The Redhunter

Now, the most charitable interpretation is that he meant to say that the act of armed soldiers going into civilian homes is frightening to it's inhabitants.

But given his participation in the Winter Soldier nonsense of 1971, its more than probable that he actually thinks our troops are terrorizing Iraqi civilians. Here's how he described our soldiers to Congress on April 22 1971

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Although no doubt at times some of these things happened, most of what the Winter Soldier investigation "discovered" turned out to be false.

But it Gets Worse

Next up we have none other than the Chairman of the Democratic National Party himself, Howard Dean. During an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio the other day gave us his strategy for defeat:

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

oh, but he's a strategic military genius also. His solution:

"We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops."

Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to....

Uh, maybe because no other country in the region wants to host a large US force? The Saudis had lots of US troops in their country after the Gulf War and all that did was anger the extremists in their midst(another story). No one else is eager to repeat their experience. Murtha, also strategically challenged, offered much the same "solution" in his proposal a few weeks ago.

I suppose I should't condemn the entire Democrat party; after all, a few, like Joe Lieberman, are sensible. And some Republicans are weak-kneed. But when the House Democrat leader, Nancy Pelosi herself, calls for a "rapid withdrawal from Iraq" (regardless of consequences), I'm sorry: The Democrats are the Party of Defeat.

Hat tip Belmont Club for many of the links in this post, but you should be reading that site anyway.

Michelle Malkin also has a roundup of posts about Howard Dean's defeatism.

Wednesday Morning Update

The Washington Times reports this morning that not all Democrats share Dean's view of Iraq:

Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who faces re-election next year, said: "The senator disagrees with Mr. Dean, and he also feels in regard to establishing a timetable for troop withdrawal that is not the way to go. ... At this point, the long-term national security interest are paramount issues, and cutting and running in Iraq is not the solution."

Interesting to me that he uses the term "cutting and running". This has become a term of opprobrium towards anyone who advocates leaving Iraq immediately.

A spokesman for Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, who also faces re-election next year , said: "Senator Nelson believes that victory in Iraq is obtainable through establishing clear and measurable objectives, and he does not support immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops."

I applaud both Nelsons. Some may say that because both are in redish states, they may simply be looking towards their reelection. Maybe so, but if we criticize foolish words we must applaude wise ones.

"Every Democrat I know of in the House of Representatives wants to have success of our policies in Iraq," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. "They want to see a democracy; they want to see stability."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the war must be won militarily, economically and politically, and added: "We have the ability to win all three."

Neither Hoyer nor Reid are in any danger of being defeated at the polls. Perhaps they realize that Murtha and Dean have gone too far. Let's hope so, because while it is tempting to find advantage when the other party goes off the deep end, it is in the best interests of our country when both parties want to win the war.

But just when you think some Democrats are being reasonable the genuis Charles Schumer weighs in:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said Iraq should be divided into "three autonomous regions."

If you want an instant civil war, Turkish troops in the country, instant condemnation by our allies, and even more interference from Iran, then yes, by all means partition the country.

Analysis

Over the past year or so it's been distressing watching some of the divisions within the GOP. Hagel and McCain have gone out of their way to criticize the president at times. But it seems now that the divisions within the Democrat party are even more pronounced. It is my hope that the more reasonable ones win out. Unfortunately I don't see much hope of this happening. The Democrats are the Party of Defeat and of Michael Moore, and it looks like they will remain that way for some time.