Harry Reid's Bloody Hands

Harry Reid seems quite determined to drive over the cliff and take his party with him. While I'm all for the Democrats self-destructing, by denying the troops the necessary funds for the war, he's endangering both their lives and ours. If the Democrats are so naive to think our enemies will just lay down their arms if we bug out of Iraq, they're even more dangerous that I ever imagined.

To be sure, Reid won't risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party's bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite "the restlessness" of those who "voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January."

The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war."

And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.

They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America's enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.

No, Reid didn't repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday's speech from the Senate floor.

It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed - witness Sen. Chuck Schumer's gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that "the war is not lost."

Meanwhile, Michael Barone examines the quandary the Democrats find themselves in, having to deal with the lunatics like CodePink while trying to straddle the fine line of public opinion: pandering to those who want out while not wanting to be blamed for cutting off funding. Good luck with that.

We witness here a division in the Democratic Party -- its politicians and its voters -- we have seen ever since military action started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not necessarily the same: Mr. Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the troops must be funded; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the war resolution and said last November that of course the troops will be funded, now says he's for Sen. Russ Feingold's March 2008 deadline.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what is actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Mrs. Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but that brings to mind the fact Mrs. Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a March 8 Pentagon videoconference with Gen. Petraeus.

How long this fight will go on is unclear. Some Democrats predict it will continue for months. But their dilemma remains the same. They want to be seen as acting to end the war. But they dare not be seen as not funding the troops.

Check out AJ Strata for more.

UPDATE: Hard to fathom, but Reid is getting dumber by the day. Check out the latest at Hot Air. More also at Michelle Malkin, Riehl World View, Protein Wisdom, Jules Crittenden.