A clear example of how the Dems view Iraq

From The Politico, on the Democrats' strategy on Iraq:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.
. . .
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

So in the eyes of the Democrats, it's not a war on terror. It's not a war for oil. It's not a war for democracy. It has nothing to do with the safety of the United States. It's a political war.

That's why, for all the polls that show the American public dismayed about Iraq, the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with the nation's security. The Dems think this is all politics and has nothing to do with the future peace of the country. They think the war is wrong, but they're not going to come out and say so overtly -- led by Rep. John Murtha, they're going to play political games:

[Democrats] will seek to . . . restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels [of] adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard . . . few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, [Democrats] will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers . . . making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country.

They don't get it. And the sooner they're out of power, the better for the safety of my children.

As James Taranto said in today's Best of the Web, "If Murtha thinks he has a better way, let him run for president next year and make the case. To pursue a strategy of subversion instead is cowardly and despicable."