I have to correct myself on an earlier posting. Two postings ago, under the title "Crazy Idea: Are the Democrats secretly helping Mr Bush with Iraq?" my premise, as a mental exercise, was to suggest the Democrats who have been advocating withdrawal out of Iraq because of both the failures of the Bush Administration in running the war and the Maliki government for gross incompetence and petty power struggles advocated such rhetoric because they were really trying to bluff the Iraqi government into acting straight and getting the job done. I have to admit that I was terribly wrong and was foolish to have even brought up such a proposition. After this week's treatment of General David Patraeus by the Democrats and their masters, Moveon.org, it is plain to see that there is no possible way the Democrat Party neither has the best interests of the country in mind but also wishes the defeat of their own country for political gain.

Call it optimism, or just being naive, I didn't want to think fellow citizens, elected representatives no less, would wish what the Democrats have genuinely wished on their own country, which is failure. We are neither a country of failure or one that roots for it. Our exceptionalism as a Americans commands us up to greatness, not down to oblivion. This exceptionalism we posses has been part of the driving force behind the just over two hundred years of first becoming a country to the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

The Democrats do not operate on a post 9/11 realm of reality. Why would anyone who supposedly thinks in a post 9/11 way do things like oppose such effective programs as the NSA program that listened in on calls going to and from the US? There was no evidence that anyone's civil rights were violated, yet the Democrats quickly jumped on the bandwagon to end it. They wanted to end it partially for the potential violation of civil rights. Now, after seeing the successes acquired from the program and the usefulness, do Democrats now, several years later, wish to keep the program. Huh?

What kind of post 9/11 thinker has the sworn enemy of their country, Osama bin Laden, speak almost verbatim the same talking points against the Administration over issues, mostly regarding the "GWOT"? Every time a new video comes out from Night of the Living Dead zombie bin Laden, his message points are eerily similar in message as liberals and Democrats. Liberals and Democrats can be comfortable with the knowledge that the Hair Club for Men satisfied customer not only cares about Global Warming too but also blames the US for its cause as an added bonus

Why would any serious patriot, let alone a post 9/11 thinker, degrade and vilify an honorable man, calling him a liar before he even has a chance to speak? It has already been repeated many times already, the Senate unanimously voted in Gen Patraeus with zero (0) "nay" votes. Senate Democrats happily agreed to put Gen Patraeus in charge of Iraq, talking about how there had better be an improvement in Iraq due to the "Surge" plan and how the Administration should have done this correction of leadership for the military strategy in Iraq earlier.

Once word got out Gen Patraeus was going to give a report that was mostly positive about the results of the Surge, Democrats quickly began a campaign to both frame the report as a lie and the General himself as a liar and a toady for the Administration. The Democrats wanted to get the meme well in place that the 'reality' in Iraq was the Surge was a failure and anything saying to the contrary is political spin by the Bush Administration. I'm talking about congressional leaders, not including the roughly 6.5 million membership strong, traitorous Moveon.org's detestable "General Patraeus or General Betray-us?" ad.

A success with the Surge meant, long term, that continued perserverance will pay off for Iraq. A failure of the Surge meant both political leverage of Democrats to initiate total withdrawal of US forces, and a crushing blow of political defeat for the Bush Administration, and Republicans by extension. A failure in Iraq would guarantee a Democratic presidential victory, in the Democrats minds. A defeat in Iraq is a victory for Democrats, a victory in Iraq is a defeat for Democrats. With their lust to regain the power they believe is rightfully theirs since FDR, they will deny all realities that move them away from reaching that goal and embrace those that bring them closer.

With their failure at trying to get the Surge framed as a failure, the Democrats are going to be shifting strategy to some other defeat-oriented way. It too will fail, and they will pay a price, electorally, from their McGovernizing.