Say it again how you support the troops

The United States Senate, controlled by Dummycrats, was sunk in its efforts to cut and run from Iraq.

S.J. Resolution 9-- A Joint Resolution to revise United States Policy on Iraq.

It failed 48 to 50

The usual suspects were in favor

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)

Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ)

Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Nelson (D-NE), Prior (D-AR) and Lieberman (I-CT) sided with Republicans to shoot it down.

Two different measures were debated as well.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 20--A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.

This passed 82 to 16.

Dummycrats that didn't go along were...

Akaka (D-HI) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Byrd (D-WV) Dodd (D-CT)

Feingold (D-WI) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Whitehouse (D-RI)

Senate Resolution 107--A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no action should be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States or impact their ability to complete their assigned or future missions.

In a complete surprise Dummycrats supported this and CommieTommie Harkin supported the latter two.

Surprised because this is what CommieTommie had to say, in just the last two months, about Iraq.

3/15... "misbegotten, misguided war"

2/17..."a tragic quagmire"

He utilized the same "quagmire" statement on 2/5, it's a theme he's used since shortly after the invasion.

That and Iraq is another Viet Nam.

Thomas Sowell shows that these statements aren't really showing support for the troops...

Talk about "supporting the troops" or "honoring the dead" is part of the general corruption of language for political purposes.

... After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.

The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about "supporting our troops" or "honoring our troops" have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.

During the early stages of that war, men fighting for their lives were criticized for not protecting the contents of an Iraqi museum.

Unsubstantiated charges against American military personnel create instant front-page news stories in the New York Times. But innumerable things that our troops have done that would make us proud are not likely to be reported at all.

... Perhaps the most irresponsible act of all has been Congress's promotion of a non-binding resolution against the recent increase in American troop strength in Iraq.

People's opinions can differ on troop deployment, even if -- like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- they have never deployed troops in their lives and have no military experience whatsoever.

But if anyone in Congress is serious about stopping the war, they can simply cut off the money -- and take responsibility for the consequences that follow.

Instead, they want to have it both ways, passing a non-binding resolution whose only effect is to embolden our enemies and undermine the morale of our troops that they keep saying they are "supporting."