Give 'Em Surrender Harry's Treasonous Hypocrisy

Look in the Dictionary for HYPOCRISY and you will find:

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Function: noun
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-se also hī-Inflected Form(s): plural -siesEtymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage . . .
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
3 : Harry Reid

Well, no, you won’t find 3, but you should. Give ‘Em Surrender Harry is certainly among the most hypocritical of politicians in Washington. His only motivation is achieving raw political power at any cost. And the cost to America will be heavy indeed if he succeeds.

One recent example of Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s hypocrisy is his comment on the Supreme Court decision in Carhart upholding the federal ban on one specific type of partial birth abortion. In the wake of that decision, Give ‘Em Surrender Harry said "I would only say that this isn't the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there." The hypocrisy – Give ‘Em Surrender Harry voted for the law that the Supreme Court upheld.

Another, albeit minor, example is Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s quickly changing stance on whether Fox should host Democratic Presidential debates. You can find much more substantive and crystal clear examples of Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s hypocrisy with but a little research, such as his changing stance on immigration and Social Security.

But all of these pale to meaninglessness in comparison to Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s drive to insure that the U.S. loses the war in Iraq and that the surge does not succeed. He has been fighting against the surge from the moment it was proposed, though for at least a year prior he strongly proposed exactly such a change in U.S. strategy. That must take center stage because Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s drive portends tremendous damage to this country by enabling radical Islamists, by enabling Iran, and by thoroughly undermining our ability to conduct foreign policy. Who will ally with the U.S. against any determined foe in the future if Give 'Em Surrender Harry has his way? And what nation opposed to the U.S. will be deterred by American military power or "resolve" if Give 'Em Surrender Harry gets his way?

It is no surprise that, only a few days before Give ‘Em Surrender Harry’s announcement that the war was lost – during which he suggested that the true hypocrites on this issue were the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense – Give ‘Em Surrender Harry and Chuck Schumer had this to say:

Mr. Reid said Mr. Schumer showed him poll numbers that he finds "compelling and astounding" that prove Republican senators who back Mr. Bush on Iraq are hurting. Democrats echo this sentiment, saying they will prevail in 2008, when one-third of the Senate is up for re-election.

. . . "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," predicted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, adding that Republican senators faced with constant votes on whether they support President Bush's Iraq policy will have a tough time convincing voters that they deserve re-election.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, says a handful of Republicans are going to "look extinction ... in the eye."

"Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle," said Mr. Schumer, who leads the campaign arm for Senate Democrats.

"They know that, and we've just been at this a couple of months and we're going to keep at it," he said. "It's not an accident that the ones who are squirming the most are the ones who are up in '08."

In the run up to his announcement that the war in Iraq was lost, Give 'Em Surrender Harry appeared with two retired generals who appeared to support his position that the surge could not work in Iraq. The hpocrisy here is explained in this from The Mudville Gazette:

Senator Reid was a busy man this week:

Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for "clinging to a failed escalation strategy" in Iraq and "failing our troops and our country."

One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as "props" by the Bush Administration.

Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said "the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it."

With a banner behind them that said "Support the Troops" and "Transition the Mission" Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.

. . . Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as "props" by the administration. "The American people need to be told the truth. The only reason I speak out as a retired officer is the President, as all Presidents do, use the active duty military as props to make it appear that the military is united behind his policy."

The only things new about the Democrats using Generals are the specific names. Last year they had a different crew.

Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare.

. . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."

. . . Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

That call for a surge was why they had to be replaced on the podium, of course.

You probably heard that last year's generals had called for Rumsfeld to be fired - but did you know they had called for a surge?

The hypocrisy of Give Em Surrender Harry far transcends the bounds of responsible politics. His drive to insure that the surge does not succeed and that America retreats from Iraq are not principled positions, nor acceptable politics. His hypocrisy is treasonous.