Sorry to be putting this up late, but it’s today’s must-read: Joe Lieberman on why we can’t just come home from Iraq:

“When politicians here declare that Iraq is ?lost? in reaction to al-Qaeda?s terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.”

As for the politician who declared that the war is “lost,” the usually mild-mannered David Broder, a reliable liberal, aka dean of the press corps, has a choice description: “continuing embarrassment.”

Reid’s remarks may have a profound impact. And disastrously so, writes Amir Tahari:

“WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.

“Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.

“The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war…

“Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.

“But even then, it’s unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.

“It’s possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war’s loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.

“That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn’t surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year.”