Harry Reid, already well established as an embarrassment to his party and the United States Senate, continues on an ill-advised path

WASHINGTON (CNN) — After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush’s Iraq policy, the Senate’s top Democrat moved into new terrain by declaring the Iraq war a worse blunder than Vietnam.

“This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

“So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it.”

Asked whether he considers it a worse blunder than Vietnam, Reid responded, “Yes.”

Comparisons to Vietnam are nothing new, but a “worse than” designation from a top lawmaker is.

Worse than Vietnam? Vietnam was certainly bad, but only because we did not commit ourselves to win the war, which is precisely what the Democratic Party is attempting to accomplish (sic) domestically now in Iraq. Besides functioning as a demoralization to the troops in the field, which Democrats so laughingly claim to support, Reid’s blurb does do us the advantage of encapsulating the Democratic Party and White Flag Republicans’ views on Iraq in one refreshingly candid yet inane sound bite.

That’s all fine and well. Senator Reid has long been classless (see his voice mail to Betty Ford and subsequent junket to South America), but his senatorial silliness hasn’t quite been on as great display. If you look up statesman in the dictionary, Harry Reid would show up under the last entry, antonym.

Now, besides the obvious dissimilarities between Vietnam and Iraq that any marginally educated adult ought to be able to see, we are now saddled with the labor of observing more tripe stemming from the politics of hopelessness. One needs only look to the casualty count difference between Vietnam and Iraq to make Reid’s commentary absurd on its face (the difference is presently over 54,000). We Republicans have so frequently been labeled the party of fear (again, as if 3,000 Americans did not die in a multi-pronged terrorist attack a mere 5 years ago), that it is now time to return the favor.

Though in returning the favor, the obvious difference is that the facts are on our side. Iraq is not like Vietnam. The troop surge proposed by the president is done in an effort to win the war. One may not agree with the strategy, and that is a fair position to take, but I would like to hear from any Democrat what Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi have proposed in their short, albeit much-hyped tenure, that would result in anything other than American defeat. Now that the Democrats control both houses of congress, I now havea decent inkling what the “U.S.” stands for preceding the US House and Senate - Unconditional Surrender (my utmost apologies extended to General Grant).

Even more amusingly, Senator Reid’s statement comes on the heels of the Democrat sponsored surrender resolution passed by the House of Representatives the end of last week. The Democrats, so empowered by their convictions, choose to present a nonbinding muddling of meaninglessness to express their alleged discontent with the president’s current Iraqi policy. Further exposing their cowardice, the House controls the purse - if Iraq is so great a mistake, and the nation’s good is so imperiled by our continued involvement there, as good Americans the Democratic leadership must shut down funding for the war, and “redeploy” our forces stateside. As the Democrats seem content to dabble in everything nonbinding, it has become clear that they either are not truly discontented, in that we can be assured they are merely whiny, or else they truly lack the moral fortitude to enact the policies they so ardently advocate.

Pick your poison. No matter the answer, the Democratic Party and its Republican sycophants have shown their uninterest in governing responsibly. Let us be warned, and know that in 2008, immediate change is needed. No more Democrats, and no more Bush.