The Editors at National Review have a few choice, yet even handed words for the Democrats and their friends on the Right(?) like Chuck Hagel of NE.
Opening with:
"At a time of crisis, count on U.S. senators to step up with symbolic measures that hold absolutely zero risk to themselves. That is what Senators Biden, Levin, and Hagel have done by offering their non-binding resolution disapproving of the Bush surge in Iraq. The only effect the resolution can possibly have is to weaken the commander in chief and dampen the morale of U.S. troops. These senators in effect want to say to the thousands of troops who will be part of the surge, “The U.S. Senate has no confidence that you can possibly accomplish your mission. Carry on!”'The opening, fodder for the Left, but what isn't? Iraq, the surge and the opponents of the surge is the subject, but it gets to the root of too many politicians: 'do as little as possible and everything will be fine.' It's not just Iraq or the global war on terror, it's everything.
Iraq though, is perhaps one of the bigger concerns of the day. Pundits from the Right have called for the Dems/opponents of the surge to describe how their plan(?) would work and what results they expect. It's an awfully good question and one they cannot answer and won't. The only good long term planning/vision of the party of the Left is electoral and nothing else.
Have we gone as far as we have in Iraq, investing financially and physically as we have only to duck out? Why are Democratic offers in Iraq just variations of defeat? Can they fathom what victory is outside the realm of elections?
Is there anything the Democrats have called for with regard to any subject that isn't just the opposite of what the president offers? Soundbytes fade as do memories, anyone can voice opposition and come up with realistic and horrible sounding outcomes to a plan, that's the easy part. The tough part is the one they have opted out of and that is looking toward and planning for victory; on this and other subjects they don't bother because they don't have what it takes.
From the Editors at National Review Online: "Counterproductive Symbolism"
