Pirate's Cove

Of course, beyond some platitudes of surrender, they do not offer a plan for the change:

Democrats want a different direction in Iraq. Republicans back President Bush.

"The public is very happy about the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11," Sen. Mitch McConnell, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said, even though polls show voters are weary about the war that's in its fourth year.

"Americans want an exit strategy," countered Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "The status quo is a disaster."

A disaster for whom? The Democrats, probably, since any success in Iraq is bad for the Party who has built their reputation on condemning the very war they voted for, and now on pushing cut and run.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., laid out the stark differences according to Republicans, saying Democrats offer "a vacillating strategic plan for retreat" while the GOP supports "a steady strategic plan for success."

The difference between the two plans is that the GOP one calls for gradual withdrawl as certain metrics are met, which are not going to be announced for the enemy to base their strategies on. The Democrats want to set arbitrary timetables based on simply leaving, regardless of the state of the nation of Iraq.

I am still waiting for the Democratic exit strategy for leaving Germany, Italy, and Japan.

"One hundred percent of the Democratic caucus believes it's time for change. One hundred percent of the Republican caucus believes it's time to stay the course," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during debate, voicing the Democratic view of the likely vote outcome as well as the choice facing voters this fall.

Really? So, I wonder how the vote went today:

In back-to-back votes, the Senate agreed with the president and turned back two Democratic proposals to begin withdrawing most of the 127,000 American forces in the war zone.

The first, offered by Sen. John Kerry and supported by 12 other Democrats but no Republicans, would have required the administration to start pulling troops out by year's end. It also would have set a deadline of July 2007 for all combat forces to leave.

"Redeploying United States troops is necessary," said Kerry, D-Mass.

Most senators didn't agree, and the proposal fell on a 86-13 vote.

Minutes later, the Senate defeated by 60-39 a resolution to urge the administration to begin "a phased redeployment of U.S. forces" sometime this year. The resolution would not have set a deadline for the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

According to MSNBC, the votes fell along mostly party lines. I could swear that there are more then 13/39 respectively Democratic Senators. I could also swear that Harry Reid said that Dems were united. So, this vote was the result of

1. Dems wimping out when push came to shove, not wanting to look like Surrender Monkeys
2. Dems voting how they personally truly think and believe, ie, America needs to win completely
3. Simple Democratic "the wind is blowing this way" pandering for votes

I'd like to think that it was mostly based on #2, especially since they have voted that way on virtually every other vote on cutting and running. What is that old saying about insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results?

Others: Blogs For Bush, Captain's Quarters, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Right Wing Nut House, Sister Todljah, Wizbang