Best of the Web Today

A guy named James Taranto writes a 'blog called "Best of the Web Today." I really enjoy his conservative commentary, even if he can be a bit of a Bush-bot.

He had a post in today, though, which I think makes a very valid point. The Democrats swept into office on an anti-war tide. If they truly have the courage of their convictions (as does their arch-rival, the President), end the damn thing. Enough talk and non-binding resolutions. They should do what they believe, and have said, is the right thing.

Here is Taranto's post in its entirety:

'A Slow-Bleed Strategy'

"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options," reports The Politico:

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

So the idea is to keep the troops in harm's way but take all steps possible to prevent them from prevailing, in the hope that the Democrats will benefit politically from American defeat. According to a press release this morning from the House Republican Conference, yesterday the Web site MoveCongress.org announcing an event this morning, declared:

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the President's foreign and national security policy.

This language has since disappeared from the site, but a reader first alerted us to it late yesterday afternoon.

You don't have to agree with the president's policies to find this appalling. If Murtha thinks he has a better way, let him run for president next year and make the case. To pursue a strategy of subversion instead is cowardly and despicable.

Regardless of how you feel about the war, he has a point.

UPDATE: More here. Look, don't get me wrong. Plenty of principled opposition to the war exists. But if you're going to be against it, grow a pair (sorry Madam Speaker). If you're against it, end it.

The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable.

I can go with that. Red or blue.

A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

Intended or not, do you truly believe that the result of Congress' posturing will be anything other than the demoralization of US forces?