The brightest thing said about Iraq this month came from Nancy Boyda, freshman Democrat Congresswoman from Kansas (in an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson):
Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?
Boyda: I think we’re going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.
Gibson: If he wants the surge, he’ll get it.
Boyda: Yes.â€¦ He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.
Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.”
Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
Perhaps Senator Hagel could take a lesson from Boyda’s blunt political realism. He’s
absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.
Who has more to lose from supporting the President – a Democrat elected on a platform of changing course or a Republican hoping to court enough conservative votes to win a Presidential nomination himself? I think we can start calling Hagel “Out of Luck Chuck”.