Behavior is ignored for comfort

When there is condemnation for not seeking alternative views and then for seeking alternative views, it should make one wonder. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. notes this Truly ‘inappropriate’ behavior

Scarcely anyone seems to consider the conduct of the Congress inappropriate, to say nothing of a hanging offense. As various sitting members, whose day jobs increasingly are those of presidential candidates, jockey to outbid one another in their defeatism, the talk is not about whether such behavior is appropriate in time of war — or consistent with the national interest.

Doug Feith is an old friend of mine. He is among the most thoughtful, careful and conscientious public servants I have ever known. The only truly “inappropriate” behavior evident is the ongoing effort led by Sens. Levin and Rockefeller to impugn the integrity, quality and, yes, the appropriateness of policymakers’ efforts to ensure that far-reaching national security decisions are made on the basis of the best information available.

That is only one reason why the Washington Times editorializes about Politicizing the war

Mr. Hoyer’s broken promise is indicative of the way Democrats have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on the Iraq war. For their anti-war base, Democrats are keeping hope alive that they will — at some uncertain date — oppose the war more forcefully, perhaps by voting to cut off funding. But to the public at large, Democrats don’t want to be viewed as abandoning the troops. A clear example of this doubletalk are all the Democratic votes confirming Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. William Fallon, both of whom support the president’s new war plan. For now, all the Democrats have the strength for is a nonbinding resolution that opposes the troop surge. That kind of resolve was nicely ridiculed by presidential aspirant John Edwards, who compared it to a child “standing in the corner and stomping his feet.”

The fact is that the nation engaged upon a serious endeavor as a nation. Now that we are fully engaged, some who were part of the decision process have decided that they want to go back and do it again except with what they say they know now. That isn’t how it works.

Leadership of a nation is not a matter of what suits the current moment. Decisions have been made, obligations undertaken, responsibilities faced. It is the fundamental duty of the leadership to carry through the commitments of the nation that have been properly undertaken.

Comments are closed.