He was right. Less than one week after General Petraeus arrived in Iraq, the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives had passed a nonbinding resolution that declared, "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."Good thing Nevada re-elected Harry Reid and saved the country from that Sharron Angle brand of crazy.
After a day of heavy violence in April, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada declared, "This war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything." The majority leader of the U.S. Senate had just used his platform to tell 145,000 American troops and their families that they were fighting for a lost cause. He had written off the surge as a failure before all of the additional troops had even arrived. It was one of the most irresponsible acts I witnessed in my eight years in Washington.
Interestingly enough, some on the left have been whining (more than usual), Bush's book might have saved them some extra sessions of grief counseling had it been released prior to the election. Poor Obama was unfairly blamed by the Tea Party crowd for the decision to rescue Wall Street with TARP. It's so ... so ..UNFAIR.
As usual, there are a couple of problems with the lefty logic at work here. First, Barack Obama, a junior US Senator at the time, voted for TARP breaking from a long-standing tradition of voting present.
Second, Bush admits TARP was unpopular but he also said he believed it saved the economy. Oh snap, I thought Obama saved the economy. Of course Obama could try to convince the public that it was really the stimulus that saved the economy. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
Third, the Tea Party was very well aware of Bush's role in TARP so please leave the Tea Party out of this.
Finally, who really needs Bush's book when the Dems have the mysterious Gore curse working against Republicans in really close elections:
Now, would that be "Harry Reid crazy," "Sharron Angle crazy," or a whole new brand of crazy altogether? Am I crazy to think that close elections—the ones that are separated by a mere hundreds of votes, that go into overtime and threatened recounts well past Election Eve—almost always are won by the Democrat these days?