Am I missing something, or is this just another example of political doublespeak?

The U.S. Senate passed a war-funding bill last week. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this will "change the course in Iraq" by giving our troops "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq." Why, just reading that you'd think that Sen. Reid is giving American soldiers a green light to kick some major butt in Baghdad.

You'd be wrong. What Harry is really saying is that "victory" means hightailing it out of Iraq.

Whoever taught Harry critical thinking skills back at Basic High School in the 1950s can't be happy. His creative writing teacher, however, must be ecstatic, because calling what the Senate did last week "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq" is about as far from reality as one can get.

What the Senate did under the umbrella of a troop funding bill was vote for removing most forces from Iraq in 365 days. Think about that -- one year.

No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity can seriously call the Senate's action a blueprint for military success in Iraq. Arizona Sen. John McCain may not be my favorite political cup of tea, but he called it right on this one: "This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act. A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."

Now look, unlike Senate Democrats, I want to be clear and plainly understood about this. Americans can have at least two very legitimate points of view on U.S. involvement in Iraq. There are those who think we can create a better Middle East via a stable and democratic Iraq by supplying more troops, money and good old American resolve. And there are those who hold there is no military solution in Iraq, we ought to come to grips with that, cut our losses and get the hell out.

I happen to be in the "we-can-still-win" camp. And you won't catch me calling the "get-the-hell-out" folks cowards or un-American. But I will say I have increasingly little patience for politicians who try to have it both ways.

In that regard, Harry Reid's deliberately evasive position on Iraq wears extremely thin. When the war began, Harry was gung-ho and voted so. Even now, in hindsight, he says he was right to vote for the war. Yet, now that things have gotten tough, Harry (if I comprehend his doublespeak correctly) wants out.

That's fine. He's entitled to that view. But why not just say so?

Calling withdrawal an "effective, successful strategy for Iraq" is like Karl Rove calling for Sen. Hillary Clinton to bow out of the presidential race one year from now as an "effective, successful strategy" for Democrats to win the White House in 2008.

It makes no sense. Just in case you think I might be overstating things, here's the news release from Sen. Reid -- verbatim:

"Today was a significant step forward in our efforts to change course in Iraq and make America more secure. With this vote the Senate is giving our troops the resources they need in combat -- including a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. It is my hope that with this vote now complete, Senate Republicans will not stand in the way of finishing this bill so that we may get these vital funds to our men and women as soon as possible.

"The president must change course, and this legislation gives him a chance to do that. It gives him the chance to more effectively fight terrorism and redeploy our troops from a civil war. This bill also gives the president the chance to address some of our country's most urgent needs -- long-ignored priorities including veterans health care; port, mass transit and airport security; and rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

"The American people have asked us to give our troops an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq. Both houses of Congress have listened. It is now up to the president to do the same."

OK, now that you've read his news release in its entirety and you know that I'm righteous on this, take a deep breath through your nose and read the following aloud in your best Robert Duval impersonation: "Thank you, Sen. Reid. I love the smell of horse apples in the morning."

Co-workers lost

They say death comes in threes, and, tragically, that held true for the Review-Journal over last week. Three of our employees passed away. They are not names you know from the newspaper each morning, but they were dedicated people who helped bring you the paper each day. They will be missed by their family, friends and co-workers.

Sandra Rocca, 50, a Review-Journal route manager, died March 23, apparently of natural causes. She worked at our Mesa Vista distribution center.

Lawrence Lewczyk, 59, a prepress specialist at our airport facility, died Monday while fishing on the Colorado River. His death was also apparently from natural causes.

And finally, Frances Eno, 61, a classified ad representative, died Wednesday morning after a short illness.

Nevada's future

I had the privilege of attending and having a very small part in the Latin Chamber of Commerce's scholarship luncheon last week. It was good to see so many high schoolers looking forward to college, thanks to the generosity of the chamber and its members.

If you want to feel good again about the future of Nevada, may I recommend you put the Latin Chamber of Commerce scholarship luncheon on your annual calendar. The chamber has it going right, and there's still plenty of room for involvement.

Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media. Readers may write him at sfrederick@reviewjournal.com.