Mac Owens, a military historian and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, has dubbed the escalation in defeatist rhetoric by the Dems as the "Reid Surge." And just as ideas have consequences, words do as well. Over at National Review Online, Owens writes: "Our enemies know that the war that counts is the one for the American mind. If we believe that the war is lost, they win. They have an incentive to keep fighting and to kill as many people as they can. In a gun battle ...

While the American Military is striking fear into the hearts (as well as the hides) of the terrorists in Iraq, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are striking fear into the hearts of . . . the Iraqi people. W. Thomas Smith, Jr., a former U.S. Marine infantry leader, is doing some of the best reporting on Iraq over at National Review Online.  Smith says that on his last visit, the average Iraqi was incredibly grateful for the presence of their liberators:  "It was the same everywhere I went. The Iraqis of all stripes, talked — so long as they knew I would not publish their names (to do so would make them and their families a target of the terrorists) — and expressed gratitude toward ...

One of the mantras that has been repeated over and over again since the elections last November is that the "voters have sent a message to President Bush." The logic goes something like this: Democrats bashed Bush and the war in Iraq relentlessly, declaring early and often that they were opposed to both. The Democrats got elected. Therefore, the American populace is opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq. Obviously there are some gaping holes in that logic, including the fact that the ballots listed candidate names, not policy positions on a single issue. Having said that, let's just suppose for a moment that voters, as a group, really did intend to send a message to the White House when they cast their ballots. Just because voters allegedly want something, does that make it the best option? Obviously not. If Americans voted to liquidate the public school system and use the proceeds to fund an effort to build a swimming pool in every American's back yard, would that make it a good idea? And yet, leaders like Reid and Pelosi continue the drum beat. "We're not going to stop until we surrender. Why? 'Cuz The People said so!" This sandy moral-high ground has become the platform from which they thumb their noses at the President. They decry the arrogance of this administration, lamenting just how out of touch Bush is. In considering this supposed referendum of the people, I wondered if Reid and Pelosi had always been so dedicated to serving at the whim of their constituency. I did some digging regarding another hot-button political issue: same-sex marriage.

David Broder, the dean of Washington pundits and no fan of the Iraq war, recently made a strong case that Harry Reid should step down as majority leader for recklessly claiming that the war is "lost." Broder rightly called Reid "a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance." Of course, Mr. Broder was then pilloried by the usual liberal suspects like Paul Begala who called Broder a "gas bag." As a gas bag himself, Begala is somewhat of an expert. But now like lemmings following the leader over a cliff, the entire 50 member Democratic Senate Caucus has written a letter to the Washington Post complaining of Broder's comments. Fellow Wa-Po columnist Kathleen Parker ...

Donald Sensing over at Winds of Change  is sensing some stupidity on the part of two prominent politicians.  He points out that the Dems are focused on "ending" the war.  Just as it takes "two to tango" it takes two to end a war. Sensing points out the non-sensical nature of Reid and Pelosi talking about "ending the war" instead of winning it.  Sensing states, "This is just stunning. Neither of these tiny lights of American politics (nor their colleagues) seem to recognize that just as it takes two sides to wage war, it takes two sides to end it. The Democrats think they can end the war simply by packing the troops up and bringing them home." "Is it possible for two such prominent ...

Gary Kurpius, Commander in Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, has condemned Harry Reid for his defeatist statements about the Iraq war. You can't say it any better than this: "Senator Reid . . . needs to realize his repeated comments are having an extremely negative impact on our troops, their families and our allies around the world. You can't support the troops without supporting what it is they do. In a combat zone that translates into one word: the mission." Finally there is an appropriate parallel to Iraq and Vietnam. Commander Kurpius writes: "The Vietnam generation was blamed for losing their ...

"These are behaviors which give aid and comfort to the enemy."

If I were Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, I would be worried if Osama Bin Laden and I saw things the same way. (Personal tip: it ought to be a cause for serious introspection if you find yourself in agreement with, say, Paris Hilton on any topic of world importance.) There is no more momentous world issue than Iraq and where do our three stooges come down on the primary issue of when the Americans should leave? In unison they are chanting: "NOW!" But what do the Iraqis say? After all, there is no one more vested in the future of Iraq than her own people. In today's Washington Post the foreign minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, pleads, "Don't abandon ...

In trying to understand the current conflict between the President and the Congress over the war in Iraq, it is helpful to actually read the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that Congress can not try to manage troop movements legislatively. Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States . . . ." By trying to dictate troop movements with a spending bill has it occurred to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or any of our citizenry that they are committing their own type of unauthorized invasion? They are invading the ...

What kind of people do they think we are? Is it possible that they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them, until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget? - Sir Winston Churchill, 1942 vs. I believe... this war is lost. - Sen. Harry Reid, 2007