The insurgency's last best hope

From The Washington Post:

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

A day of posturing, finger-pointing and backroom wrangling came to nothing when Democratic and Republican leaders could not reach agreement on which nonbinding resolutions would be debated and allowed to come to a vote. The Senate's 49 to 47 vote last night to proceed to debate on Bush's new war policy fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to break the logjam. Just two Republicans, Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), voted with the Democrats to proceed with the debate. Both are considered among the most vulnerable senators standing for reelection in 2008.

Here's the bottom line. What the Democrat Party wants to do is bring up several resolutions and have them pass or fail on a simple majority. This way hey know they can get a vote of no confidence in the President, the military plan and the troops to pass with some RINO votes. The Republicans want to force them to have to choose between a resolution which supports the troops and does not express the opinion that the war is already lost.

The Democrats want to force some timid "Republicans" to sign on to their resolution because their military advisers are telling them behind the scenes that it stands a good chance of working if allowed to proceed. They cannot allow the US military to actually win in Iraq because they have tied themselves so closely to defeat as a national policy.

Think about it like this; next year when the presidential campaign is at its hottest and heaviest and the American public has pulled its head out and is actually paying attention do the Democrats want the press to be full of stories about how the situation in Iraq has improved and how the insurgency has been all but defeated?

Victory for the US in Iraq means defeat for Democrats in the US. If Hillary has to go into a general election with an outgoing president once again at 75% in the polls and her Republican opponent playing commercials of her defeatist anti-war statements she is going to lose and she is going to be mad. Mad enough to pick up the phone and then sit back and wait for the news reports of Democrat strategists who all of sudden drowned while swimming alone, in the Potomac, died in late-night single car accidents, committed suicide or were murdered by home invading armed robbers, who forgot to steal anything.

No the only hope for Democrats, who have the sense that all their hopes and dreams, plans and schemes may go horribly wrong and the American might actually win the war that its fighting, is to get enough dim-witted Republicans to sign on to their resolution to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The Democrats get upset when you question their patriotism, but if they were black-hearted traitors who wanted nothing so much as to hand victory to their country's enemies then how would they be acting differently? Given that they can't come out and openly say that they want us to lose and defund the war - and still hope to be reelected - what would they actually be doing differently than they are new?