I agree wholeheartedly with the Detroit News on the issue of the anti-surge resolutions pending in the House and Senate.

C ongress is in the middle of three days of debate on a nonbinding resolution that would express to President George W. Bush its opposition to sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. But why settle for a symbolic gesture of discontent when the representatives have the authority to do something concrete?

If Congress feels the troop surge is the wrong idea, it should vote to cut off funding.

It doesn't do that because the Democratic leadership loves to protest and complain about the Iraq War, but doesn't want to be held accountable for the consequences of an alternative strategy.

It is easy to bitch and moan about the war, and to try to make political hay over it. That has been the strategy of the Democrats of late. However, they should be willing to act on that sentiment if they REALLY believe what they are saying. Otherwise, they are at best engaged in a cynical political ploy, if not outright cowardice and hypocrisy. After all, the current course of action would allow them to be on record as opposing this course of action to avoid blame in the event of failure, while still claiming credit when the surge succeeds because they didnÂ’t cut off funds.

Such triangulation would be nothing short of a sick joke, if it didnÂ’t involve opponents of the war intentionally allowing troops to be placed in harmÂ’s way for a mission that Congress does not believe can be a success. That makes it a criminal abrogation of their constitutional responsibility, for they are knowingly and intentionally allowing soldiers to die for a policy/strategy they believe should not be followed? How can they reconcile respect for the troops with allowing them to be the next to die for a policy that a majority of Congress believes is wrong and a mission they view as unattainable?

So let me say for the record – if the DemocratICK majority in the House and Senate really believes that funding the troop surge is wrong, they should vote to cut off funds in order to force a change in direction in Iraq. But if the legislative branch lacks the integrity to do so, they need to stand aside in silence while the president pursues the strategy he believes provides the best chance for success. And at this moment, George W. Bush appears to be the only elected leader in Washington with a plan for success and the will to implement it – which makes him the only real leader in government today, despite DemocratICK rhetoric about charting a new course in the Middle East.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.