The American Congress: Profiles In Courage

Welcome to the next two years. Get used to it:

A bipartisan group of senators announced a formal resolution of opposition yesterday to President Bush's buildup of troops in Iraq, calling for more diplomacy, international cooperation and an "appropriately expedited" transfer of military responsibilities to Iraqi security forces.

The nonbinding resolution, which could come to a vote within two weeks, moves Congress a major step closer to a public confrontation with the Bush administration over war policy. A Senate vote would be followed quickly by action in the House. But even before the resolution's introduction, prominent lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), were pushing for far tougher measures that could cut off funding for the war and legislatively thwart Bush's "surge" of 21,500 additional troops.

It's nonbinding, but it ratchets up the political pressure on Bush, and we all know how good he is at presenting his case for something in a clear and concise manner.

Ace was right about this last week: This is their way of opposing the war and covering their asses at the same time. They won't come out and say "Bring them home"; that would be too honest. Instead they'll talk about "international cooperation" (which they know damn well won't work) and "transfer of military responsibilities" (which everyone knows the Iraqi army isn't ready for). The result is the same: a hamstrung war effort, and political points at home bought for the small price of allowing American soldiers to die in a cause they don't believe in but refuse to speak honestly about.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called the resolution "the worst of all outcomes . . . a symbolic going-to-the-pier before the troops ship off to say, 'We believe in you, but you're going to lose.' "

Well, he got it half-right.

posted by AndrewR at 06:17 PM

| Access Comments