Senate Democrats said on Tuesday that they would push forward with legislation to impose restraints on the Bush administration's policy on the Iraq war, arguing that the president's military buildup this year "has done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq."

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, told reporters that since the military "surge" ordered by President George W. Bush early this year, more than 600 soldiers had been killed in Iraq and over 60 billion U.S. dollars had been spent on the war.

"The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together. It's done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq," he said.

Well excuse me, Harry, but isn’t the idea of the surge to escalate military activity resulting in more violence, not less? It’s called a “surge” for good reason, Harry. This is what we get from this lame Congress with no military experience when they stick their noses into something that they know nothing about. Of course there are going to be more deaths and violence on both sides, what did Reid expect? The surge has only just begun but Reid and the Democrats refuse to wait for Gen. Petreaus’ September report before passing judgments based only on the first inning.

On July 10 , Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) released a statement saying in part: "The non-partisan Congressional Research Service is now reporting that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now costing the American taxpayers $12 Billion a month. That is up from 10 billion since before the surge began.” Are we supposed to think “oh my God, this war is costing us too much, we can‘t afford it?” It’s all just money down the drain and the $20 billion they attached to the last emergency war funding bill in pork barrel bribes means nothing?

If this is such a drain on our economy, then why is the economy doing so well and the Dow reaching record highs this past week with a low inflation rate and record low unemployment? This is not money down the drain but rather tax money being re-circulated from the government back into the private sector through defense contractors and other support industries who employ millions of Americans. This is 10 billion dollars a month that is not otherwise available to Congress to waste on their special interest groups, pet projects, and bribes for votes. Is this what the Democrats are so upset and concerned about, that they have less money for pork?

On Tuesday, Harry Reid and Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, introduced an amendment calling on the Secretary of Defense to begin the reduction of the number of US forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the enactment of the law, and to complete the transition by April 30, 2008.

On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi cheerfully and excitedly announced that the House had passed their own version of the bill, knowing all along that even if it could pass the Senate, it would never be signed into law by the president. This is just another example of this Democrat controlled Congress wasting time and money to push their antiwar agenda instead of doing the real work of Congress and the American people. The only significant legislation they have so far passed this year was to raise the minimum wage.

It appears that the real waste of money in this government is the money we spend to sustain this Congress. The 1^st Congress of the United States got more done meeting one day annually than this 110^th Congress has done all year.

Congress has no war powers other than to declare war and fund it. They intend to spend the next two weeks debating more antiwar legislation which will never pass into law, then go on vacation. Even if enough Republicans compromise just to “get something done”, it will never become law as long as Bush has the veto pen and they know it. Managing war is not the job of Congress. That job is allocated to the Chief Executive by the Constitution which Democrats in Congress continue to ignore.

Responding to pressure from a handful of Senate Republicans, President Bush said on Tuesday that the United States would be able to pull back troops "in a while," but called on Congress to wait until September to debate the future military presence there. Oh, did I mention that these Republicans who are siding with the Dems are all running for reelection in 08? George Voinovich (Ohio), Richard Lugar (Ind.), John Warner (Va.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), and Gordon Smith (Ore.) are among those defecting to the other side.

They watch the media polls and know what’s good for their careers, but what exactly do the polls tell us? Media polls are a reflection of media propaganda. Most people will respond to polls based on what the liberal media outlets have been telling them. Add to that the fact that nearly all media polls are consistently weighted to the left, what you get from polls is the left view of the world. But in Washington, they have the appearance of showing the popular view and these candidates are more concerned with being on the apparent popular side than doing what is right.

What those polls tell us is that 70% of Americans polled want us out of Iraq and the sooner the better. I submit that those polls are off by 30%. 100% of Americans want us out of Iraq including the President and the troops fighting there. But not under conditions of surrender and withdrawal and not before completing our mission there.

Democrats have made the Iraq war a political issue and the only way they can win on that issue is with an American defeat in Iraq. The war has become so politicized that it is no longer about our national security, it's all about who wins Congress and the Whitehouse in 08. How much lower can politicians sink?

Many Republicans are still suffering from “Majority Guilt Syndrome” developed when they had control of both Congress and the Whitehouse. MGS is a disease of the spine, essentially weakening it to the point to where it’s victims can no longer stand up. Feelings of guilt cause them to “reach out” to the left and want to be “nice” and compromise with them so they wouldn‘t feel left out. Republicans still haven’t recovered from MGS yet even though they are no longer in the Majority. Democrats have always been immune to MGS and felt it was their birthright to be the majority in Congress and to have their way.

The minute President Bush agrees to any timetable for withdrawal we will have lost the war. That will be the signal to the enemy that they have won and we will be handing them victory on that timetable. Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al Malaki, is so fed up with the interference from our Congress that he said on Saturday that the US is welcome to leave anytime they want to. He says the time limits imposed on him by our Congress are unreasonable and unrealistic.

Bush knows that, but can he hold out against the congressional opposition and media propaganda? Perhaps he can. New signs of strength have come from the Bush Whitehouse with his refusal to go along with the endless string of congressional investigations into his administration. He has now ordered his staff members to essentially boycott any more appearances and cooperation with these Democrat fishing expeditions.

It may not be long now before Congress votes to cut off funding for the war in Iraq as a last resort They can’t afford not to, now that the surge seems to be working and an American victory may spoil their plans to win the Whitehouse in 08. The only reason they haven‘t done it yet is because they haven‘t figured out how to blame the resulting massacre in Iraq on Bush. They must cause defeat in Iraq at any cost and they must do it before the 08 elections. April 08 would be a good time for them to get this off the table so the rest of the year can be spent campaigning on domestic issues without a war getting in their way. They don’t seem to understand that the war will still be going on whether we choose to fight it or not.

No matter how much Democrats think they can return to the days of the Clinton Administration when an attacking enemy was just ignored, it’s just not going to be possible now, not after 911 and the continuing attempts at terrorism ever since. Today’s Democrat Party is not capable, and simply doesn’t want to deal with war. Yet they want to take control of the Whitehouse and run the country at a time when we are entering what will likely come to be known as World War III and we are the primary target.

On September 15, 2001, President Bush declared war on terrorists around the globe and told the world “either you are with us or you are with the enemy”, essentially declaring war on anyone who engages in, or supports terrorism. Some Islamic states sided against us and are now supporting terrorism in Iraq and what have we done about it? Nothing.

If The US is spending 10 to 12 billion dollars a month to sustain our side in this war, then how much is the enemy spending to sustain their side? Certainly it’s not nearly as much as we are spending simply because of the logistics. It could even be as little as 1% of our costs which would still be $100 million a month. But even if it’s only 1% of $100 million that is still $1 million a month.

Daily firings of SAM missiles at our helicopters, rockets and mortars at our bases, IEDs placed along the roads and the resources to build them, guns and bullets, all these things don’t come cheap. Then there are the living expenses of the terrorists and insurgents. Someone has to pay for all this and that money isn’t coming from within Iraq anymore than the weapons are. They come from outside the country.

If Bush really wants to put his foot down on terrorism and win the war in Iraq, then he needs to go after the source and all those who are enabling terrorism in Iraq. Without outside support and re-supply, they will not be able to fight and won’t have bombs to detonate, rockets to fire, or bullets to shoot. That means taking on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah with enough firepower to let them know that we mean business and will put them out of business. If you cut off the war supplies to the enemy in Iraq, the war will end in our favor. Come to think of it, isn’t that just about what the Democrats want to do to our side, handing victory to the enemy?

One problem we have is that although we are the strongest military power in the world, much of our military strength lies in our nuclear arsenal, and little in our ground forces which must be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply don’t have the troops to “liberate” Iran, Syria, and Lebanon from Hezbollah. Even if we did, who says they want to be “liberated?”

This is a job for our Navy and Air Force. We’ve had quite enough of fighting a politically correct war where avoiding civilian casualties is given a higher priority than defeating the enemy. Our next target must be fought differently from the start with defeat of the enemy, not political correctness and protecting civilians, as the objective. We should set an example in Iran of the cost of promoting terrorism and attacks against the US as Iran has been doing in Iraq. If we don’t stand up now, we probably never will.

We have been fighting an old style ground war in piecemeal fashion instead of using modern technology to destroy the enemy. At this point in Iraq, we have no other choice, but we must consider other choices when it comes to Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, all of which are costing us lives in Iraq and are on the verge of another attack on Israel.

We need to question the wisdom of using surgical strikes with “smart bombs” which, as we saw in Iraq, destroyed some buildings but did little to destroy the enemy who was smarter than the bombs and avoided being in those buildings. Collateral damage is what will break the will of the enemy to fight and bring about surrender. Enemy surrender must be our objective or the war will never end.

Politicians on the left think we should practice diplomacy with Iran. The EU has been trying to do that for years now with no results. Negotiating with Iran would prove as useful as negotiating with Saddam Hussein was and yield the same results. The only western diplomats that have any chance of succeeding with the Iranian leadership are F-16s, FA-22s, F-117s, cruise missiles, and B2B stealth bombers. Only they can deliver a message that Ahmadinejad and his proxies will understand and respect.

Al Qaeda is another problem and an even more difficult one because of the diplomatic issues we have with Pakistan where al Qaeda has assumed sanctuary. Of course all that will change if President Musharraf is overthrown or assassinated which could happen at any time. If it happens then all deals with Pakistan are off and we would certainly invade the country with Special Forces to secure the nuclear weapons, and take out as much of al Qaeda and the Taliban as we can while we‘re there. The Navy and Air Force can do the rest in the northern tribal areas where al Qaeda leaders and training camps have found sanctuary.

I’m tired of this war. We’re all tired of this war but it will only get worse and last longer if we just pull out of Iraq. We’ve made a lot of friends there and we need Iraq as an ally. Not so with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Pakistan. Although Pakistan is a diplomatic ally, the country is turning more and more to al Qaeda and Taliban ideology and both groups are growing in power there and providing terrorists who are now showing up in Britain and Europe. So if the Musharraf government is lost, Pakistan then becomes an enemy state and fair game along with Iran and Syria. The US will have no choice but to intervene in the affairs of Pakistan.

We can no longer afford to use half way measures in war. I thought we had learned that lesson when we fought the Gulf War but now the lesson seems to have been lost with the “liberation” of Iraq. Politically correct politicians are making winning a war impossible. Did we worry about innocent civilians and offending others the last time we won a real war? That was in 1945 when we won by destroying cities like Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If you were in the battle zone with the enemy, you could be killed and no American soldier would be put on trial for doing his job. The rule was kill the enemy, not check his id and wait for him to shoot at you before shooting back.

I don’t know how our troops can stand fighting this war with their hands tied behind their backs by Congress and the antiwar left, the very people who have absolutely no concept of war. The prevailing view in the Washington beltway is what they see in the New York Times and network news. They see little progress and only failure in Iraq. Positive reports of progress and success that do penetrate the beltway are seen only as Bush Administration propaganda, even though most of it doesn’t even come from the government.

Do fish really know what is happening on dry land? The world of the Left is a sea of darkness where they see only other fish.