e heard this from Sen Obama as well:

Sen. Barack Obama yesterday presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq, proposing to withdraw all combat troops by the end of next year while leaving behind a force of unspecified size to strike at terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests.

But USA Today is claiming this half-in, half-out approach (that is so much like the UN blue helmets standing on the sidelines watching blood run through the streets when they are deployed) is what delayed the success in Iraq that we see today! Clearly USA Today is stating the current Dem plan (train Iraqis and run) would fail, just like it did in its previous incarnation. I am so glad they finally have come around to admitting it.