According to four star general, "Dingy" Harry Reid, the surge has failed,

"Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday."

First off, all the troops involved in the surge didn't even get into place until June 1 and yet, after 13 days, Harry Reid has already declared it a failure?

Here's an idea: maybe we should let the General on the ground, David Petraeus, tell us whether it's a failure or not in September, when he reports to Congress.

Now granted, Petraeus is just a competent general who's interested in winning a war, while Harry Reid is a politician who's happy to see hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians die and Al-Qaeda defeat the United States if he thinks it will play out to his political advantage, but...wait, where was I going with that?

It escapes me, but in any case, how about this: In September, if David Petraeus comes back and tells Congress that we can't win the war in Iraq and that we're just treading water until we're defeated, conservatives should give up on the war and call for our troops to come home.

However, if Petraeus says that "yes, we can win the war, but we need more time," then liberals who love their country enough not to want to throw a war to Al-Qaeda for political gain should agree to hang in there and give Petraeus as much time as he says he needs to get the job done.

That seems like a fair bargain, doesn't it -- well, if your first concern is America winning the war as opposed to politics, right? I wonder how many liberals would be willing to give it a shot?