The Trouble With Harry

From bad to worse, the Democrats shift their position on the war once again. And after declaring the war is already lost, Dem Senate majority leader Shifty Harry Reid reaches a new low, referring to a Vice President as an attack dog and insinuating that General Petraeus is not to be believed. (hat tip Reverse Spin)

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to skip briefings on Iraq, showing their contempt for our military and apparently seeking to insulate themselves from any responsibility for the course of the war.

Can Shifty Harry and the Dems get away with it? The WSJ now calls it Harry's War:

More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.

By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived.

So Shifty Harry and the Dems may crassly boast about winning seats and the presidency by losing the war, but they may be making trouble for themselves by reminding Americans why Democrats can't be trusted on national security. The Surge hasn't even reached its full strength and already the Dems are embracing defeat. The Dems pay lip service to wanting to fight Al Qaeda, they just don't want to admit that we are fighting them in Iraq. And Americans won't thank the Democrats when we are forced by circumstances to go back into the Middle East, if we withdraw too precipitously. As the Journal says "Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles."

The trouble with Harry is not only has he made common cause with our enemies in rooting for us to lose the battle, he and the Dems have no idea that we're fighting a war.

Previous post: Heroes and Fools

UPDATE: Reaction to Giuliani from Dems. The Politico:

"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics," said Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) "America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united."

America may mostly be, but more to the point, the Democrat leadership is openly surrendering to the terrorists.

"There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm," said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton."If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats.

Uh, Hillary, actually that was the Clinton administration---making the world safe for Osama under Bill's charm offensive.

UPDATE: Too lame a response to Giuliani even for the Lefties. Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly, via RCP:

So I was curious: how would the Dem candidates respond? With the usual whining? Or with something smart? Greg Sargent has today's responses from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over at his site and the verdict is in: more whining. Obama: "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low blah blah blah." Clinton: "One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11 yada yada yada."Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office.