28 (or more) Democrats Hate The Military

~Snooper~

HT to Right Voices via mm.com: go read these posts...simply amazing...

The 28 Democrats That Put Convicted Felons Before Armed Forces Veterans

And they "support" the Troops? In which way?

Dems, Rocks and Hard Places...UPDATED

~Snooper~

UPDATES below

Once upon a time, in a place not very familiar to many Americans and, even obscured from view from most of the world, there is a place called the United States Senate. Close in proximity, is a place called the United States House of Representatives. Both establishments have, in the past, performed the bidding of a now obscure band of citizens, referenced to in archaic documents as "We The People". Not any longer. Through the decades, a sickness from the morphing of Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Identity Politics into the Political Farce of American Politics, orchestrated by emotionally unstable influences, has caused a condition that requires certain politicians to rely heavily on Weather Vane Decision Accountability and Authority.

This condition has so permeated itself into the framework of American Politics that if anything gets accomplished, it is only due to Blind Luck and not Reasoned Thought. Such shameful attributes are lauded as the status quo and the ins and outs can be blamed on weather vanes. This gives way to the condition of Microwave Mentality...if life and/or results of any undertaking doesn't happen within a prescribed or preconceived period of time, the effort is deemed as untenable from the beginning and is condemned to scrutiny stemming from the lethality of hindsight.

A long, long, long time ago, way back on October 11, 2002, the United States Senate, in a vote of 77 to 23, a vast majority of Senators, approved of an obscure document called the Iraq War Resolution. In a vote of 296 to 133, a vast majority of Representatives, the United States House of Representatives passed the Iraq War Resolution, giving the President of The United States authority to "wage war".

The wind direction of that time was blowing in a certain direction. As anyone knows or, should know, wind directions change from time to time. Also, it is also common knowledge, among those that know, that "war directions" also change from time to time - not as often as the direction of the wind - but it changes all the same.

On 91101, the United States was stunned, shocked, confused and angry. We were attacked on our home turf and I had an odd chuckle at that expression; home turf. Our Embassies across the globe ARE American Soil and they were also attacked and have been attacked since 1979. The age-old saying of "this could never happen to us" was eternally shattered. I suppose the difference was this; the events of 91101 took place on American Soil Proper. War was in the air. Someone was going to pay. The problem was, the people that attacked this country, died in the Act Of War against us. So, who was to pay? It was determined that Al Qaida, a terrorist cabal, was to pay.

On 91201, there was talk from all corners of the Nation of retaliation. The once Main Stream Media lauded that as well and Retaliation was in the air. The general perception was a Country United. For the most part, this was true. In actuality, however, this was not the case. Some seem to forget about the groups of people that believed before 91101, on 91101, and after 91101 that every woe on our globe we call Earth was and is a direct result of The United States of America. Such drivel came to the fore among the American Politik during the 2004 election cycle. The term "WMD" became The Issue.

Using defective and disingenuous reasoning, the Blame America For Everything Crowds have determined that since no WMDs were found in Iraq, they therefore never existed, therefore President Bush knew they did not exist, therefore, President Bush lied. That sort of reasoning is that of an intellectually void individual.

On March 19, 2003, after diplomatic channels were exhausted and Saddam Hussein would not comply with any United Nations Resolutions, military action was launched on Saddam's Iraq. I find the CRS Report for Congress has gone largely ignored by our politicians and have chosen an avenue destructive to their political aspirations. It has also most assuredly gone ignored by the alleged Peace Movements that are nothing of the sort. They are and always have been and always will be anti-Americanist groups, disclosed here and here.

[...] President Bush has repeatedly called for regime change in Iraq. In his speech before the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the President emphasized the dangers posed by Iraq's programs to develop WMD and urged the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities by enforcing previous U.N. Security Council resolutions that Iraq has ignored. On October 10 and 11, respectively, the House and Senate passed H.J.Res. 114 (P.L. 107-243), which authorized the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing Iraqi threat and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council sanctions regarding Iraq. At the international level, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, which imposed a revised and more stringent weapons inspection regime on Iraq, required Iraq to submit a comprehensive declaration of all its WMD programs within 30 days, and warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to cooperate.1 On March 19, 2003 (March 20 Iraq time), President Bush announced that he had launched military operations (known as Operation Iraqi Freedom) "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." [...]

The above is a brief snippet of the document and all six pages should be read and studied by all. Carrying on with the mantra of "illegal war" and "United States Constitution violations" is disturbingly absurd, especially since those allegations are simply untrue and have no basis or merit - except perhaps from the emotionally unstable that don't have the capability of sound reasoning and/or fact checking before they begin to ramble. I question their motives and feigned patriotism.

I have written extensively on what I call The Why we went to war with Saddam's Iraq and I also find it curious that President Bush's words are skewed and distorted to such a degree that our politicians cannot return to the original intent(s) of The Why. However, there are three key speeches given by President Bush that are a must read and, they are as follows;

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002

President Discusses the Future of Iraq, February 26, 2003

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, March 17, 2003

The above will or, should or, perhaps can, put an end to the idiots decrying the ignorant "illegal war" and similar idiocy.

Another widely ignored report comes from DefenseLink. It is ignored for one reason and one reason only. Blind hatred of President George W Bush. There is no other explanation. Or is there? But first, what constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Is it a Nuclear Weapon? Is it a Biological Weapon? Is it a Chemical Weapon? Is it a Long-Range Missile?

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 - The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. [...]

I already know the answer. Do you? This brings us to the title of this article.

The Democratic Party Leadership has boxed themselves into a sticky wicket. They have painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of without getting "dirty", as it were.

In 2004, the Democratic Party Leadership chose Sen Kerry to oust President Bush. He ran using the WMD issue and lost. He also ran on the credo that GWB "stole" the elections of 2000 and lost. The full onslaught of the Democratic Party Leadership did not fully take hold until the elections of 2006 utilizing their masters in the Leftinistra Press. They built a premise that we were losing the War In Iraq when nothing of the sort was true. The war was going poorly indeed, much in part to a defective ROE, developed and initialized by ignorance and diplomatic screed. We certainly were not losing...there. We were losing here, at home. The only thing similar to the War In Iraq and the Vietnam War were the politicians, the anti-Americanist groups and the American News Media.

The Good News flowing in from the results of the efforts by our troops under the leadership of General David Petraeus, unanimously anointed by the full Senate, is unmistakable and undeniable. Why else are there no more "woe is me" stories in the opening segments of the news hours and leading stories on the front pages? Why have the stories vanished from the alphabet news shows and removed to the back pages of the theoretical leading newspapers?

The Libocrats, both Democrat and Republican, were relying on a quick victory in Iraq much like the quick victory over the Taliban. They were not counting on the aftermath and some claim that there was no exit strategy, assuming this military action as a financial market. Exit strategy comments in regards to a war is indicative of a person and mindset that doesn't understand war and how it changes. Plan A quickly turns into Plan Z, running through the gauntlet of change.

Let us not forget the many now "anti-war" Democrats and Republicans that were once "pro-war" Democrats and Republicans. And, I find it purely disgusting that the politicians would actually invent the terms "anti-war" and "pro-war"...two terms that are so grossly disingenuous it causes my Warrior's Blood to boil. In these modern times, in this particular point in time, the only ones I know that are "pro-war" are the Jihadis. The proper terms are "anti-victory" and "pro-victory" and, this is why.

The Democratic Party Leadership in particular and the Fraud Republicans as a notice of recognition for what they are, have so invested in defeat in this war, a defeat would mean their victory in the American Political Arena. A victory in this war would be a defeat for them in the American Political Arena.

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article at NRO that I ran across several days ago. He runs through the ever changing political scene and a key point I shall never forget. The nuance will escape the average anti-Americanist:

[...] The second problem was the nature of the growing antiwar mood in the country that after the pullback from Fallujah in April 2004 became frenetic. Democrats rashly fanned this national wildfire. By 2006 the conflagration had finally led to their return to power in Congress.

Unfortunately, many Democrats saw the change-of-heart in the electorate as a blanket endorsement of their own alternate universe. But it wasn't necessarily so. The voters were not necessarily interested in new ties with terrorist Syria, restoring diplomacy with Iran, gay marriage, abortion, minority-identity politics, new spending programs, open borders, closing down Guantanamo, an end to wiretaps of suspected terrorists, or the repeal of the Patriot Act.

The people were mad at the war not because they felt it was amoral or unsound policy, or because they hated George Bush, or because they wished liberals instead to end it in defeat -- but simply because they felt frustrated that we either were not winning, or not winning at a cost in blood and treasure that was worth the effort.

That Pattonesque national mood ("America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser") is not quite entirely gone, and was entirely misunderstood by most Democrats. Somehow instead they saw their new popularity as connected to the appeal of their politics rather than their shared anger at the mismanagement of the war. [...]

Very powerful that is. And, in light of the recent developments in the War In Iraq, that sentiment marks their doom and they know it.

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place and cannot get out unscathed. They have embraced defeatist rhetoric in the hopes of political gain, self-destructive as it has become, and they have no way out and no way to recover. The elections of 2008 will be very interesting indeed.

Just a few days ago, Rep Murtha returned from Iraq and said (my paraphrase), "By golly gee! The Surge is working". This so infuriated SoH Pelosi that she put the kibosh on that almost immediately...too late it was in the coming. Murtha has some serious damage control in his own life to consider and may have been too eager to make points with the military. We may never know for sure.

Regardless, being stuck between their rocks and their hard places, they will be crushed and exposed for what they are; disingenuous cretins.

[...] Democrats have invested everything in losing the war in Iraq and blaming it on President Bush, and now they've been proved wrong. Murtha has admitted it; other Democrats, one by one, will follow.

How much faith can Americans place in a party so committed to a national failure - and now so discredited?Exactly so. They just cannot get anything right on Iraq, can they?

Dems are on the wrong side of history and fading fast

"But I felt kinda embarrassed telling the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here." - Democratic Congressman Norman Dicks.

The spin before was we cannot win, pull the troops out. The spin now is we won, pull the troops out.

Will Democrats ever change their course and head for victory? [...]

Only time will tell.

[Update 1]...forgot to include the United Nations Resolution 687...Persian Gulf War Cease Fire

The Defeatocramps Just Disgust This DAV

~Snooper~

From Yahoo! News...

AP - The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come. [...]

"Flagship" proposal? You mean the sinking into the Abyss of Obscurity "Flagship"?

[...] This reality - readily acknowledged by Democrats who say it's still their best shot at curbing the nearly five-year war - has drawn the ire of anti-war groups and bolstered President Bush's prediction that the United States will most likely wind up maintaining a hefty long-term presence in Iraq, much like in South Korea. [...]

And, Germany, Japan, Kosovo...oh...wait...we aren't allowed to bring up or even to mention Kosovo. Bill Clinton said we would be out of there in a year...what, 8 years ago? Morons.

As we have been saying for seemingly an eternity, this latest quagmire...self-induced...of the Democratic Party Leadership is their last ditch effort to overrun the CONgress and the White House. Their efforts have failed. They tried, once more, to appease their fruit loop fringe anti-Americanist base and it has finally caught up to them. They know it. Their lackies know it. And now, you know it.

We have also said that this is an effort of the DementedRats to lay claim to troops being pulled out of Iraq. This has ALREADY been decided LONG ago as the Surge was building up. I guess the idiots they cater to are just plainly that dumb.

Get over it. We have been in Korea since the early 1950s. We have been in Japan and Europe since the late 1940s. We have been in the Philippines for longer than that. We will be in Iraqistan and Afghanistan for even longer.

Morons.

Catch the wave.

The Democrats Lied and Many Died

~Snooper~

I often wonder how the Leftinistra in this country we call The United States can sleep at night or, whenever, knowing in their hearts that their blatant BDS driven hatred for the military is getting our people in this country's uniform killed and wounded by their actions or, inactions. Is political standing and stature really that overwhelmingly important to them that they are directly responsible for the deaths and wounding of our troops by emboldening our enemy? Don't they realize that all the enemy is doing at the moment is waiting for the Democratic Party Leadership to win?

Why is it, that right at this very moment, when and, as we are winning this War In Iraq, they choose to pull the funds? The only explanation, both plausible and viable, is political expediency. How dare they. And, why are we tolerating this pathetic temper tantrum of theirs?

When we have reports such as this flowing into the news rooms across the globe, why are they being ignored? And, on the verge of Victory, our pathetic Democratic Party Leaders are just plain childishly wrong.

DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SHENANIGANS CAUSES MORE US SOLDIERS TO DIE! Because democrats are choosing to delay funding to the troops at war more US soldiers will die!

[...] Politics is one thing, but politics that cause US military men and women to die is something completely reprehensible. This is an outrage! [...]

Like my Mother used to tell me when I did something dumb like this, "Are you happy now?" I know what my Mother would say to Christopher Dodd, a Presidential Aspirant..."Bugger off you bloody twit!". Check out Gateway Pundit's place for some amazing success numbers and related data.

[...] The poor democrats have got themselves in a pickle. Even The Washington Post admits that the situation in Iraq is improving. But, Democrats just can't see the obvious improvements. They are too blinded by their defeatism.

It goes deeper than this. The current pathetic inactions to fund the war to Victory is their last ditch effort to win in '08. They feel compelled to make amends to their base that they have lied to to get into power and a good shot at the White House back in '06. If they fail now, they are finished for a very long time. No one honors or respects empty shirts and empty promises. Especially the kind undeliverable.

Flopping Aces has said, "At least they are being honest."

[...] Why do the right thing when you can do the thing that will get you re-elected instead?

The surge is working, the Iraqi's are fighting back against al-Qaeda, the parties inside Iraq are starting to work together, violence and deaths are down, and our troops are beginning to come home. [...]

In the NYT the other day, we find this:

[...] Democratic lawmakers and strategists on Capitol Hill said their hope was that even if Republican support for Mr. Bush's strategy held firm, voters would reward Democrats for their efforts at the polls next November, and that there was no risk to failing again and again. [...]

Simply amazing and unconscionable. They think that the American People will reward them for being directly responsible for the deaths and wounds of our men and women in uniform. What kind of a demented mind-set is that?

My friend Susan said it fairly clearly last week:

Yesterday I repeated a question to the Democratic politicians that I had asked previously and have been waiting for an answer to, after showing what their choices were regarding Iraq:

The Choices:

Choice #1: They can acknowledge what is right in front of them and risk the ire of their far left, liberal base, like MoveOn.org and Code pink and the liberal bloggers that have shown they will "go after" anyone that dares speak up and tell the truth. (As they have done with Brian Baird and what they call the Bush Dog Democrats)

Choice #2: They can continue to ignore the progress and success that is being seen in Iraq and mollify their far left, liberal base, while they alienate the moderates of their party and the independents.

The Question:

Note to the rest of the Democratic politicians... eventually you are going to have to pick choice #1 or choice #2 from above because the days of ignoring it and hoping that things will go bad in Iraq are over, and it is time for you to either tell your moderates and the independents to go to hell or to tell MoveOn.org and the far left liberal, unhinged faction of your base to go to hell.

You have left yourself no middle ground. They will not let you have it both ways.

So, whats it to be Democrats?

We are waiting.

SPEAK UP, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

Via the New York Times we receive their answer. Petrified of their far left liberal base they would rather tell the moderates and independents to go to hell.

Democrats in Congress failed once again Friday to shift President Bush's war strategy in Iraq, but insisted that they would not let up. Their explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: "What else are we supposed to do?"

In answer to that question, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, gives the answer:

How about putting petty partisanship aside and doing what's right for the future of both America and Iraq?

I have said before that the definition of insanity was to continue to try what has failed 41 times already, expecting to get a different result, just to keep the far left, liberal, unhinged portion of their party happy.

What the Conservatives, Moderates and Independents are seeing and what the Democratic politicians are doing their best to ignore is evidenced by one of the many articles we are seeing in our media, this time in Newsweek. [...] read the rest...

Can you believe these cretins? They fear an insignificant group of loud-mouthed schnooks? They fear these old used up hippies? They fear these anti-Americanist groups? They embolden our enemies abroad AND here at home? All for political aspirations? One of them actually asked, "What else can we do?"

Good God Almighty. And they expect that the country will reward them for their treason? Yes. I said treason. Look it up. No...we will NOT reward them unless it be the gallows.

How Does One Spell "Democratic Party"?: D.E.F.E.A.T.I.S.M.

~Snooper~

Seeing that the Presidential Elections are less than one year away, the Desperadoes of the Defeatist Party are under the illusion or dellusion that the far-left kook fringe of their "party" is Main Stream America.

This bluster before the holidays of Thanks Giving and Christmas reeks of bluster to this DAV. They cannot be this dumb. Can they?

Notice to the Defeatist Party...you are out of touch not only with the vast majority of Americans, you are suffering from the Vietnam Era Hippy Fest Stress Syndrome. This isn't the 60s/70s anymore and President Bush is not on the ballot for 2008. Neither is VP Dick Cheney. Hello? Is anybody out there?

Redstate:

I completely missed this in my first reading of Harry Reid's cowardly refusal to either fund our troops properly, or else face a showdown once and for all: [...]

[...]

I know that you don't give a damn about the troops, Harry Reid: but even for the Democrats, this is low. These unions are some of your most loyal supporters; they pay for your Party's activities. And this is how you repay them? By taking away their Christmas? For what? Whatever extra cash you can shake down from the antiwar movement? Wasn't wrecking thousands of staffers' Thanksgiving plans enough for you?

You vile, petty, little wretch of a man.

AMEN!!

Snakes and Lizards: these pathetic and blatant Leftinistra have everything all back-asswards.

Senate Dems gave the GOP an opportunity, but they rejected it.

The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal that would have paid for the Iraq war but required that troops start coming home.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," Reid said.

John Aravosis captured the situation perfectly: "[T]he Democrats were ready to give George Bush $50 billion for Iraq today and the Republicans killed it because they don't want to provide any oversight whatsoever. The Republicans think the war in Iraq is going great, and to prove it they just took $50 billion away from our troops."

Is that all askew, or what? These defeatist and moronic sore losers had better be more careful. It's not that I'm sayin'...I'm just sayin'.

The Defeatocrats don't give a rat's ass about the troops, not one damn bit and no matter their pathetic and transparent spin, we can see right through their intellectual idiocy. Especially that idiot, dunce and libtard ReidCo. Go back to your land fraud deals, ya little cretin.

Yahoo! News:

AP - Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. [...]

And that is because the American People want a victory and the Defeatists LIED to their far-left kook-fringe morons and anti-Americanists.

Wake Up America: Democrats Finally Being Honest: We Don't Support The Troops

[...] The bill demanding withdrawal from Iraq that the House passed on Weds, was rejected in the Senate today, making this 41 failed attempts to surrender in Iraq.

Also rejected was the motion to get the funds needed to our troops for munitions, food and other things needed by our troops, in a time of war.

Finally the Democrats are being honest enough to let the American people and our troops know they do not support them.

"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field," Fratto said. "I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn't like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding."

He said the president sent his budget to Congress back in February last year. Along with that was the supplemental request for more than $145 billion for the global war on terror. The request last month was an augmentation to that request, but they've known that funding is needed, Fratto said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

As a result, he said, he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.

I much rather the Democratic politicians do it this way, because it takes the illusion they have been trying to dupe the public with, away, and shines a light right on the fact that they are weak on defense and that they do not now, nor have they, really supported the troops in the field.

Actions are louder and more truthful than words. [...]

And that right there is a bloody mouthful! But, wait! there's more.

Doug Ross:

Whether it's trying to cut off funding for the troops...or declaring the "war is lost" just weeks before the war was won...or simply demoralizing the U.S. military, Harry Reid's mission is clear:


Fortunately, today's Democratic leadership is so unpopular and so incompetent that their chances of achieving defeat are roughly equivalent to the odds that Reid will be hit by an asteroid while accepting an Oscar. [...]

Clarification: apparently, this how the coward ReidCo perceives himself and we all know what perceived reality leads to...schizophrenia.

Apparently, my gut call was correct in that the transparency of this "bluster" is all too obvious. With that said, read this from The Weekly Standard:

The debate over the administration request for funding for the Iraq war in 2008 is growing increasingly complex. As we've covered here, Democrats wrote a Department of Defense funding bill which specifically authorized the Bush administration to borrow funds from regular accounts to conduct the Iraq war for several months, at least. It was clearly the intent of House Democratic leaders to make a show of 'defying the White House' on Iraq funding for several months, secure in the knowledge that they had already acted to prevent any crisis in Iraq funding. The House has now passed Iraq supplemental funding legislation that is dead on arrival, and Congressional leaders assure the White House that no money will be forthcoming until they change course.

It's almost certain that this is just bluster. After all, if Congressional leaders really intended to play a game of chicken, why give the White House a way to access Iraq funds in the defense bill? If they truly intended to blackmail the Pentagon--change course, or else--then why make sure to give DoD the funds it needs to continue the war?

The only logical conclusion is that Congress intended to head off for Christmas and New Year's, bragging to their constituents that they've not given in; that they'll force the White House to come around. Then they could cave after the holidays--perhaps in February, when all attention is focused on the primaries. [...] (emphasis mine)

Bingo. Surely, if this is what the liars of the Leftinistra Cabal of the likes of ReidCo want the illusion to be, and Union jobs are lost just in time for Christmas, then, there goes a herd of voters. When one loses a job just before Christmas and knows ahead of time that which is about to be, the memory sticks don't get erased.

This headline won't set well with voters. Gateway Pundit: Congress Denies Troop Funding- Army & Marines Will Plan Layoffs

This is quaint from SFGate:

[...] Schumer, D-NY, had told reporters that unless Bush accepted the restrictions, the Defense Department would have to eat into its core budget.

"The days of a free lunch are over," he said. [...]

Free lunch? Is this guy a complete moron? Wait. Don't answer that one.

From Right Voices:

Michelle linked to this story and says: "Enjoy your Thanksgiving turkey, Harry"

The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.

The 53-45 vote was 15 votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.

The Republican measure failed by an identical vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," said Reid, D-Nev.

So Iraq doesn't want peace?

Lets take a look at Photos: Mass celebrated in Christian church newly reopened in Baghdad are done with that, head over to Maliki Approves Trial For Shi'ite Militia Leaders. Violence is down in Iraq

Too bad that Harry doesn't keep up with the news.

Reid needs to seek professional psychiatric aid. ReidCo...the modern day Tokyo Rose...didn't she get hung?

Catch the wave:

Others blogging:

Reuters: Senate Republicans bar Iraq withdrawal plan

Snooper / A NEWT ONE: How Does One Spell "Democratic Party"?: D.E.F.E.A.T.I.S.M.

Redstate: You're a mean one, *Mister* Reid.

John Aravosis / AMERICAblog: Republican Senators kill Iraq funding bill

Booman Tribune: Setting the Narrative on the Iraq Spending Bills

Susan / Stop The ACLU: We Don't Support The Troops-Democrats

Kevin Hayden / The American Street: Senate Dems get tough to de-fund the war: now it's our turn

Speaker Pelosi / The Gavel: Once Again, Republicans Refuse to Hold the President Accountable …

Taylor Marsh: Bush Republicans Block Troop Funding

Bob Fertik / Democrats.com: After Senate Rejects Iraq Funds, Pentagon Declares War on... Congress

Salon: Senate rejects war funds tied to timetable

Macranger / Macsmind: Democrats pull the support from troops during time of war, help GOP win in 2008!

Callimachus / Done With Mirrors: Of All the Charlie Browns in the World

CNN: Pentagon: Delayed war funding could hurt military

The New Look of The Victory Caucus!!

The Victory Caucus is THE one-stop place if you are looking for everything and anything that is related directly to the Global War On Terror...the good AND the bad. We hide not a thing.

As I was listening to the caterwauling of the Democratic Presidential Aspirants this evening, I couldn't help notice that their sources of progresses and shortfalls in the War In Iraq is wanting. It is wanting intellectual fervor and the Democrats cannot, NAY!, WILL not accept that we, America, are WINNING this war.

We have also been saying that the Democrats CANNOT afford to win in Iraq. It will disappoint them GREATLY and their "popular" stature will wax thin and cold. Little do they realize, it has already happened. They are in for a major landslide come November 2008...the problem is, the landslide that comes their way will bury them and their ignorant defeatist shit for DECADES to come.

Losers are as losers do.

Do we, America, want a "change in direction"? Yes. We do. But the "direction" is not a "location". The "direction" is an event. We, America, want to WIN THE WAR. And, we are...now. The ROE has been modified. The obvious signs are clear to this DAVOFW.

Wake Up America has an excellent (as usual) piece up about how American Support for War Inches Up. I listened to how we were failing. Failing to do what, exactly? Lose? Like in Vietnam? I and others have been blogging, writing, screeching, preaching and getting the word out that nothing could be more wrong than as Reid has stated, "The war is lost..." Some people's kids. I swear!

IBD Editorials has a piece up from earlier today entitled "Heart and Minds".

Not listening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, Iraqi Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders have formalized an alliance with U.S. forces and against al-Qaida. The Arab street is rising up, and they're on our side.

How long have we been hearing about this and the Leftinistra, the Armies of the Socialist Liberals, aka the Democratic Party leadership and their far left nemesis and the Republican Party RINOs, absolutely refuse to accept this news. They would "Rather" delude themselves into thinking that their politically driven lies and deceitfulness will garner them more support and have some kind of a MAJOR landslide similar to the Reagan landslide of yore.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what that entailed, here is a graphic for your enjoyment or hair-pulling.
Now, the above is a landslide. What happened last November, was ("IS") by no means a landslide, nor was it a mandate for the Democratic Party. What it was is this; a wake-up call for the complacent Republicans that we, The Reagan Era Conservatives, were displeased with the RINOs among us and guiding the country down the wrong path...NOT about Iraq, but about the spend-thrift machinations of a party gone unchecked.

The Contract With America was brushed aside and we tried to warn them but they were not listening to "We The People", were they? No, they were not. They most assuredly heard us over the Shamnesty deal, yes? And, thank God above, we have EVERYONE'S attention now. Don't we? Yes, we do.

We have their attention so badly at the moment that the Defeatocrats want to shut us down. "It's not fair that our bleeding heart liberal communist pinko fag agenda garbage fails at every turn or it is not as popular as the conservative agenda that succeeds at every turn!" "It's not our fault. It is GWB's fault that we fail so miserably!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

Here is another graphic. It is how Reid and his genre of Democrats and RINOs act when "things" don't go as they so lustfully pine and yearn for them to go.

The overwhelming success of CONSERVATIVE talk radio and other venues SHOULD BE their sign...here's your sign. "You might be a Leftinistra if your radio talk show goes tits up. Here's your sign."

The cut-and-run Democrats have long argued that our presence in Iraq has merely stirred things up and given al-Qaida an effective recruiting tool. Well, we've certainly stirred things up — and thanks to the success of our surgin' general, David Petraeus, we have a bevy of new Iraqi recruits. Except they've got al-Qaida in their cross hairs.

On Saturday, members of the 1st Cavalry Division based near Taji brokered a formal agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida and other jihadists. The Sunni and Shiite agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji, just 12 miles north of Baghdad.

Take a few minutes and think about that. Take a few minutes and think about this as well.

The deal is just the latest example of the progress Democrats claim isn't happening in Iraq — a series of deals with various tribes and militia groups that at one point were part of the insurgency. But it's the first involving both Sunni and Shiite sheiks together.

After the agreement, soldiers from the 1st Cav's 7th Regiment could be seen walking calmly through the streets of nearby Falahal. "A month ago, every single one of these people were shooting at us," Sgt. Richard Fisk told the Washington Times as he pointed out places in Falahal were roadside bombs were once planted.

Who would have thought that? Oh. WAIT! General David Petraeus did! The General the Senate UNANIMOUSLY confirmed and they APPROVED of The Plan! I smell shit in Shinolla here. You? What do you suppose is the "real agenda" here, folks?

The "real agenda" is this. The Democrats and RINOs cannot afford a victory in Iraq, plain and simple.

Last October, al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba to be the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq, and claimed to control both Anbar and Diyala provinces, of which Baqouba is the capital. But that was before Operation Arrowhead Ripper. Of the 1,000 al-Qaida who were thought to have been in Baqouba, those who haven't been killed or captured have fled.

And we're not doing it alone. Despite mainstream media reports, Iraqis are fighting and dying for their freedom in ever greater numbers. Progress is being made. But as even New York Times reporter John Burns notes: "The most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence."

Sounds like the tell-tale story of an imminent victory to this old warrior!! What does it sound like to you?

The article ends thusly and it is a chilling consternation:

The choice for Democrats is Petraeus or betray us.

Axis of Defeatists' Rhetoric Continues

Making America Safe: Remaining Vigilant Against Terror Threats

This is an article by John Boehner, House Minority Whip

The National Intelligence Estimate notes that al Qaeda has redoubled its efforts to hatch terrorist plots and kill Americans both in the U.S. and abroad as its leadership continues to plan high-impact plots and recruit others to its murderous cause. Among the findings of the estimate is that while al Qaeda’s intent to attack us is undiminished, they continue to adapt and improve on their tactics and capabilities. The report also notes that al Qaeda’s branch in Iraq (al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI) is the terrorist network’s “most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack us here,” underscoring the importance of completing our nation’s mission successfully in Iraq.

Retreat is not an option. al Qaeda remains our principle enemy in Iraq, and our military continues to evolve to meet this threat. There is no question that we’re making progress in securing Iraq, and we’re making progress taking in going on offense against al Qaeda. And every measure of progress we make in Iraq makes us safer here at home.

“Operation Phantom Thunder,” the new, multi-faceted offensive against al-Qaeda terrorists, insurgents, and illegal sectarian militias. Since this new offensive began, attacks, casualties and IEDs detonations have all decreased, while more than 175 high-value terrorists, insurgents, and militia fighters have either been killed or arrested since June 15. This is a key step toward success in Iraq and bringing our troops home.

Operation Arrowhead Ripper is having phenomenal successes as well.

The boots on the ground: Generals: Troops Need to Stay in Iraq

Reid: Pull Troops or We Won’t Pay Them

Wow. Now THERE is support for the troops, eh?

Amanda Carpenter

If Majority Leader Harry Reid can’t start pulling troops out of Iraq, he doesn’t want to start paying them any more either.

After an amendment to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days failed to receive the 60 votes needed to proceed, Reid set the entire defense authorization bill aside. By doing so, he shelved a 3.5 percent pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, $4 billion in equipment upgrades and a new program to treat traumatic brain injuries.

And the Leftinistra; The Left Continues to Mischaracterize the War

Liberals who favor withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq believe the situation there is relatively straightforward: We are enmeshed in a civil war, a deeply-rooted sectarian conflict the outcome of which matters little to the U.S. Disengaging is the only way we can engage the real enemy -- al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations bent on our destruction -- in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Cut & Run Defeatocrats either just don't get it or they are purposefully aiding and abetting the enemy. It is that simple.

Those are the choices.

Waiting Until September

Just like everyone, but the Defeatocrats and the White Flag Republicans, wanted to do and agreed to do over 50 days ago, to wait for the "approved of" plan from General Petraeus.

I am still having mental imagery fall-out from watching the Reid Pajama and Babble Party all night up until the little whiner snatched up his ball and stormed out in a temper tantrum. Look at the mug shot of the whiner and his dog Toto too:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, right, shown with Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), said he may revive consideration of war proposals after Labor Day. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)

Caption: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

As I wrote here and here and here and here and here and here, I have ZERO respect for our current 110th CONgress as a whole. I dare say that most care not for "We The People" to the degree of which they so invoke the name, "We The People".

The Leftinistra site opinion polls but it is "Rather" evident that there are those that "skew" those polls.

A communist moron from MoveOnDotRetardos said:

But Reid's decision pleased antiwar groups, which have pressed Democrats to bring the war to a close. "I think Senator Reid took an important step toward confronting Republican obstructionism and ending the war," said Tom Matzzie, a strategist for MoveOn.org.

Matzzie said his group's efforts are concentrated on "forcing the entire Republican Party to look over the side of the cliff" at the political consequences of continuing to stand by Bush. Antiwar groups are focused in particular on Senate Republicans up for reelection next year.

"Ultimately, we end the war by creating a toxic political environment for war supporters like the Republicans in the Senate," Matzzie said.

I find it "interesting" that Reid's Defeatists Crowd whined about the 60-votes rule when they are in the "majority" (of what is yet to be determined) and DEMAND the 60-votes rule when they are in the minority. It merely proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they want things their way or no way at all and it exposes their DNC Double Standards in and on all issues.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the all-night debate "serious and important," while reminding Reid that the 60-vote requirement had become a standard hurdle for controversial measures in a narrowly divided Senate, including in recent years when Democrats were the minority party.

Reid whined:

He called the 60-vote requirement "a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president."

"Funny" that now that "they" are the majority (yeah, right) the same rule he and his kind thought to be right is now new math. What a moron.

John McCain stated:

"We are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don't take this bill back up and pass it, conference with the House, and have it signed by the president of the United States, as we have for the past 45 years," said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

The LASlimes even pointed out how the Leftinistra cut and run when opposed with superior forces. (Check out the video) Here is another mug shot of the lowest approved of man in the history of CONgress. I guess if I was that stupid and disliked I would look like this as well:

Oscar Hidalgo/The New York Times:Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the Senate majority leader, spoke to reporters in Washington on Wednesday after an Iraq pullout was blocked.

Reid said that he pulled the bill because he didn't want the Republicans to gain any power. LOL!! What an idiot! They ALREADY have it! The country APPROVALS of the GOP is far above that of the DNC...hello?

While it came as a surprise, Mr. Reid’s decision to suspend the Iraq debate was reached Monday after a meeting with Democratic leaders, party strategists said. If Mr. Reid allowed senators to vote on anything short of a firm withdrawal deadline, strategists said, they feared it could give Republicans political cover.

Miss Collins said:

“He chastises Republicans for not allowing a vote,” Ms. Collins told reporters. “But he’s the one who is pulling the bill from the floor and thus precluding further consideration of all of the Iraq amendments that we have pending.”

McCain again:

Republicans accused Democrats of wasting time on a fruitless talkathon. “Nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed any fact on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important for the security of this country,” said Senator John McCain of Arizona, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

Bottom line: a complete waste of time and a lesson in futility. Reid and his team of Defeatocrats are a minority in this country and they will not win. Come 2008, the ones up for re-election will be in Gonesville.

Having Witnessed Our CONgress via CSPAN2

As I have been watching the quagmire of our retardos of the Retreat In Defeat proponents that have no earthy idea what the term "redeployment" means, I am amazed how stupid these allegedly educated dunces are. They disgust this disabled American Veteran of Foreign Wars.

What needs to be done is clear. March on DC and clean house.

Dennis Prager says it better than I can.

History Will Judge Harshly Those for Withdrawal from Iraq

More Republicans have defected to the withdraw-from-Iraq Democrats. They have read the polls that show falling support among the American people for the war in Iraq, and have concluded that continuing to support the war will cost them their Senate or House seat.

Is it possible that some of these Republicans have simply consulted their consciences and decided to abandon positions they have held since the beginning of the war? It is possible. But consider this: If the American people continued to support the war, does one reader of this column believe that one Republican defector would have in fact defected?

The sad truth is that moral courage is rare -- whether among private citizens or among political leaders. Even opponents of the war have to admit that, given the polls, it takes no courage for a politician to call for American withdrawal from Iraq. Whether or not you agree with those who want American forces to stay in Iraq, that is a far more courageous position in today's America -- just as, right or wrong, it admittedly took more courage for a politician to oppose the war when America deposed Saddam Hussein's regime.

So with the mainstream media and the Democrats -- often interchangeable entities -- relentlessly pushing for withdrawal from an increasingly unpopular war led by an unpopular president, it takes a lot of courage to argue against what would be the most costly defeat for America in its history. And how often in history did the right thing not take courage? And how often was the right position the most popular position?

Despite all this, however, in this matter victory will go to the courageous. If America stays in Iraq, America will win and then the courageous will surely be victorious. But the courageous will gain a victory even if they lose their fight for America staying in Iraq. For then the supporters of the American presence in Iraq will be quickly proven right as Iraq descends into ethnic cleansing, creates millions of refugees who destabilize nearby countries, emboldens Iran to directly enter Iraqi life, spawns a potential genocide, and produces the largest base for Islamic terror in the world. These are not the predictions of pro-war advocates. Every one of these consequences of an American withdrawal was acknowledged as likely in a recent New York Times editorial arguing for American withdrawal from Iraq.

What will Americans who called for American withdrawal -- especially among those who supported the war until now -- tell future historians? That 3,600 American lives in four and a half years was too high a price to pay to fight the cruelest individuals and ideology on earth at that time? (By contrast, in World War II, America lost more than 300,000 lives in three and a half years, fighting the cruelest ideology of that era.) That they thought that an Islamist victory in Iraq would make America more secure? And what will Republican senators and representatives tell their descendants? That they read the polls and saw that most Americans supported withdrawal, so they changed their minds and abandoned the cause of freedom in Iraq and fled an unpopular Republican war president?

History may not harshly judge those who opposed entering Iraq at the outset. But that is not what matters now. All that matters now -- and what history will judge -- is an American's position on whether to stay and fight in Iraq or whether to leave Iraq.

Just about every generation has some horrific evil that it must fight. For the Democratic Party today that evil is carbon dioxide emissions. For the rest of us, it is an ideology that teaches that its deity is sanctified by the blood of innocents, just as the Aztec deities were.

History will see that clearly. And judge accordingly.

Axis of Defeatists

NYSlimes story:G.O.P. Senators Press to Change Strategy in Iraq

In offering the proposal on Friday, Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana were seeking to reach that elusive goal when the Senate resumes its debate next week. The two senators, among the most respected Republican voices of military and foreign policy, are seeking to attract Democrats as well to the plan, which also urges Mr. Bush to seek a new war authorization from Congress in September.

Washington Compost: Two GOP Senators Defy Bush On Iraq

Defying Bush even as his team fanned out to press Congress for more time, Sens. John W. Warner (Va.) and Richard G. Lugar (Ind.) unveiled a measure requiring the White House to begin drawing up plans to redeploy U.S. forces from frontline combat to border security and counterterrorism. But the legislation would not force Bush to implement the plans at this point.

LASlimes: GOP senators seek new way out of Iraq

President Bush faced a new challenge to his Iraq war strategy Friday when two key Republican lawmakers proposed forcing the White House to submit a plan to start redeploying troops by the end of the year.

Sens. John W. Warner of Virginia and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana — former committee chairmen and authorities on foreign and military affairs — called on Bush to be prepared to shift away from a combat role.

Question. Who is the CIC? Do we have a rebirth of wannabe Generals? When it comes to winning a shooting war that was declared on the United States long before 91101, who should the President of The United States listen to? Armchair Generals? Former disgruntled Commanders? Commanders in the field? Socialist Democrats, aka liberals? Socialist Republicans, aka RINOS? Far left communist troll groups such as Code Pinko and A.N.S.W.E.R.?







Weekly Standard: Keep on Surgin'

President Bush is absolutely right. But in a way his admonition to Congress at his press conference last week was unfair. He's correct that Congress can't run a war. But this Congress doesn't want to run a war. It wants to lose a war. Congress can, in principle, achieve this, and the Democrats who control this Congress are doing their best to bring it about.

Charles Krauthammer: Deserting Petraeus

"The key to turning [Anbar] around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run."

Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times's John Burns calls an " astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.

Vets For Freedom:

Next week, politicians in Washington, DC are poised to sell out America's safety because election season is near. As veterans, we cannot allow this to happen. The information battle Vets for Freedom was planning for September is upon us in July, therefore we must adapt, overcome, and do something immediately. Our collective voice must be heard on Capitol Hill, and it must be heard now!

Opinion Journal: Crocker and Petraeus speak some truths, if Senators are listening.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, is a 36-year career diplomat who has served under seven administrations in Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan. He's no partisan gunslinger. So it's worth listening to his views as Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans press for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the excuse that the Iraqi government hasn't met a set of political "benchmarks."

"The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kinds of discrete benchmarks," Mr. Crocker told the New York Times's John Burns in an interview on Saturday, referring to pending Iraqi legislation on an oil-sharing agreement and a relaxation of de-Baathification laws. "You could not achieve any of them, and still have a situation where arguably the country is moving in the right direction. And conversely, I think you could achieve them all and still not be heading towards stability, security and overall success in Iraq." Mr. Crocker's comments are a useful reminder of the irrelevance--and disingenuousness--of much Washington commentary on Iraq. For proponents of early withdrawal, the "benchmarking" issue has provided a handy excuse to make the Iraqi government rather than al Qaeda the main culprit in the violence engulfing their country.

Terry McCarthy:

MCCARTHY TO PETRAEUS: Are you concerned that the U.S. political clock could start ticking too fast and undermine security here? Undermine confidence here?

PETRAEUS: Obviously, that's in the back of our minds. And there is not a great deal we can do about it, other than to continue to press forward.

No morale issues there among the troops, is there?

Michael Yon takes note of the CONgress and the would-be Armchair Generals to task in the following releases from his tours with the Real Heroes fighting the war so the Leftinistra can be as foolish as they so choose to be.
Feasting On the Moveable Beast
Second Chances
Baqubah Update
Bless the Beasts and Children Update
Arrowhead Ripper
Bless the Beasts and Children

As I write this post, I see through the RSS feeds that Spree has posted a piece from The Fourth Rail...

Bill Roggio from Fourth Rail Takes MSM to the Woodshed

The bottom line? The Axis of Idiots are doing their best to lose this war all for the glory of Political Power and Political Gain. The same Axis of Idiots refuse to listen to the military members as they post and write about the war.

This nation is in trouble and we need to Take Our Country Back.

97 - 0

From Wake Up Americans

Joe Lieberman along with McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman, offered up an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, and it passed with a vote of 97-0.

Roll call can be found here.

Statement of purpose: To require a report on support provided by the Government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.

Liebermans statement from his site (linked above)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.

The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”

“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”

“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”

“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”

“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”

The text of the actual amendment should be here, when they actually get it up on the site. (That link will be changed if it ends up being put up at a different URL)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Goldfarb reports:

Iran Amendment Passes 97-0

The Lieberman amendment--confronting Iran on its proxy attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq--just passed the Senate unanimously, 97-0.

So let's look at the scorecard this week so far: The Webb amendment on trying to limit Iraq deployments went down to defeat. The Lieberman amendment confronting Iran passed unanimously. So much for the long-predicted collapse--at least so far. There will be some tough votes in the days ahead. Let's hope the Senate Republicans continue to hold the line.

Meanwhile, Senator Lieberman had this to say of the Senate's unanimous vote, confronting Iran:

"Today's unanimous vote sends a strong, clear message from the entire Senate to the Iranians that we know what they are doing in Iraq, and they must stop...This is a warning to the Iranians that whatever differences divide us politically here in Washington, we stand united against these outrageous attacks."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean? For one thing, take a stroll to Spree's place and read some comments from the far-left moonbat blogs. They are upset. Good. Maybe they will just end it all and do the world a favor.

97 - 0. If 97 Senators are all on the same page when it comes to Iran killing our people, why then do they support AQI from killing our people? I don't get it. Oh. Wait. Politics. OK. Never mind.

The Hill

According to sources, Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) were urging solidarity among House Republicans, explaining that they must distinguish themselves from their Senate colleagues.

A spokesman for Boehner said his comments were in no way meant to trivialize the war or the senators’ decisions. Rather, they were meant to emphasize the importance of allowing the troop surge to work and to urge GOP lawmakers to reserve their judgment on the situation until September, when Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to brief Congress fully on the progress in Iraq.

CNS News

President Bush's Iraq "surge" strategy is not dead and should be given a chance to succeed, according to two security analysts who met at the American Enterprise Institute Monday to discuss military policy and politics.

AEI resident scholar Frederick Kagan and former acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Jack Keane spoke out with rare voices of approval for the president's policy as part of an AEI panel called "Assessing the Surge in Iraq."

Kagan was critical of the surge's detractors, saying they had jumped to attack a policy that had only recently begun. He expressed incredulity at the idea that the surge was somehow not working.

"The current strategy has not failed. It just began June 15th," Kagan said.

Keane agreed, adding that the strategy needed more time. He also stressed that the situation was generally improving in Iraq and that coalition forces were gaining momentum in their efforts.

"All the Iraqis that I spoke to, numbering in the hundreds, believed the security situation was getting better," he said.

WSJ

The "surge" is working. Will Washington allow the current progress to continue?

In Washington perception is often mistaken for reality. And as Congress prepares for a fresh debate on Iraq, the perception many members have is that the new strategy has already failed.

This isn't an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, as I saw during my visit to Iraq in May. Reports from the field show that remarkable progress is being made. Violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country.

This is remarkable because the military operation that is making these changes possible only began in full strength on June 15. To say that the surge is failing is absurd. Instead Congress should be asking this question: Can the current progress continue?

One should be wondering why it is that the folks with the lowest approval ratings in history want to once again get shown the door. Reid and Pelosi cannot scrape enough votes together to override GWB's veto pen and those of us in the New Media won't allow them to win this round either. We trounced the ILLEGAL Alien Shamnesty bill into the dirt and we will do the same this time around as well.

We are strongly united in defeating the Leftinistra.

Be fair warned. We are watching.