A clever turn of phrase from an advance copy of Reid’s remarks to be given at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington today at 12:00pm eastern:

“The President on Friday used the word ‘progress’ no fewer than ten times when he gave his Iraq update

“He said that while there were still horrific attacks in Baghdad ­and I quote ­’The direction of the fight is beginning to shift.’ In describing his escalation of American troops ­ what he calls a surge ­ he said, ‘so far the operation is meeting expectations.’

“The White House transcript says the President made those remarks in the State of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial.”

The number of civilian casualties in Baghdad has dropped by more than half, and only about 60% of the “surge” deployment of troops has actually hit the ground in Iraq, so one wonders who is really visiting the “state of denial.”

Maybe someone needs to draw Harry a map.  Reid and his Democrats unanimously approved General Petraeus to run the war in Iraq, and General Petraeus is the architect of the surge strategy we’re employing right now.  That strategy is only about 60% implemented, so wouldn’t it be safe to say that Harry (who voted for Petraeus himself) is stabbing the General in the back?  Along with the rest of our troops who are fighting (dying) to implement this new strategy and win the war Harry thinks is already lost?

If Harry really feels this way about Iraq, why did he agree to appoint Petraeus to lead the war and implement the surge strategy?  And why does he keep talking about giving our troops a “strategy for success” in Iraq if he feels the war is already lost?

“Back stabber” isn’t the half of it with this guy

save this article / add to your favorites list