You’ll remember that I told readers a month ago that the reason Harry and the Retreaters were carping about getting out of Iraq is that they knew that the surge just might work. Nothing could be more embarrassing or disasterous to Democrats in 2008 than a stable – reasonability stable – Iraq.

Over the weekend as you know the Ny Times story by the liberal Brookings Institute showed that significant progress has been made in Iraq since the surge began. Of course liberals attacked the messenger – as they always do – trying to play down the significance, even calling into question the “liberality” of the authors.

Yet today we have even more. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Pulitzer Prize winner John Burns of the Ny Times who says the surge is working. Even Rep. Keith Ellison, fresh off his embarrasing – though fully intentional – gaft of comparing Bush with Hilter, after visiting Sheiks (debriefing alert) can’t say anything other than the surge is working, Al Qaeda is on the run.

So what does this mean for Democrats? What is going to happen in September when Patraeus comes back and reports that progress has been made? According to their Majority Whip James Clyburn, it could be disastrous.

“House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said. “We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Now I’m going to tell you right off the bat that when Patraeus gives his report the left – specifically the uber left – will attack the general’s integrity, as lefty ambulance chaser Glenn Greenwald already has. Look for it, although the mainstream democrats will avoid that, nevertheless it will provide interesting drama.

Specifically with the Clinton/Obama dynamic. Obama has already sold out to the “Bush lied, people died” crowd and it’s basically his only appeal at this point. Hillary on the other hand is still playing “hawk”, at least on her initital vote for the war, which will leave her some wiggle room when the report shows that things might just work out after all.

In any case the Democrats have a problem on their hands and it’s all self inflicted.

UPDATE: I missed this in commenting on Clyburn’s comment referencing a positive report from Patraeus causing a problem for democrats. If you follow the clear meaning of “problem”, it follows that according to Clyburn, success in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, therefore for their political purposes they are hoping for us not to have success? So then are we to believe that good news in Iraq – thus America is winning – means bad news for Democrats. Therefore using simple logic Democrats are anti-america success in Iraq – thus anti-America, and consequently pro-Al Qaeda?