Part of Senator Reid and the Democrat's letter to the President says:

In short, Mr. President, this current path – for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security – is neither working, nor making us more secure.

Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year. Democrat's Letter

Joshua Bolten's response covers all these points.  The Democrats put this one right over the plate for the second time and the White House is finally fighting back against the attacks.  I'll say that it is about time.  Bolten hit one out of the park with this letter.  The Administration needs to stay on topic and continue to outline their strategy, what is being done, and hammer home the weasel Democrats and their talking points.

Bolten does a tremendous job of responding to each of the points above, and noting eloquently that three of them are already Administration policy and being implemented.  He also gives specific examples.  The part I want to focus on is the last part of his letter that deals with the Democrat's point #2.  This is right on!  He is making the argument against cut and run and the disastrous effect it would have on our nation, national security and the world.  This is exactly what the administration needs to be using, but as of yet, they have not done a good job of articulating these points.

From Bolten's letter (as Reported on the Drudge Report):

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed "new direction," however, we do disagree strongly.  Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right.  Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground.  Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the "phased redeployment" you propose.  (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a "quick reaction force" to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad.)

Regardless of the specifics you envision by "phased redeployment," any premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would have disastrous consequences for America's security.  Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain.  This "new direction" would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists.  This is not a direction this President will follow.  The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and the recommendations of our military commanders in the region. Bolten's Response

I have added emphasis to the most important part of Bolten's response (bold and red).  The spineless, cut and run, Democrats either can't seem to understand that leaving without victory would be bad for America, or they just don't care because they think it will help them regain power. 

"Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies;"
Just as North Vietnamese generals have admitted that they could not have won the Vietnam War had the Anti-War Movement in the U.S. not undermined our policy and military in Vietnam, we now face a group of elected Democrats who want to undermine our military in Iraq.  They would love to cut and run from Iraq and give hope to the terrorists who would love to see us fail.  They would hand victory to the terrorists on a silver platter.  How quaint -- sounds like a winning policy -- let's elect these nitwit's in November -- they are certain to be good at protecting America -- Just look at the policies they are proposing!

"betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves;"
The Democrats have no honest care for the Iraqi people.  This is evident in their proposal to withdraw the troops from Iraq (did I say withdraw -- I apologize -- the code word of the month is redeploy).  If they get their way, we would leave Iraq ill-equipped to deal with the terrorist insurgency.  The Iraqi security forces are still in their infancy and being trained by our military.  You can't build a functioning military overnight.  If we leave now, there is a good chance that the country will be overtaken by extremists and terrorists who will then control the large oil reserves of the country.

"shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East;"
Does any more really need to be said?  If we show that we don't have the mettle to stick it out and finish the job of protecting the fledgling democracy in Iraq, then we are sending a bad message to that region and the world.  We will be giving up on democracy in the Middle East and embolden those who hold the opinion that not everyone can have a democracy.  If we fail to stick it out and allow their democracy take hold, then we might as well right off the Middle East for at least a generation.  The chances of getting another chance to bolster democracy in the region are slim to none, and other countries will have no reason to undertake their own reforms in the face of defeat in Iraq.

"and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain."
This is something that will not resonate with the Democrats.  The only use they have for the American Military is to exploit them to gain power or attack Republicans.  They want to use the images of caskets and funerals to promote themselves instead of supporting the brave young men and women (like my brother) who are serving our country as volunteers to protect all Americans.

"This "new direction" would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists."
Case closed.  This needs to be beaten into the heads of these simpletons; however, I don't think the point will ever get across.  I can only hope that the Administration and Republican Party can get this point across before the election so that we can continue to protect America and bolster democracy in Iraq.  I fear that a Democrat led house would do everything in their power to destroy the President and hurt our policies, including promoting freedom in the world.

We have taken the battle to the enemy and now, we have calls for defeat from our own elected officials in the Democratic Party.  They can only be expected to carry out their policies of defeat for America if they win this November.