The New York Times reports today that Iraq is looking more and more hopeful:

"The Iraqi people have just decided that they've had it up to here with violence," he said, while noting that their demands for electricity, water and jobs have intensified.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of displaced families are returning to their homes, but a majority of them are still afraid to go back to neighborhoods now segregated by sect. "Clearly," General Fil said, "it will take some time for Baghdad to restore itself to what it was."

He and other military commanders have maintained for months that the conditions for national reconciliation have been met. They argue that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led, has been weakened. They cite in particular the rise of the American-supported citizen volunteers--67,000 nationwide, according to military figures.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer--who's either planning a switch to the Republican party or has read the handwriting on the wall--says his vote to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein was the right one:

"Removal of Saddam Hussein was an appropriate policy," Hoyer said at a breakfast meeting with reporters Thursday sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. "I still believe that."

(It may indeed be, that Hoyer is trying to establish the new Democratic line on Iraq, now that the situation on the ground has improved so dramatically.)

Meanwhile, the House is getting ready to vote on a funding bill to require the withdrawal of troops starting 'immediately' (according to reports):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that she wants a vote as early as Friday on a spending measure calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq to begin immediately.

She gave no indication that she expected the measure to fare better than previous Iraq withdrawal bills, which have either been vetoed by President Bush or did not pass the Senate.

If this report is accurate, I find it interesting that the bill will require that withdrawal begin "immediately."

In March, the House voted by a margin of 218-212 to complete a withdrawal by September 1, 2008. In July, the House voted by 223- 201 to complete a limited redeployment by April, 2008. If the resolution to be debated this week requires withdrawal "immediately," it won't allow a straight-up comparison to the previous measures, so we could see how support was building for the pullout (or not).

Anyone think this bill will get the 223 votes that the last surrender measure got?

Regardless, I suppose we can take consolation in the fact that some elected officials aren't swayed by headlines in the New York Times, but stick to principles like "surrender," no matter what the cost.

Also check out Wake Up America, which produces some excellent graphs on Iraq polling, which shows how support for the mission is clearly on the rise.