That’s how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid’s (and his party’s) position.

That’s how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid’s (and his party’s) position.

That’s how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid’s (and his party’s) position.

Tony Blankley writes about the two radically different points of view on the war:

For those of us who support the great struggle against radical Islam, the world reality could not be plainer. The threat of radical Islam is not merely a few thousand terrorists using small explosives to kill a few dozen people at a time — usually in the faraway Middle East. Rather, it is an historic recrudescence of a violent, conquering old tradition of Islam that almost overwhelmed the world from the Seventh Century until as recently as the 17th century. It is radicalizing the minds of increasing numbers of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims to be very aggressive culturally, as well as violent — from Africa to Indonesia, to Cairo to Ankara, to Paris, to Rotterdam to London to Falls Church, Va.

Unfortunately, in addition, the debate is poisoned, almost rendered futile, by the irrational blind hatred that so many harbor for George Bush.

As noted in comments here, T. M. Lutas says that the Democrats’ bet is looking pretty shaky:

I expect at least 3 more provinces to get handed over between now and the height of campaign season 2008. I’d like to think that at least 6 more would make the transition by then (obviating the need to explain Kurdistan’s special situation in the stats). The defeatists have to change the natural progression of Iraqi government and security institution building and do it soon or they’re going to be in deep trouble in 2008.

An interesting essay on insurgency, and counterinsurgency.

For Harry Reid. From Iraq:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don’t know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA’s and IP’s in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus’ strategy is just getting started and we’re seeing huge gains here.

However, you don’t see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn’t bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.

Yes, that’s the same reason that he doesn’t want to hear from Petraeus, or have open testimony in front of the cameras.

The truth? Harry Reid can’t handle the truth.

[Update a couple minutes later]

That noted neocon reporter from the NYT, John Burns, says that the Democrats are executing Al Qaeda’s strategy perfectly:

Well, the number of troops, that’s finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that’s probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That’s to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.

Look, I don’t think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi objectively want Al Qaeda to win. I’m sure that they have succeeded in deluding themselves that we are the problem in Iraq. I’m also sure that they believe that this is in the near term a political winner for them, and sadly, they may be right. But they’re playing a dangerous game. What if they’re wrong, and the people actually reporting success in Iraq are right? They’re so heavily invested in defeat now that it could actually be an electoral disaster for them next year. I certainly hope that will be the case. For me, it would be win-win–we’d have won in Iraq, and the Dems would have lost precisely because they did everything they could to prevent it from happening.

Anyway politics aside, like it or not, and deny it or not, they are objectively providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem is that they won’t start acting in the national interest until, to paraphrase Golda Meir, they start loving their country more than they hunger for power and hate George Bush.

[Update a few minutes later]

More contempt for Harry Reid from the troops.

[Afternoon update]

OK, that’s progress. I guess.

Now Harry will listen to Petraeus. He just won’t believe anything he says. Unless, of course, it fits with the leftist narrative.

Well, hey, we already know that the truth is inconvenient.

[Late afternoon update]

OK, one more, since it’s still near the top. Dick Cheney is too kind to Harry Reid:

…only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months’ time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding