Republicans are so rude.

All Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wanted was to have a nice quiet slumber party. They'd all use indoor voices and quietly put the war to bed.

But overnight on July 17-18, those GOP rowdies wouldn't play nice, snatching MoveOn pillows, short-sheeting the CodePink cots, and blowing raspberries at Reid & Co.'s feckless push to demoralize the troops and boost the hopes of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Harry huffed and puffed, and took his authorization bill home, but, deep down, probably went away content. He can say he tried to stop the war, but still has something with which to pound President Bush and his party.

But if Reid is serious, if he really wants to get more votes against the war, he should answer some of the questions raised last week about the consequences of withdrawal.

1. Why is the Dems' war plan better?

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pointed out that the Levin amendment — the cause of the sleepover — called for a troop reduction to start in 120 days, a "limited presence" of U.S. forces, and "targeted counterterrorism." But how many troops go — or stay? What's the definition of targeted or limited? The wannabe war planners didn't say.

"The supposedly groundbreaking policy shift that the Democratic majority has been circling around is nothing more than a page and a half of vague policy proposals," McConnell said. "That's wise war policy? That's a responsible alternative to the current policy... a doctrine that's been widely acclaimed as the last word on counterinsurgency and which is showing signs of success less than a month after it was fully manned?"

2. How will withdrawal promote reconciliation among already struggling Iraqi politicians?

It won't.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.: "The argument that our forcing a retreat of our military, our troops, will prod the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement is pure speculation. It is amateur psychology without any evidence that I can see to support it.... As soon as we begin to set a deadline date, the Iraqi leadership is... going to hunker down in camps and get ready for the battle of all battles."

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.: "Democrats would like for us to believe that we can responsibly leave Iraq, and the conflict will end. This is delusional."

3. What happens to the region?

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "A failed state in Iraq could lead to a broader regional conflict involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.... The Iraq Study Group noted that Iran could send troops to restore stability to southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields....

"Those of us who are concerned about that huge humanitarian crisis (in Darfur)...must also be concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq should we prematurely withdraw our troops and that country descend into massive ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and massive dislocation of refugees...."

"The Iraq Study Group found that, if we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

4. What's the effect on al-Qaida?

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: Al-Qaida's No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri "last week issued a call for reinforcements, because he understands his force is under siege in Iraq and things are not going well because the local people are beginning to turn on them. So he told his al-Qaida brothers: Hang in there. The winds in Washington are blowing our way. Hang in there. Help is on the way."

Lieberman: "We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq. ... Who is going to win if we pull out? Al-Qaida will, and Iran will."

Reid & Co. should address these concerns. Failure to do so signals that potential bloodbaths don't matter as long as Democrats make the Bush administration atone for its mistakes with a humiliating defeat in Iraq. Never mind the consequences to the U.S. military, the country and the Iraqis.

If that's the case, bring on another stunt, this time a "teach-in" focused on a bill to provide Farsi and Arab language courses for the troops over there and citizens at home. That way, we'll all know the exact terms of the coming surrender.