The Democratic Party -- They Give Up Faster Than The French

Well, it looks John Murtha's "slow-bleed" strategy has failed before it was given a chance to work. You have to give the Democrats credit for being consistent -- they will give up on anything if it gets politically risky...

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

In both chambers, Democratic lawmakers are eager to take up binding legislation that would impose clear limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq after nearly four years of war. But Democrats remain divided over how to proceed. Some want to avoid the funding debate altogether, fearing it would invite Republican charges that the party is not supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush's war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.

...Murtha, chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a leading critic of the war, had intended to fully fund Bush's $100 billion war request for the remainder of this fiscal year. But under his plan, those funds could be spent only to deploy combat troops deemed fully rested, trained and equipped.

After nearly four years of combat, most military units would not be able to meet those standards. Although the war would be fully funded, the policy would prevent some of the 21,500 additional combat troops from being deployed, and some troops already in Iraq would have to be sent home.

But that approach may be all but dead, according to several Democratic lawmakers. Murtha doomed his own plan in part by unveiling it on a left-wing Web site, inflaming party moderates.

"Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning those funds," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading Democratic moderate, who called Murtha's whole effort "clumsy."

Cooper's position underscores the challenges now facing the House Democratic leadership. While the caucus's liberal wing is demanding legislation to end the war almost immediately, moderates such as Cooper say Congress should focus on oversight of the war and stay away from legislation that encroaches on the war powers of the president.

"I think Congress begins to skate on thin ice when we start to micromanage troop deployments and rotations," said Texas's Edwards, whose views reflect those of several other Democrats from conservative districts.

To be fair, this approach may be more reasonable in that it doesn't offend my conscience nearly as much as Murtha's cynical ploy to lose the war on the installment plan. But it's still a sheer act of legislative manipulation that shows a lack of courage to take the action that they should take, if they believe our effort is doomed to fail -- and that's cut off funding. And as a Constitutional matter, that's all they can do.

Empty non-binding resolutions mean nothing. The restrictive resolutions being championed by Murtha would effectively tie the hands of the President as Commander-in-Chief, and he could conceiveably opt to ignore them, inviting a lawsuit to resolve the constitutionality of the measure -- and the Supreme Court is very likely to take such a lawsuit and toss it back to the executive and legislative branches by stating that it is a political issue and the Court will not intervene. Rich Lowry elaborates why the latest approach of "unauthorizing/re-authorizing" won't work either...

If it's vague and general, it won't have any effect, because Bush can continue to order combat operations whether they are semi-authorized or non-authorized or whatever. If it's very specific and tries to ban certain operations, it will be unconstitutional. Again, if the Democrats want to end the war, there is a simple and constitutional way to do it—cut off the funding. Every other clever maneuver will be ineffective or unconstitutional.

Ineffective or unconstitutional -- that's a nice summary of Congress' activities on the war right now.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Late night channel surfing leads to VH1 Classic the other night, and I stopped long enough to get creeped out by the ultimate creepy Lionel Ritchie video. Yes, I'm talking about the strange video where Lionel the Teacher stalks the blind student. With the even scarier ending where she does the weird sculpture of Lionel's face. So insane they later parodied it as a Starburst commercial.

As for the song itself, I'm sure plenty of people have used it on romantic occasions, but I would think watching this video once would cure you of that. For post-Commodores Lionel, the song is certainly not quite as embarrassing as "Dancing on the Ceiling" or "Say You Say Me". And yes, I just threw in those song titles to haunt you in case the creepy video doesn't work and get this song stuck in your head.

Here's "Hello"...

The Hawk's Mating Rituals Do Not Work Well

Delonte West of the Boston Celtics is busy getting beaten up by his girlfriend...

A night of post-game partying turned ugly for Boston Celtics point guard Delonte West when his live-in girlfriend allegedly choked and bit him and tried to slash her own wrists with shards of glass because he dumped her.

West’s girlfriend, Caryn Taylor, skipped court yesterday where she was supposed to have been arraigned on domestic assault and battery charges for the Dec. 21, 2006, alleged attack in the couple’s Waltham apartment. A warrant for her arrest was issued, authorities said.

Normally, I don't cover stuff like this, but Deadspin linked this to West's comments last year on how he romances the ladies...

"So, I pick her up in my white convertible. From there, I'd have the music pumping on the radio. The Jim Jones pumping, you know, 'Summer in Miami' song pumping. Got to keep a little gangsta, you can't be too soft. You can't be in there playing some guy that's crying, talking about don't leave me and love me baby, wah wah and all that. So Jim Jones pumping and then from there, wind blowing through the hair, boom, we get straight to the point -- we eat afterwards because I don't want to kiss no onions. I don't want to kiss you tasting like onions and steak and mushrooms and everything."

"...One more thing: When we're on the yacht eating, we're going to have some Popeyes chicken. That's for dinner. It's to let her know, put a mental image on her mind, first and foremost, if you ain't from the hood, you don't like Popeyes chicken. Everyone there loves Popeyes chicken and the biscuits -- phew. But that's just getting it on her mind, saying, you know, 'Yeah, I can wine and dine you, but I'm a little rough around the edges and I'm keeping it real with you. I can be romantic, but this is real, we're going to eat some chicken tonight. Chicken and biscuits.'"

Ladies and gentlemen, let me point out that West is a product of St. Joseph's University. It's clear that if he had gone to a real school, one that had something other than a diseased pigeon rat for a mascot, he might have avoided this sad situation.

The Presidential Election is Less than 21 Months Away, Part II

To be fair, I might end up enjoying the Democratic Presidential primary battle. The first Hillary-Obama spat has now taken place, and Jim Geraghty's report of it makes me think I'm going to enjoy this almost as much as mocking John Kerry...

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd talked to Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a former Bill Clinton backer who’s now backing Obama. Geffen ripped Hillary. He called her “incredibly polarizing”, referred to the Bush and Clinton “royal families,” speculated that Bill Clinton was still sleeping around and thus represented a scandal waiting to erupt; called the Clinton machine (their network of supporters and operatives) “very unpleasant and unattractive and effective;” called the former President “a reckless guy”, mocked his pardon of Marc Rich, declared the Clintons “unwilling to stand for things that they genuinely believe in” and that they lie “with such ease, it’s troubling.” Finally, he asked if anyone was more ambitious than Hillary.

The Hillary campaign read this in Dowd’s column and shot back, “A day after Barack Obama goes out and eschews the politics of slash-and-burn, his campaign embraces the politics of trash.” The Obama campaign responded, “We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.”

Later in Iowa, Obama himself added, “It’s not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone else’s remarks… My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons, but that doesn't really have anything to do with our campaign.”

At the candidate forum in Nevada yesterday, Hillary didn’t directly say whether she believed Obama was obligated to disavow Geffen's comments, but instead, she lamented… come on, you can guess the standard-issue Clinton response to these situations… you got it! The Politics of Personal Destruction™! Yes, Geffen’s criticisms and observations amount to an attempt to personally destroy her.

Apparently, this is being spun as a loss for Obama. I'm not sure why, unless Democrats still feel the instinctive need to wrap their arms around the Clintons and protect them from mean people. From Geraghty's report, that may well be the case, since people like Bill Richardson chose to defend Hillary from Geffen's attack. The pundit class seems to believe this takes the shine off of Obama, who's supposed to be above the fray of all this mean name-calling.

Whatever -- I thought the line from the Obama campaign was pretty damn funny, and "Hillary as victim" card can only be played so many times before even Democrats realize there's no substance to the charge. In a way, both candidates look petty, but isn't that par for the course with cat fights involving Hollywood moguls? In any case, I'm hoping this gets linked to Britney Spears soon. Wait -- Scrappleface just established a link.

The Presidential Election is Less than 21 Months Away

The Democrats had a debate last night in Nevada. A Presidential primary debate. For a Presidential primary contest whose first election is still almost 11 months away. Let's take it away with some of the more interesting points from this report by Marc Cooper...

The line of the day at Wednesday’s Democratic presidential candidate forum came from former Senator John Edwards. When asked if he was afraid that voters would suffer “election fatigue” given that this first debate was taking place more than 600 days before the actual November 2008 balloting, Edwards responded: “I’ll tell you why there won’t be any fatigue. There won’t be any because right now hardly anyone is paying attention.”

No doubt Edwards is right. While lots os Americans are feeling quite passionate, most would be hard pressed to offer you many details on how one of these Democratic candidates differs from the others.

And if they had sat through today’s two hour parade of Democratic contenders, it’s unlikely they would have any sharper of a notion.

What heat there was, if any, sparked between the two most prominent candidates who showed up: Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (Barack Obama was the only candidate who didn’t attend).

...Candidates Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack and former Senator Mike Gravel also appeared.

It’s doubtful whether any of these second – and third—tier candidates made any measurable advance at today’s event. Dodd, who was the lead-off speaker, seemed to have no rationale for his candidacy other than that he’s a senior senator with lots of experience. I vote him best candidate for a casual, relaxed after-dinner speech. My pal, Bill Bradley had a similar reaction to the affable Bill Richardson. “He’d make a great golf commentator,” Bradley said of the New Mexico governor. “He’s got the right tan, a nice blazer and those pressed khakis.”

Biden kept it short and sweet and succeeded in not uttering any of his trademark gaffes. He focused on his own plan for Iraq, a plan for partition, er, I mean “decentralization.” I don't know a single person who takes his candidacy as anything other than a job application for Secretary of State.

...Dennis Kucinich got his licks in, trashing all the other candidates. “It must be hard for these politicians to say they were misled, tricked and deceived by George w. Bush,” referring to their positions on the war in Iraq. “Here’s one who wasn’t. I organized 125 Democrats in Congress to oppose the war and I saw all the same information these other candidates did.”

It’s a fair enough point by Kucinich. He then ended his talk by saying he was the only candidate who had no strings attached to him. Then he lifted his arms up to his shoulders and slowly twirled around on stage repeating: “No strings. No strings. No strings.”

(hat tip: Instapundit) I have only a few observations at this point:

1. That might be the smartest thing John Edwards has ever said. I know that's damning with faint praise, but you have to start somewhere.
2. I'm guessing that things won't be the same on the campaign trail without John Kerry's rollicking sense of humor to keep things loose.
3. I grow more impressed with Obama's judgement each day. I may not agree with his policies in the least, but I admire anyone who thinks a debate at this point might be a tad silly.
4. I'm not going to say anything particularly mean about people who attended this event, but you're visiting Nevada in February. Most normal people would go to Las Vegas.
5. Good thing Mike Gravel was there.
6. I know we're going to miss the comic relief of Al Sharpton pretending he was a serious Presidential candidate and Howard Dean speaking, but God bless Dennis Kucinich. Now, someone fetch him a straitjacket.

Creepy, Yes.... Effective, No

This new video by Greenpeace is designed to... well, I'm not sure (hat tip: Iain Murray at Planet Gore). Apparently, it's designed to get us to do something about global warming... apparently by threatening adults that children will... well, not sure what they'll do, but they'll do something. I'm getting this vague Children of the Corn vibe here that's kinda disturbing, but not very persuasive.

For example, the kid opens the speech by saying, "By the time I grow up, there won't be any fish in the sea." Look, even if you actually think Al Gore's on track in An Inconvenient Truth (full disclosure -- I've only watched about half of the movie, since (1) my wife won't go see it with me [since she believes, and is probably right, that I would make fun of a lot of things]; and (2) it's really hard to stare at Al Gore on a computer screen for that long), can you really believe this statement? The kid's about 10 or maybe even 12 -- let's say you're considering the kid a grown up at 18, or maybe 21. So in 2013-2015 (or 2016-2018), we won't have fish in the sea? Man, I'm sure Kyoto would have fixed that.

In a nutshell, this is one of the problems I have with the extremist global warming siren calls -- the alarms are sounding, but no one knows what they mean, other than, "It's all really, really bad, and you'll pay in horrible ways that we can't even quantify." Making a statement that all of the fish will, well, sleep with the fishes in the next 8-10 years... you're about as likely to be believed as the guy standing on the corner shouting about Armageddon, no matter how many scientific papers you wave around.

Vegas, Baby, Vegas

Bill Simmons' column today on the NBA All-Star weekend in Vegas is making me miss my favorite place to visit. A couple gems...

1. A friend of a friend went to a bachelor party at a Venetian suite that featured strippers, including one who had a Nextel phone with a credit card swipe on it ... $50 per lap dance, every credit card was acceptable.

2. On Saturday morning, there was bumper-to-bumper traffic and a friend noticed a driver passed out in his car. When the traffic started moving again, the guy was still asleep and the driver behind him had to get out, walk over to the sleeping guy's car and bang on his window to wake him up.

3. There was a line of 150-175 guys outside the Spearmint Rhino late Friday night waiting to get inside.

4. Paris (a casino on the Strip) advertised a party featuring "host Vince Carter" and a $100 per-ticket price tag on Friday night ... and not only was Vince NOT there, he didn't know about it and had no idea there was even a casino named "Paris."

5. On Friday night, there were rumors that Britney Spears walked into a hair salon, asked a stylist to shave her head and then, when the stylist refused, she started cutting off her own hair before the stylist eventually consented to shave it. Seemed too crazy, right? Well, it was true! This actually happened! Britney Spears, welcome to the Tyson Zone! I will officially believe any rumor or story I ever hear about you until you're dead.

6. Paris Hilton's birthday party on Saturday night featured a goat, a monkey, a naked woman on a bed of glass and the Kiss midget band. I think this exact scenario appears in the scripture passage about Armageddon.

As of next month, it's been two stinking years since I visited Las Vegas. I need someone to have a bachelor party, and soon.

One Rule of Comedy

Of course, the big story of the weekend was not anything having to do with Iraq, or even global warming. No, we transitioned from the death of Anna Nicole to the shaving of Britney's head.

Now, I wasn't planning to mock Britney. She's obviously in the midst of a difficult time in her life, but let's face it -- my sympathy is more likely to go to others. At the same time, there's no need to take gratuitous shots at her on my blog. But there are people who have that job for a living, and now they don't want to mock her? Well, Craig Ferguson doesn't...

The host of CBS' "The Late Late Show" told viewers Monday that after seeing photos of the 25-year-old pop star's shaved head, he reconsidered making jokes at the expense of the "vulnerable."

Spears made headlines over the weekend when she shaved her head at a Los Angeles hair salon and then went to a tattoo parlor where she had a pair of lips put on her wrist. Spears shaved her head Friday, the same day as reports on TV and Web sites that she had briefly checked into a rehabilitation center.

"For me, comedy should have a certain amount of joy in it," Ferguson said. "It should be about attacking the powerful — the politicians, the Trumps, the blowhards — going after them. We shouldn't be attacking the vulnerable."

Ferguson recalled his battle with alcoholism and said he worries Spears may be having troubles of her own.

Let me open by stating one simple fact -- I can't stand Ferguson. I just don't think the guy is funny, not in the least. I appreciated the fact that he cut off Bill Maher when Maher opted to make light of child molestation on the show back in 2005, but other than that, I think he's only slightly more funny than Rosie O'Donnell. A lot of people I know disagree with me, but I'd rather watch two hours of Wolf Blitzer. I don't know why -- I have good friends who can't stand Ben Stiller (I'm looking at you, Lord of Truth), so maybe this is similar.

Now, I appreciate the sentiment that Ferguson has for Spears -- it's very nice that he sees her troubles and considers her feelings. But you're running a comedy show, man! Comedy can't just just take on the powerful -- it becomes boring and repetitious. This is one reason I love South Park -- nothing is sacred, so everything is fair game. Besides, while I understand that Spears is currently in a "vulnerable" state, she's not exactly a homeless person dealing with a crushing mental illness; she's a former pop diva who's currently unable to cope with her fame and out of control. She may well be hooked on an assortment of medications, or depressed and acting out -- we have no idea. But mocking her, just like mocking other celebrities, should not take a backseat to feelings of pity, especially if you're the host of a late-night comedy show.

Are there lines we shouldn't cross? Sure. But they're not drawn before we get to make jokes about Britney's bald head. I hope Wojr makes time to make a cheap Britney joke, or I'm going to have to conclude they're going soft out in L.A.

Reasons I Miss My Hometown... Okay, Probably Not

It's good to see politics haven't changed back in Philly...

T. Milton Street Sr., who announced last week he's running for mayor of Philadelphia, was locked up this morning in South Jersey on traffic warrants.

Moorestown police officers recognized him as he left the 7-Eleven convenience store in the township and took him into custody on traffic court warrants and contempt charges, police said.

Street, 67, older brother of Philadelphia Mayor John Street, was unable to post $3,250 bail at the police station. Officers transported him to the Burlington County Jail in Mount Holly, where he has been incarcerated since shortly after 10 a.m.

Street was arrested on warrants charging traffic violations in Moorestown and Pennsauken, and contempt for ignoring the traffic charges, said Moorestown Police Lt. Howard Mann.

"He was alone as he came out of the 7-Eleven," Mann said. "I guess he was getting coffee - and coincidentally the officers saw him and made the arrest," said Mann. "The officers said he was cooperative."

Street told police his address is the 1700 block of Anchor Street in Philadelphia. The arrest warrants give the address of a home in Moorestown on New Albany Road that he has listed on other legal filings, including bankruptcy. There is a residency requirement for mayoral candidates in Philadelphia.

In December, Street was arrested by FBI at his Moorestown address after he was indicted on federal corruption and tax charges.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but I'd prefer not to have a mayor who's under indictment and can't pay his parking tickets (even Milton Street's brother has thus far avoided indictment). Then again, maybe my standards are too high. Of course, my real problem with Street is that he actually voluntarily crossed the river and entered New Jersey for a purpose other than visiting the shore or gambling in Atlantic City. That, by itself, shows an appalling lack of judgment. Of course, that probably is a prerequisite to be mayor in Philly.

As If Red Sox Fans Needed An Excuse to Drink

I like free speech. I hate government over-regulation. I like beer. I hate the New York Yankees. Based on those four facts, I can say that with regard to the following story, I'm siding with a certain brand-new Red Sox star.

According to the United States Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, watching someone drinking a beer in a Japanese Asahi beer commercial may cause alcoholism in the States! Everyone, cover your eyes immediately before you succumb to the power of the almighty television commercial...in a language you can't even understand...in a commercial you will never see aired in America...because its a friggin Japanese commercial! Why doesn't the U.S. government just skip all this shit and force us right into the 1984-like world in which they really want us to live?

Overreact much? How about gone entirely insane. The government wants to take legal action against Red Sox pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka who is seen in the Asahi ad consuming beer, a no-no in the States. While it's one thing to enforce the U.S. regulation of not showing the actual consumption of alcohol in advertisements, it's entirely another to foist that law on another country or a person who just happens to now live in the U.S. but made the commercial in another country under an entirely different jurisdiction.

Asserting the government's position, ATTT Bureau Director of Public and Media Affairs Arthur Resnick cited a 1995 bureau ruling to the Boston Herald which finds unacceptable any ad, "which depicts any individual (famous athlete or otherwise) consuming or about to consume an alcoholic beverage prior to or during an athletic activity or event," or an ad that infers drinking alcohol "will enhance athletic prowess, performance at athletic activities or events, health or conditioning."

I tend not to spend too muct time worrying about 1984-like conditions prevailing anywhere outside of university campuses, but this is beyond silly. My guess is that some idiot in the ATTT (a) wants publicity to prove they deserve their funding, (b)is a government bureacrat who has way too much time on his hands, (c) is a Yankee fan, or (d) all of the above.

Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy breaks this down further...

The regulation in question is foolish even as applied to the United States. Consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether or not seeing athletes chugging beer is a good recommendation for the product. While an ad that incorrectly claims that drinking beer "will enhance athletic prowess" may indeed be misleading advertising, an ad that merely portrays an athlete drinking a beer is just ordinary "image advertising" that consumers are more than capable of evaluating for themselves. I am not going to get into technical First Amendment analysis here. But it seems to me that censoring advertising not for false factual claims about the product, but merely for promoting a favorable image of a product that the government disapproves of, is a clear violation of constitutional free speech rights - even if the courts have wrongly concluded otherwise.

What makes the ATTB action against Matsuzaka particularly reprehensible, however, is that the ad in question isn't being aired in the United States. It is a Japanese-language ad that will only be shown in Japan, where ads showing athletes drinking beer are perfectly legal. Not only is the ATTB engaging in censorship of American advertising, it also claims the right to censor ads in a foreign country.

The ad's available on YouTube. Damn, I need a beer.

I Think It's Time to Buy Another Mac

Steve Jobs always struck me as a smart guy...

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs lambasted teacher unions today, claiming no amount of technology in the classroom would improve public schools until principals could fire bad teachers.

Jobs compared schools to businesses with principals serving as CEOs.

"What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" he asked to loud applause during an education reform conference.

"Not really great ones because if you're really smart you go, 'I can't win.'"

In a rare joint appearance, Jobs shared the stage with competitor Michael Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Inc. Both spoke to the gathering about the potential for bringing technological advances to classrooms.

"I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way," Jobs said.

"This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy."

(hat tip: Protein Wisdom) Michael Dell wasn't an enthusiastic backer. But then again, I hear Barack Obama might agree with Jobs, at least a little bit. Of course, I question if he really means it. But let's hope he can challenge the Democrats' wholesale addiction to the NEA agenda. In the meantime, we hope more people listen to Jobs.

The Democratic Disgrace

As I had the pleasure of noting earlier this week, the surrender-at-all-costs realm of the Democratic Party, led by the fearless, foolish and feckless John Murtha, was busily trying to sabotage the morale and the prospects for success for our combat troops in Iraq. I'm usually busy ripping the mainstream media, but this time the Washington Post sees through the false claims of Murtha and his ilk on "supporting the troops" with a blistering editorial...

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support.

Let it be noted that the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who once proclaimed that we "have noting to fear but fear itself", now fears actually putting forth the policy it wants to advocate by defunding the troops, and instead seeks to hamstring the troops. John Podhertz sagely noted the following...

Nobody who actually supports the troops says "I support the troops" any longer. The words "I support the troops" are now solely for those who oppose what the troops are doing.

But let's take a look at where the American people, who really do support the troops, stand. Investor's Business Daily's poll results reveal something that might shock Pelosi and Murtha -- the majority of Americans want to win the war in Iraq. To be fair, perhaps the President should also take note of these results and press forward even more vigorously with the prosecution of the war -- for all the proponents of a greater surge, this is proof that there may be public support for such a road. But as IBD's accompanying editorial notes, the Democrats don't seem to want to win...

It's not that the Democrats think we're losing or that the war is unwinnable. They simply don't want to win it. As House Minority Leader John Boehner said of Murtha's proposals: "While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely."

At his press conference last week, Bush warned Congress against tying his hands on the war: "I make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops and make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done."

Give us the tools and we'll finish the job, said Winston Churchill in the dark days before our official entry into World War II. America delayed its entry into both world wars, but once in, we were committed to win. Hillary thinks that applies only to her campaign, not to the war on terror.

Neville Chamberlain's naivete may have helped bring on World War II, but at least he supported his country when war began. Norway's Vidkun Quisling and France's Vichy government under Marshal Petain may have collaborated with the Nazi enemy, but after their countries' defeats, not before.

We'd have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.

I don't know that I'd go that far -- Murtha's not ready to turn over West Point to bin Laden (yet). But perhaps this mentality explains the overeagerness of some folks to compare this war to Vietnam. Or maybe it's as Instapundit noted...

To some people, Vietnam wasn't a defeat, but a victory. To them, the right side won. And lost. Naturally, they're happy to repeat the experience.

I guess these folks are in favor of victory. Their own political victory, at the cost of the troops, national security, and their party's honor. Not much to give up, of course.