This interview with three new Democratic congressfolk, conducted by ABC's Charles Gibson, is fascinating. Quizzing three members from Kansas, Pennsylvania and North Carolina on what they'll do if the commander-in-chief wants to escalate the war, Gibson is so taken aback by Kansan Nancy Boyda's response that he presses her even further.
Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?
Boyda: I think we're going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.
Gibson: If he wants the surge, he'll get it.
Boyda: Yes.… He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision.
Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, "We're voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home."Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
What the hell? What did Boyda have to say about this when she was running her shocking upset campaign?
Out of respect for the Iraqi people and in honor of the American patriots who have already died, we have stayed for over three years and helped Iraq restore at least minimal government functions. But our assistance cannot be a blank check extending indefinitely. "Stay the course" is a political slogan, not a military strategy.
News flash: "surge and accelerate" isn't a
military strategy, either. It's a political slogan. Not even the
proponents of the surge like
Fred "Whatever" Kagan think a short deployment of 20,000 more
troops will change the course of the occupation.
Look, there's something wrong with this. Democrats must know that the idea of slaughtering more American troops for no end is one of the least popular policy proposals ever. They have said before that they are against it. Do they really think the 2002 Joint Resolution precludes the Congress from exercising its right to fund or not fund military operations? Or are they so knee-meltingly terrified at the prospect of being blamed across the media and political spectrum if they don't give the CIC whatever he wants? It's the Stockholm Syndrome, kind of - they're so used to being captive to this moronic policy that they want to help it work.