If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then the Democrats in Congress are certifiable.
The party of surrender tried to surrender AGAIN last week. For the 40th time, the Democrats introduced legislation to force a troop withdrawal from Iraq, only to have it go down in flames. They can’t even humiliate their country right.
Thanks to the hard work, courage, and sacrifice of the U.S. military, the progress in Iraq has been stunning. Roadside attacks are down by over 50%. American and Iraqi casualties are way down. The number of terrorists and weapons coming in from Iran and Syria has fallen dramatically. Iraqis are moving back to Baghdad by the thousands.
Businesses are re-opening by the hundreds. The country is beginning to stabilize.
So what do the Democrats do with this evidence? Ignore it. Pretend like it doesn’t exist. Revert to their comfort zone of waving the white flag from the cozy confines of Capitol Hill.
It’s so 2004.
You know it’s bad for the Democrats when even their house media organ, The New York Times, makes fun of them. On November 19, the Times reported this:
“Democrats in Congress failed once again on 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?’”
What else are they supposed to do?!
How about SUPPORT the war effort? How about support the progress being made in Iraq? How about ACTUALLY supporting the troops instead of trying to pass legislation to pull the rug out from under them?
For Democrats, this is out of the question. Support the war?! You must be crazy.
The piece went on: “All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. “We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin.
In other words, the Democrats intend to continue wasting our time and money on harassing the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. Whoever came up with this gem of a strategy deserves a raise.
Meanwhile, on the same day the Times ran that story about the Keystone Kops of the Democratic Party, they ran another story that reported this:
“The American military said Sunday that the weekly number of attacks in Iraq had fallen to the lowest level since just before…February 2006.” (The Times then went through three paragraphs of conditions about the reliability of statistics coming from Iraq, how hard it is to identify trends there, etc. In other words, any good news they are forced to report from Iraq must be diluted first. When there was only bad news every day, there were no such conditions.)
Five paragraphs into the piece, they wrote that, “the violence had diminished significantly since the United States reinforced troop levels in Iraq and adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy.” In other words, it’s working really well.
The following day, November 20, the Times ran another front page story beneath a breathtaking photo of a bride and groom in Baghdad. The piece opened with an Iraqi woman saying, “I feel happy.”
Happiness?! In Baghdad?! Reported by the New York Times?!
The piece went on to describe the many ways in which Baghdad is flourishing: the freedom with which people now move through the city, how they are “defiantly optimistic,” and “willing themselves to normalcy.”
The same week, Newsweek had a major story titled, “Baghdad Comes Alive!” (A clever allusion to Peter Frampton’s 1976 classic album, “Frampton Comes Alive!”)
I can’t help but think there is a backstory to all of these cover stories. After four years of pounding the war in Iraq as a failure, the editors of the New York Times, Newsweek, and every other left-leaning publication are now tripping over themselves reporting “happiness” in Iraq. So what’s really going on?
Two things: 1) Things actually are improving there, and as much as the Times and others have tried to ignore it—as the Democrats in Congress still are—they have to report at least some of the news in order to retain even a modicum of credibility.
2) The Times and Newsweek and the others don’t actually want the American involvement in Iraq to succeed, so stories like these might be something of a set-up. After years of relentlessly reporting how incredibly bad things were, maybe now they are going in the opposite direction. Maybe now they are running stories about how incredibly good things are, so when there is another violent setback or two, they can say, “Here we go again. Another reversal for Bush. See. We were right all along. It’s a failure after all.”
The Times and Newsweek aren’t going to publish positive stories about Iraq for their health. The ease and willingness with which they have been able to move from “everything is grim” to “things are happy” is suspicious. They went from winter to summer without spring. It’s a form of ideological global warming. And congressional Democrats are still wearing their winter coats.