[W]ouldn’t the honorable thing be for the Democrats as a party basically to say, “This administration has made tragic mistake after tragic mistake in Iraq. We oppose this surge. We don’t think it will work. But we really, really hope it does work. We will give it a year and anything we can do at the margins to help make it work, we will.”
The politics would probably even make sense with the broader public, since the Democrats would get the credit for opposing the surge if it doesn’t work, while seeming surpassingly bi-partisan and high-minded in the meantime. But, of course, I’m naïve. We are way beyond this being a possibility for all sorts of reasons, including that the Democratic base would go crazy. Never mind…
We live in times where it is easier for the now-governing party in Congress to loudly protest that they are “for the troops” and that they are patriotic… but show it by undermining the troops and the Commander-In-Chief in a time of a global war against America.
Al-Qaeda is always planning the next best way to kill American civilians by the thousands… while Democrats are always planning the next best way to subvert (directly or indirectly) our war effort against the enemy.
Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid…. as a refresher, here is the definition of honorable:
1. having personal integrity: guided by, or with a reputation for having, strong moral and ethical principles
2. deserving or gaining honor: worthy of or winning honor, respect, recognition, or glory
3. morally upright: upright and moral in intent
It is a characteristic your party seems to have forgotten beginning in the mid-1990s.