Bitter Defeat, Sweet Surrender (Senate's anti-war “all-nighter.”)

Pajamas Media ^ | July 19, 2007 | Jules Crittenden

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Rodney: "Back to School" with Harry Reid?

The Democrats went “Back to School” this week, pulling an anti-war “all-nighter.” But the results were not even as good as Rodney Dangerfield’s in the original film. In a PJM opinion piece, Jules Crittenden says the all-night session in fact pushed some Senators back in the Bush camp.

*************************

The problem with advocating surrender as a war strategy is that it’s all about surrender.

Which presents a dilemma for Harry Reid as, in the wake of defeat upon surrender upon defeat, he vows to fight on. He knows time is short in which to accomplish his goals, in this matter of life and death in Iraq, and he has been strategizing furiously.

This week, Reid launched a major offensive in the form of an all-nighter, designed to force the hand of wavering GOP senators. Here’s Reid, compliments of the Washington Post:

“Will the all-night session change any votes? I hope so.”

It did. It forced several of them right back into the Bush camp. Here are a couple of the wavering senators, compliments of the New York Times:

[California Patriot]

Any failure by these scum is a good thing!

[Kay]

Thanks for posting.

[Southack]

The current Democratic Congress has only passed one bill into law: President Bush’s Iraq War Supplimental Funding Emergency bill.

For an anti-war Congress, that’s going backwards...

...as is their approval rating. The current Dem Congress is down to 14% national approval, a record low.

Why? Because Dems hate the current Dem Congress, radical leftists hate it, and GOP’ers hate it.

This is quite unlike Newt Gingrinch’s 1994 takeover of Congress. Back then, Newt was able to pass Welfare Reform, cut our capital gains tax, pass aviation tort reform, as well as a host of other major programs...even though Congress was controlled by one Party while the White House was controlled by another.

...but the Dem Congress of 2007 is too inept...too driven by fear, hate, and ideology to manage to make mature proposals, hold honest debates, craft meaningful compromises, and get things done today in the manner that they were done back in 1995.

It’s a thing of great beauty. No doubt the Dems will blame President Bush for their low approval ratings and unending series of failures, too.

How sweet is that?!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very Sweet indeed!

[bray]

Dirtbag Harry is the Graft that keeps on Giving.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[indianrightwinger]

Well written piece summarizing Dirty Harry’s humiliation.

The sad story behind this whole issue is how dumb most Americans are and how they blindly pull the lever for these scums in elections.

[The Great RJ]

The Dems strategy is simple...end the war by whatever means necessary and blame Bush for the catastrophe that follows. This way they are heroes to the left and can rid themselves of any blame for the inevitable mess that follows a US pull out. However to make this work the US must pull out its troops and the bloody civil war that follows both must occur on Bush's watch or at least before Hillary assumes the White House in 2009.

What's messing this strategy up is that the Dems do not have a monopoly in the media and the American people can see first hand the results of a cut and run strategy. Despite the popular opposition to the Viet Nam war, that photo of the last helicopter leaving Saigon while N. Vietnamese tanks rolled in is shameful to most Americans and a similar scene in Iraq would be widely played in the new media complete with how a cut and run strategy precipitated it.

The Dems do not have an end game strategy nor any plan to manage Iraq if US troops are still there after January 20, 2009.