A message of a lack of resolve

Joe Lieberman:

OUR nation has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. A new course has been chosen; a new commander is in place - and a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground by our troops.

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war. But that is not the debate this resolution invites.

The resolution before us won't stop the new strategy from going forward. Instead, its sponsors say, it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them.

We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know if we support the plan they've begun to carry out.

We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking.

And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about taking responsibility. It is the opposite - a resolution of irresolution.

If you believe that Gen. David Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success, then resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. If you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless, then vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies: at once for the war but also against the war; pledging support to the troops in the field but also washing its hands of what they are doing.

...

There is more and it is worth reading.

The inconsistencies are a results of Democrats playing politics with military strategy in a time of war and trying to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It is not about sending a message to the While House. They already have received the message that many Democrats want to lose the war. It is really just a cheap message to the Democrat kook base that the Senate Democrats support them in their desperation for defeat in Iraq. It is a gross and shameless politicization of military strategy during a time of war.