A little reality for the “reality”-based, from Jack Kelly:

Nearly 200 “insurgents,” most of them al Qaida members, have been killed or captured in Operation Steel Curtain, now in its second week, a joint Marine-Iraqi operation which has been cleaning out hideouts along the Syrian border.

Zarqawi has lost a number of key lieutenants in recent weeks, thanks to the increasing number and timeliness of tips. The most recent were Abu Ahmed, the “Emir” of Sadah, nabbed on day three of Steel Curtain, and Abu Ibrahim, a technology expert who manufactured triggering devices for roadside bombs, taken in Baghdad Oct. 31st. More of Zarqawi’s command network was lost in the house in Mosul, even if he himself got away.

With the walls falling in on al Qaida in Iraq, it would seem a curious time for congressional Democrats to go into preemptive surrender mode. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., introduced a resolution last week calling for “immediate redeployment” of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Murtha, a retired Marine reserve colonel and a decorated Vietnam veteran, is a substantive man. The news media described his resolution as a blow to the Bush administration. “When President Bush decided to wage war on Saddam Hussein, perhaps no Democrat was a firmer ally,” wrote Maura Reynolds in the Los Angeles Times. This was untrue. Murtha had expressed doubt about going to war in 2002, and had declared Iraq “unwinnable” in May of last year.

Showing more backbone and more brains than they customarily do, House Republicans called for a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It failed, 404-3. Democrats who’d applauded the introduction of Murtha’s resolution whined it was dirty pool for Republicans to make them vote on his bottom line.

“It’s a trap,” a Democratic strategist told Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift. “If the party comes out for a unilateral six month withdrawal, that would become the issue for 06, and they (Republicans) would kill us again.” Democrats like to make antiwar noises for their moonbat base, but were unwilling to cast a vote that could hurt them with swing voters. They were too cowardly to be forthright cowards.

Yup. More, from Mark Steyn:

I don’t know what Islamist Suicide-Bombing For Dummies defines as a “soft target” but a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding in the public area of an hotel in a Muslim country with no infidel troops must come pretty close to the softest target of all time. Even more revealing, look at who Zarqawi dispatched to blow up his brother Muslims: why would he send Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, one of his most trusted lieutenants, to die in an operation requiring practically no skill?

Mrs Shamari’s brother, Thamir al-Rashawi, Zarqawi’s right-hand man and the “Emir of al-Anbar” (i.e., the Sunni Triangle), was killed by US troops in Fallujah last year. Her other two brothers and her brother-in-law all died in engagements with the enemy this year. Sending a surviving member of your rapidly dwindling inner circle to blow up a Palestinian wedding is not a sign of strength.

True, he did manage to kill a couple of dozen Muslims. But what’s the strategic value of that? Presumably, it’s an old-fashioned mob heavy’s way of keeping the locals in line. And that worked out well, didn’t it? Hundreds of thousands of Zarqawi’s fellow Jordanians fill the streets to demand his death.

Happily for Mr Zarqawi, no matter how desperate the head-hackers get, the Western defeatists can always top them. A Democrat Congressman, Jack Murtha, has called for immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. He’s a Vietnam veteran, so naturally the media are insisting that his views warrant special deference, military experience in a war America lost being the only military experience the Democrats and the press value these days. Hence, the demand for the President to come up with an “exit strategy”.

In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter’s easier. Just say, whoa, we’re the world’s pre-eminent power but we can’t handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don’t mind we’d just as soon get off at the next stop.

And now that the Dems have shown their true colors (yellow, mostly) after having their pathetic surrender-now bluff called on Friday, some Lefties have begun the “that’s not what we meeaaant” whining. Problem is, it’s exactly what you guys meant, and everybody knows it:

Now, as much as the Left would like to think that the Hunter resolution bore “ZERO resemblance” to the Murtha one, we can compare the relevant portions to see that, indeed, they are the same, especially in light of Murtha’s own description.

Murtha’s: The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Republican’s: Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

The bolded words say the same thing precisely. So much for “ZERO resemblance”. Now, the Murtha version added that they should be redeployed ASAP, so while both resolutions had the “cut” part of “cut and run”, Murtha added “and run immediately“. And if you wish to do some word-parsing, you could say that the Republican version could be construed to mean that no additional troops will be sent but says nothing about the current ones. Hence, the Hunter resolution was less drastic than the Murtha one, and yet Democrats couldn’t even vote for that.

It’s beginning to look like we in the warblogosphere are going to have to add another sure-fire laugh line to our repertoire; we’ll post a comment from some Loon or other clearly advocating cutting and running from Iraq, then retort, “just don’t question their will to win, okay?” or some such.

And the real trouble for the Dems is that, if “immediate withdrawal” is not what they actually meant with their little resolution, then all they’re really doing is restating the Administration position on Iraq, to wit: we will leave when the job is done, and not before. And what’s the point of saying that all over again? We need a sense-of-the-House resolution to know that? “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that, in direct contradiction of every word of useless complaint and defeatism that we have uttered since the beginning of the war and before, President Bush has the right idea on withdrawal from Iraq, and should keep right on doing exactly what he’s been saying he’s going to do all along”? Does anybody really believe that’s what the Dems were trying to put across here?

‘Fraid not, Jack.

The Dems have placed themselves in a most curious position here: the worst thing that can possibly happen for them is for the American people to have a good, solid understanding of just what it is they’re advocating. So they constantly have to restate themselves, shifting and wriggling without cease or respite, never resting too long in one spot lest their position become too clear.

Trying to nail down a Left/liberal/Dem’s real position these days is about like trying to catch a greased pig at a county fair. They’re for removing Saddam from power, but against actually doing it. They’re for withdrawing the troops from Iraq immediately, just not right away. They’re against American soldiers dying for a lie, but don’t want to tell us exactly what the lie was, and don’t want to actually be seen voting to put a stop to it. They support the troops, but want them to stop what they’re doing, give up, admit failure, and contritely come home with their tails between their legs for all the world to see. They despise terrorists, but think they’re deserving of our understanding and compassion. They hate religious fundamentalism, except the kind practiced by Islamic suicide bombers, which we must respect as a legitimate expression of desperation or frustration with poverty or defending their homeland or something. They support democracy in Iraq but want to do everything they can to ensure its quick and painful death. They’re for free speech and dissent just so long as everyone agrees with them. They’re patriotic, but everything they do, say, and support cheers the enemy on and gives him reason to believe that if he just hangs on a little longer, he can defeat our military without even having to actually fight it.

And while we’re at it, black is white, up is down, right is wrong, and truth is false, too.

But hey, that’s what happens when you get caught trying to sell cowardice and submission in the home of the brave.