Democratic Hypocrisy on Iraq? Nooooo.

The Democrats don't create or explain their plans for Iraq. They just listen to what President Bush says and they go in the other direction. If something goes awry, which occurs in war, Democrats can always say that their ideas would have worked, although there can be no proof of that. But, what happened when President Bush accepted an idea of a leading Democrat? Take a look.

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason. "In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops. Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable. "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.

But, to Democrats, winning political battles are more important than winning battles with lives at stake.

I think that we need about 25,000 more Democrats in Iraq--just to get them out of our country. As the lawyer joke goes, it's a good start. Who goes first?