First, I have to give credit to the blog Red County and the Wall Street Journal for this find. I first saw the mention on Twitter by Red County and followed up on it at the WSJ. All quotes from the WSJ.
Citing General Petraeus by name, the resolution, which is sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham, "commends and expresses the gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible."
The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it.
This was actually blocked from coming out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by Democratic Chairman Carl Levin at the insistence of Democrat Harry Reid
Keep I mind, this is a resolution, it has no binding legal authority. It’s the Congressional equivalent of a “who did something nice” card like we all see at work or our children see in elementary school. It doesn’t cost money. It simply says “Thank You” to the troops and General Patreaus.
Further, I do not want to accuse these two Dems of being against resolutions, because they are not. A quick search shows that they have both sponsored important resolutions in the past.
Harry Reid Sponsored resolutions to:
Oppose the surge one month after Bush announced it. He even scheduled a rare Saturday debate on it.
In March, 2007, before the surge had a chance to really get going he co-sponsored The Joint Resolution To Transition The Mission In Iraq.
And of course we cannot forget the Asbestos Awareness Day resolution he sponsored, this certainly benefited society.
Carl Levin along with too many anti-war resolutions to list, also sponsored these noteworthy classics:
A resolution urging Canada to end commercial seal hunting.
A resolution honoring the Detroit Red Wings Stanley Cup win in 2008.
So these men will sponsor resolutions to attack the troops, honor a professional hockey team, or fight the twin scurges of American society, seal hunting and asbestos, but cannot allow one to be voted on that supports the troops?
The Democrats though are loathe to give any credit to Bush. They care less about the troops, the war in Iraq, and the greater war on terror than they do about the war on George Bush. Further, acknowledging success with the surge makes it painfully obvious, because it’s not already, that they were flat out dead wrong on the surge. They fought it’s implementation, derided it as folly, predicted that it would fail. Now they are stuck with the bad news that it actually worked, helping assure success and stopping the dying of our troops. This is not good news for the Dems.
Quite frankly, I cannot sum up the Democratic stance any better than the WSJ already has:
The reality is that success in Iraq has confounded the political left, which placed a huge political bet on our defeat. Senator Reid famously declared the war lost in April 2007. Joe Biden introduced a resolution opposing the surge. And Hillary Clinton said the reports of progress in Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief." In the Democratic narrative, our troops in Iraq are victims of a lost cause, not heroes. They're allowed to get maimed and killed, but not to succeed.
Thus Democrats are left to argue that success in Iraq is irrelevant because the real fight against al Qaeda is occurring in Afghanistan. Or that the reduced violence in Iraq has resulted not from the troop surge but from the Sunni Awakening and the retreat of the Sadr militias.
That’s pretty much ‘nough said. The only thing I can add is that a generation ago the liberals spit on troops at the airport returning from Vietnam. They have become much more refined and civilized since then, now they let their Congressmen do it from afar.