Senator Feinstein throws down the gauntlet

In response to Senate Republicans considering scuttling the non-binding resolution against the troop surge in Iraq, Dianne Feinstein said, "It's obstructionism," said Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), "This is not tolerable in a situation where it's the number one topic in the nation, and the Republican party prevents the Senate of the United States from debating."
<
For his part, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said proponents of the nonbinding, bipartisan resolution were undermining national security. "This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops," he said.
<
Republicans like McCain and John Warner (R-VA) are right that this non-binding resolution is a hypocritical attempt by some in the Senate to have it both ways. For those who approved Lt General David Petraeus and his nomination passed 81 – 0, they are especially hypocritical – you can’t approve a General who supports and intends to lead a troop surge and then vote “no confidence” against your own previous vote, approving Petraeus.
<
No, what those truly opposed to this war should be forced to so is to cut the funding for the troops in Iraq. That’s the only move that those of conscience, but that requires putting their political careers on the line and most of those who claim to oppose the war in the Senate would apparently rather not do that.
<
On Sunday, Feinstein called on Republicans to reconsider their procedural move.
<
"I think it's a terrible mistake to prevent this debate," she said. "If we can't get this done, you can be sure, a month or so down the pike, there's going to be much stronger legislation."
<
The Senate, where Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority, has tentatively set an early test vote for Monday.
<
In a bid to attract more GOP support, Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat, but even that compromise drew the ire of some Democrats who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.
<
Not going to happen.

<

The tightrope that many Senate Dems are trying to walk is that between their professed "support for the troops" and their professed "opposition to the war."

<

Just as trying to get cops to stand down when confronted with crime, so that they don't risk injury and death would NOT be supporting the police, in any meaningful way, as going after felons is what they DO and what they want to do.

<

Just as keeping firefighters from making "an aggressive interior attack," holding them back to fight the fire from the outside, would NOT be supporting firefighters.

Same with soldiers, seeking to keep them from fighting an enemy is NOT supporting the troops.

<

Prior to the Coalition invasion of Iraq, virtually all the world's intelligence agencies ALL believed Saddam's Iraq had WMDs., thus there were no "lies" that led up to the invasion, just a megalomaniacal dictator determined to maintain the facade that he did have WMDs to create a "deterrence by doubt."

<

Now that we've invaded, Iraq has become a magnet for jihadists being supported and sponsored by the likes of Syria and Iran and other rogue states - THAT'S A FIGHT WE NEED TO MAKE!

<

Again, there is no "peace option."

<

The other side (the jihadists) seems to believe it can win, and quite frankly, looking at the Left in this country, I can't imagine that that would give them any reason to doubt that conviction.

<

If you're going to sign onto a resolution voicing a "no-confidence" in the war, then make it clear you also have "no-confidence" in the tropps either and vote to defund the war in Iraq.

<

Trying to "have it both ways" is just plain cowardly.