…at the New York Times?
…One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.
They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow…
But somehow, back in the day, when it was a matter of fighting or quitting in Iraq, the consideration of America’s position in a post-withdrawal world didn’t impress itself upon the Times. I wonder why?
Oh, I know – back then there as an R after the President’s name, now there is a D. Almost forgot – liberal opposition to war is, outside of a fringe, based entirely upon who is in charge. If a Republican was in charge of the least damaging war, ever, then it would still be a horror that must be stopped…a Democrat could go Attila the Hun on everyone and the Times would editorialize in favor.
The other effort mentioned in the Times article is a proposal by impeached judge (and now accused sexual harasser) Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to merely authorize continued air and other support operations while prohibiting ground troops. My view is that both efforts are asinine – if you want an end to the war, you vote a complete cut-off of funds; if you want to fight a war, you authorize just that, no strings attached. It is for the President to decide how a war is conducted…not for Congressmen; but it is for a President to obtain authorization for war.
This whole thing stinks – a mixture of lawlessness and cowardice all around.
Blogs For Victory 