Conflicting Messages Noted
Wheat & Weeds - Behind You All The Way, Good Buddy
Senate Armed Services Committee so resolved against the surge, it swiftly approves the man to lead it.
I noticed that too, yesterday, but thought, “Well, maybe they’re different committees?” I guess they aren’t?
What could be more wicked than announcing to your troops, their families and the enemy that you expect them to fail? Talk about sucking the life out of an effort. Teddy Roosevelt said about another Congress undercutting a different war:
Their motives may or may not have been good, but their acts were heavily fraught with evil. They did ill for the national honor, and we won in spite of their sinister opposition.
Not to mention:
On them will lie the burden of any loss of our soldiers and sailors, of any dishonor to the flag; and upon you and the people of this country will lie the blame if you do not repudiate, in no unmistakable way, what these men have done.
To which end, make your voice heard here. I can understand thinking this move will fail and saying so; but once it’s in play, as it is, it’s deeply wrong to help it do so.
WSJ says this is not only wicked, it’s unconstitutional.
(That’s the one I linked to last night.)
The Ryskind Sketchbook comments:
King: ….We few, we happy few, we band of–
Messenger: Excuse me, Majesty, a non-binding resolution from the House of Lords. It was sent to express no confidence in you and your long-bow plan. They also have made every effort to let the enemy know that you have little to no support at home, and that the situation is entirely hopeless. Oh, and there’s a postscript for the troops. It says, “We support you.”
Heh.
I have music now. Got the stereo (at least two speakers, anyway) hooked up. Listening to Cavalleria Rusticana
Update (1.26):
RC2’s comments struck me with something: see how the Founding Fathers were all so familiar with the nature of war, of its command needs, and of reacions to it, that they could provide for it with the sorts of provisions she describes. An understanding resulting from familiarity, though they were wealthy, educated men, which did not manifest itself in a conceit to abolish war.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:28 am
It was two different committees. Armed Services approved Petraeus unanimously; Foreign Relations approved the surge 12-9. But once out of committee we know what the whole Senate will do: approve Petraeus while cutting him off at the knees.
The wisdom of the Founders in keeping Congress’ mitts off the conduct of war has never been more apparent. Congress can never see further than the next election cycle. And the exceptions to that rule tend to be thrown out of office a la Rick Santorum.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:23 am
PS –the full senate just approved Petraeus unanimously.
Well, deep breath, that buys us 6 months to turn things around. If it goes well, the Murricans will regain their heart. If not, Congress starts cutting funds. Everybody say your St.Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle prayers….