Video: Pelosi says the troops haven’t died in vain
Allahpundit

Sawyer softballed the intro to the segment by drooling that Pelosi is “galvanized steel with a smile,” but she soon made up for it, as you’ll see. Doubly clever is how she put her on the spot in the guise of a touchy-feely question about comforting the bereaved.

Pelosi has no answer, of course. She does her best, but what can she say when the highest octane in the anti-war engine is the left’s moral certitude that American soldiers are dying in vain? As with so much else about Democratic politics, she can’t tell the country how they and she really feel lest it cost them votes, so she politely and tactfully lies and mumbles about patriotism. And then hands Bush a check to keep the war, which she considers a “tragedy” and a “stark blunder,” going.

The White House unloaded on her this afternoon for what she suggested about the timing of the surge — namely, that Bush rushed the troops to Iraq because he suspected the Democrats wouldn’t have the balls to defund them once they’re there ...

***

Democrats Gone Wild
John Hinderaker

Today was a bad day for the Democrats--they were disgraceful on a number of fronts. First there was Nancy Pelosi on Good Morning America, accusing President Bush of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers:

The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.

Pelosi's charge was not only patently false, it bordered on incomprehensible. Is she really suggesting that any time the President intends to send troops anywhere, he should wait until the next Congressional budget cycle to find out whether funds have been appropriated for that particular mission? She can't possibly mean that, but I can't think of any other interpretation.

Next was Harry Reid, who offered this legal opinion in a speech to the National Press Club:

The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.

As a proposition of Constitutional law, that is simply wrong. The President obviously does have such authority as commander in chief; the only sense that can be attached to Reid's comment is that he doesn't think the President should do it. At this point, we have no reason to think that President Bush disagrees. But why would Reid grandstand for headlines in this way, and at this time? He must know that the Iranians will read news stories about his speech and take it to mean that the President has no credible threat of military action. This is a perverse signal to send to an enemy while it is in the process of killing American soldiers in Iraq and while one of our aircraft carriers has been ordered to the Middle East.

What can Reid's motive possibly be, other than to aid our enemies and contribute to our problems in Iraq? I can't think of one. A credible threat of military action is obviously vital to our dealings with Iran.

And, finally, there is poor old Walter Mondale.  ...