Over at Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan notes something very peculiar about Harry Reid.Back in 2007, Harry Reid declared Iraq “lost”. On Friday, in a Las Vegas Sun interview, reporter Jon Ralston asked Harry Reid about that comment.Reid’s response?

Reid said his comments were “blown way out of proportion,” pointing out Petraeus said the war in Iraq could not be won militarily. Then this: “It wasn’t won militantly. It was won politically, diplomatically and with the surge.”

But Harry Reid voted against the surge.He is still maintaining that the Iraq War was not won “militantly,” by which I assume he means militarily. Harry Reid says the war was instead won (1) politically, (2) diplomatically, and (3) with the surge — the same surge he voted against.Does Harry Reid understand that the surge was a military strategy? Or, as Tom Bevan points out, did Harry Reid “consider[] it part of a broader overall strategy for victory but voted against it anyway”?Which is it Harry?