Dems backing off from Reid's "war is lost" sentiment

Sure, they believe the war is lost. But they're not completely stupid. They don't want to be portrayed (accurately, I might add) as being anti-troop, and Marines like Pat Dollard calling out Reid certainly doesn't bolster the left's facade of "supporting the troops". From Politico:

Several leading Democrats said this week that they did not agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent statement that "the war is lost" in Iraq, even while they support his broader message.

But they did agree that Reid's wording was clumsy and potentially damaging. Even the Nevada Democrat himself appeared to be backing away from his remark.

Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, said earlier that the "war is lost" comment was not in Reid's prepared text for the news conference last Thursday. But from now on, Manley said, the senator will "couch it more": The mission in Iraq is not working and must be changed.

Must have been a Kerryesque "botched joke" (which, coincidentally, also maligned the troops), right? Continuing:

Democrats have long tried to shed their image of being soft on national defense. Recent polls suggest they are making strides, showing that more voters trust congressional Democrats than they do the president to handle the situation in Iraq.

But statements such as Reid's -- while delighting those who have turned against the war -- provided Republicans an opportunity to shift focus from the merits of President Bush's Iraq war strategy to the level of support from Democrats for the troops.

If the Democrats would spend a fraction of the time coming up with a non-defeatist strategy of their own, instead of poormouthing our fine soldiers, then such efforts by the GOP to portray them (accurately, I might add) as being soft on defense would fail worse than Ted Kennedy at sobriety. Continuing:

None of almost a dozen Democrats contacted by The Politico said they agreed with Reid's statement. Instead, they support what they believed was his overall theme: The war cannot be won militarily, and the president must adjust his strategy. They just wouldn't have said it as Reid did.
...
Some launched into Clintonesque explanations.

"I think it depends entirely on what your definition of 'lost' means. That sounded familiar, didn't it?" former senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, said to laughter on Ed Schultz's radio talk show Monday. "What I mean is, I don't think there is winning or losing in Iraq. There is certainly no military victory if it's used in that regard. The only way there can be security and peace on the ground in Iraq is for there to be a political solution."

We can always rely on the left to complicate simple terms like "sex", "is", and "lost", can't we? Nicely done, Silky Pony.

Finally, this nugget:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) deflected the question, saying that the war was never defined and that his 2002 vote should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.

Right. You voted to authorize the president to go to war, then you have the nerve to tell us that your vote shouldn't have been construed as a vote to go to war. Bubba and Silky Pony might be able to get away with such creative word-mangling, but you can't, Harkin.