House and Senate Democrats are claiming “mission accomplished” on their surrender bill 218-208, which passed last night (and this afternoon) that includes an Iraq pullout timeline. Even though the Dems didn’t get enough votes to override a promised veto from President Bush, Don Quixote-like, they are continuing in their mission to tilt at windmills in their attempt to defeat the President and the troops in this war.

The House voted for surrender last night.

A sharply divided House brushed aside a veto threat Wednesday and passed legislation that would order President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1.

The 218-208 vote came as the top U.S. commander in Iraq told lawmakers the country remained gripped by violence but was showing some signs of improvement.

Passage puts the bill on track to clear Congress by week’s end and arrive on the president’s desk in coming days as the first binding congressional challenge to Bush’s handling of the conflict now in its fifth year.

“Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.


The Senate voted for surrender this afternoon.

WASHINGTON — A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

“It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol. But that’s where we are,” said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain didn’t even bother to show up to vote.

So what’s the point defeatocrats? President Bush is going to take out his veto pen as soon as the bill reaches the White House. The past three months of Democrat control of the House and Senate have brought the American people nothing but legislative hissy-fits.

Senator Lieberman tried to speak truth to power….

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Harry Sacho Panza Reid, deluded traitor that he is, will keep riding his surrender mule, following the lead of the Nutroot windmill chasers until the Democrat party is no more.

Which would be fine with me if it were just the loss of the Democrat party but it won’t be. These defeatocrats, in their attempts to play Commander in Chief, are going to lose the war, cause more death to our military, and multitudes of the Iraqi people and weaken our nations’ resolve until it can no longer defend itself.

Hotair has more.