Those who were for the surge before they were against it

Washington Times:

For many in the Senate, they were for a surge of troops in Iraq before they were against it.
"We don't have enough troops in Iraq," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005.
In 2004, he told NBC's Tim Russert some things he believes "very deeply."
"Number one, we cannot fail," Mr. Kerry said. "I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do."
He no longer believes that now. He is among at least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq but now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that. Many Republicans who voted for the war now plan to support a no-confidence resolution, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in the past had warned that the war would be a long, tough slog and that Americans should "speak with one voice."
The Senate will begin debating that resolution -- or variations on it -- this week, perhaps as early as today.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."
In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.
By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.
"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters.
As late as last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was still open to the idea of a surge.
...
After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.
"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition."
...

That Democrats are demagogues is hardly new, but that they are so blatant is somewhat unusual. They do hypocrisies well.

Republicans in the Senate are mounting an effort to stop the resolution that will have the effect of giving hope to the enemy.

...

The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans.

Republicans skeptical of the troop buildup said some of their colleagues had begun to suggest that opponents of the White House plan ran the risk of undermining Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new military commander in Iraq, as well as Mr. Bush.

“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

As an alternative to that measure and another broadly backed by Democrats, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, are trying to enlist support for a resolution that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad.

The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

...

While such a resolution might put pressure on the Maliki government it would also give hope to the enemy who would just wait for support to be withdrawn. If they are not going to offer a resolution of support for the surge, they should do nothing. All of this political posturing is giving hope to an enemy that has been defeated in all but hope.