A COWARDLY CONGRESS . . .
NEW YORK POST
Editorial
February 7, 2007
President Bush Monday survived the first attempt by congressional Democrats to undermine the U.S. mission to Iraq - a bid to declare "no confidence" in his ongoing troop surge.
So far, so good.
But the Democrats, busy little beavers as always, are readying another effort to score political points at the expense of the president's strategy - and America's fighting forces, too.
Senate Democrats could muster only 49 of the 60 votes they needed to invoke cloture, cutting off a GOP filibuster of a symbolic resolution that would have expressed disagreement with the troop-surge plan.
Senate GOP leaders were prepared to let the resolution move forward - if Democrats agreed to permit votes on two measures more supportive of the president. No deal, said the Dems.
Actually, that's just as well.
Any resolution - short of an unambiguous endorsement of the troop surge - would be irresponsible.
Besides, Democrats (and Republicans who side with them) just had their chance forcefully to oppose the war.
If they have a beef with the Bush strategy, why did they overwhelmingly vote to confirm the nominations of Gen. David Petraeus as chief U.S. commander in Iraq, and of Adm. William Fallon to head the overall U.S. effort in the region? Those officers not only endorse the troop surge, they're the ones charged with carrying out the policy.
As Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who remains a beacon of light on Iraq, told his colleagues: "We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in Gen. Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle."
Worse still, those pushing for this resolution - which would have no actual practical effect on the war effort - fail to appreciate its potential impact on the troops now risking their lives in Iraq.
Indeed, said Lieberman, the Library of Congress confirmed that "never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy."
Professing support of U.S. troops is meaningless in the face of such a resolution, he added: "When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops." (Excerpts of his must-read speech appear on the opposite page.)
Yes, Congress has a role to play in the debate over Iraq. But war cannot be waged by committee - or by playing either to election results or the latest public-opinion polls.
If the Democrats truly oppose this strategy, they need to defund it - and then accept the consequences.
Fat chance.
By endorsing the Petraeus and Fallon appointments, Congress has by extension also endorsed the mission they've been dispatched to accomplish.
Undercutting the effort with wrongheaded resolutions is at once dishonorable and cowardly.
Bottom line: Congress sent Petraeus and Fallon off to war. Does it now mean to shoot them in the back?
nypost.com
_______editorials_.htm |
