Democrat useful idiots of Tehran

Washington Times Editorial:

As President Bush works to find strategies for victory in Iraq and dealing with the Iranian threat, the Democratic Party seems determined to send every possible signal to our enemies that they have nothing to worry about when it comes to the projection of American power in wartime. Prominent Democrats are increasingly behaving as if their primary mission is not to defeat Islamists determined to destroy Western civilization, but to do everything they can to ensure that they can turn Mr. Bush into a lame duck for the next two years regardless of the consequences for our national security.
This irresponsible behavior manifests itself on an almost daily basis as anti-war lawmakers are divided into two camps on Iraq: a small but increasingly vocal group that demands withdrawal whatever the consequences, and a larger, more intellectually dishonest group that is afraid to act on its convictions and cut off funds for operations in Iraq. Instead, members of the latter group maneuver to put themselves in a politically advantageous position where they can say "I told you so; it's Bush's fault" after Iraq collapses. Right now, both groups are focused on passage of a resolution sometime this week denouncing the president's efforts to send more troops to protect Iraqis from marauding Sunni terrorist insurgents and Shi'ite militias in Baghdad. But aside from undermining Mr. Bush's ability as commander in chief in Iraq, arguably no issue unites the president's foes in Congress more than Iran -- specifically the need to ensure this rogue regime that it has nothing to fear when it menaces its neighbors.
Earlier this month, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden threatened Mr. Bush with a "constitutional crisis" if the United States crossed the Iranian border in search of terrorists who send improvised explosive devices (IEDs) into Iraq to kill and maim American soldiers. In his "prebuttal" to the State of the Union address, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Mr. Bush of "saber-rattling" on Iran. After stating that the president needed congressional authorization to take military action against the rogue regime, Mr. Reid made clear that he didn't think this was a terribly good idea. The real problem, Mr. Reid indicated, is that the Bush administration "has no strategy for connecting with" Iranians under 30, who he called a "generation of potential reformers."
While we wait for the mullahs to act on Mr. Reid's enlightened vision and cede power to Iran's reformist generation, however, there are more pressing problems back in the real world -- like Tehran's role in smuggling IEDs into Iraq....
...
Iranian officials reacted by denouncing the new American policy as "terrorist" in nature. As for Mr. Reid, when asked about Mr. Bush's lethal force order, he graciously agreed that U.S. troops may defend themselves. The majority leader then appeared to suggest that the president needed to do more to engage the Holocaust-denying regime in Tehran, stating that Mr. Bush should be working with other countries in the region to prevent hostilities with Iran from escalating, instead of "sending battle carrier groups" to sit near the Iranian coast. Unfortunately, Harry Reid, with all his childlike geopolitical innocence, symbolizes all too well the Democratic Party leadership in the current Congress.

While the Iranian reaction to the US defending its troops in Iraq is comical, the Democrat response to Iranian provocations is a policy of hope overriding experience. It is difficult to come up with any useful dialog with the Iranian government since 1979. With the current crop of low functioning ideologist in charge of that government there is little reason to even hope that discussions with them will be fruitful. Right now the Democrats are giving the Iranians too much hope that they can achieve their objectives without talking except to buy time.