After the Petraeus report it seems the Congressional Democrats’ hope for Republican defections to order a quick withdrawal from Iraq is going to end up in frustration again.

Senate Republicans, bolstered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ war report this week, are closing ranks and say Democrats will continue to fall far shy of the votes needed to force a pullout from Iraq.

Republicans facing intense antiwar pressure in home states, such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and the party’s war critics, including Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, say the general’s congressional testimony helped persuade them not to switch their votes.

“I’m supportive of a reasonable plan which they offered,” Mr. Lugar said on PBS’ “NewsHour” after Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, called for withdrawing about 30,000 troops by July.

President Bush, in a prime-time address tonight, is expected to endorse the general’s plan to return to the pre-surge force strength of 130,000 troops by July.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who failed repeatedly to muster enough votes to compel the president to accept a pullout plan, yesterday said he will try again next week with measures to force significantly larger troop reductions.

“I call on Senate Republicans not to walk lockstep with the president as they have done for years,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It is time to come over and join us.”

Mr. Reid said Democrats will introduce four to six war bills, including measures for large-scale troop reductions and to transition the mission from combat to training Iraqi forces and conducting counterterrorism operations.

He did not provide details of the legislation, but the characterization of measures was nearly identical to failed bills from earlier this year.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott has been checking the votes and feels the Democrats will, once again, fall short of the 60 votes necessary to pass any of these bills.

Someone once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. This is the very definition of partisan insanity on the part of the Democrats, but they really don’t seem to have any plan other than get out of Iraq.

Republican leaders also say the Democrat-led Congress’ fixation on the war is preventing action on essential legislation, such as fixing the alternative minimum tax and passing spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Can anyone name any significant legislation passed by this Congress?

It’s been eight months since the Democrats took over the legislative branch of our federal government and, other than a minimum wage hike attached to a war funding bill, no significant legislation has been passed.

They say Americans voted for a change in November, and maybe they’re right, but I doubt the American electorate voted for the same futile votes to be taken over and over again.

The Senate is going to be hard for the Republicans in the next election due to retirements and so many senators’ terms being up for re-election.

Based on the last election I’d say things are very close in this country as the Democrats didn’t win huge majorities in either chamber or huge victories in many districts or states.

If the American people begin to see the surge working they are not likely to insist we give up. We like victory too much and I doubt we have changed that much over this one war.

Americans need to understand we must prevail in this war against radical Islam or we will all be doomed to their rule over us in the future.

You talk about double whammy.

Two years ago, William Stout lost his home in Allentown, Pa., to foreclosure when he could no longer make the payments on his $106,000 mortgage. Wells Fargo offered the two-bedroom house for sale on the courthouse steps. No bidders came forward. So Wells Fargo bought it for $1, county records show.

Despite the setback, Mr. Stout was relieved that his debt was wiped clean and he could make a new start. He married and moved in with his wife, Denise.

But on July 9, they received a bill from the Internal Revenue Service for $34,603 in back taxes. The letter explained that the debt canceled by Wells Fargo upon foreclosure was subject to income taxes, as well as penalties and late fees. The couple had a month to challenge the charges.

Story

This is the man the Speaker would have liked as second in command in the House of Representatives. Jack Murtha makes claims which are easily debunked as we see here this morning.

In what some might find to be a disgusting video at Hot Air, Jack ABSCAM Murtha claims that the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, General David Patraeus is a political hack who talked to the media while in DC, but never addressed law makers.

Oh really? Maybe he should ask the many Democrats, and over 200 law makers, including Dems Hoyer, Levin, and Clyburn, who apparently managed to attend the briefing. I cannot believe Johnstown, PA continues to send this fool back to Congress.

All lawmakers were invited to the general’s briefing, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not attend nor did Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the committee responsible for defense appropriations.

Pelosi’s staff cited a scheduling conflict for her absence. However, she and Murtha spoke by phone with Petraeus for 30 minutes on Tuesday, which she said was sufficient.

For the Chair of the Defense Appropriations Committee and the Speaker of the House to not attend this meeting was an insult to taxpaying Americans.

Be sure to check out the video. Watch as Mr. Murtha back peddles in the interview after he or perhaps someone else realizes his first statement was an out and out fabrication.

We refer to our system of government erroneously as a democracy, when in fact it is a constitutional republic.

In a strict democracy the majority rules no matter how small and no matter what.

Our founding fathers wanted the minority to also have a voice so they set up a constitutional republic instead of a democracy.

The example of Congress passing a bill the president disagreed with shows us why they were so smart in what they did. In order to have forced the president to accept the bill our constitution spells out that both houses of congress must have a super-majority of two-thirds to override the executive’s veto.

Otherwise every bill congress passes would be law and the minority would have no say in how that law is written. This way congress has to go back to the drawing board with the executive branch and work out a compromise.

This is true of any legislation where there is such a dispute, but I’m using the Supplemental bill and veto as examples of how much thought the founders put into preserving our union.

The politicians can posture all they want, but in the end, none got what he or she wanted and will have to settle for less than they wished to get.

The only thing we should gloat over is the fact our government can disagree and still stay intact. In other countries this would have overthrown the congress or the president in a coup of some kind—bloody or bloodless.

The longer I live the more I appreciate our founding fathers and their wisdom and dedication to this new country they founded.