Today's craptacular editorial is entitled Hypocrisy in Congress, and comes to us courtesy of either the Sentinel & Enterprise or one of the copywriters at their parent MediaNews Group. (I'm going to assume the latter, since the NH Broacaster has the exact same editorial.)
Let's start at the beginning:
Two weeks ago, congressional Democrats and Republicans extended unconditional support to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush's new commander in Iraq.Really? "Unconditional support" seems like an odd thing to offer, given that they'd totally be abdicating their responsibility of oversight.
In fact, nobody offered anything like unconditional support of Gen. Petraeus's strategies or anything else. What they did was to vote for his confirmation unanimously. Unanimous is not the same as unconditional. When right-wing media tool Chris Wallace made the same dubious connection, here's what Jim Webb had to say:
WEBB: When the administration puts forward a general officer to fill a billet that exists, I will take a look at his qualifications and see whether I believe he is qualified to be a commander. That doesn't mean that I have to back a political strategy that impels him into motion.
Back to the editorial:
However, those same lawmakers that praised Petraeus are now working to deny the crucial funding the general needs for his troops to get the job done.Interesting leap of logic here.
Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and a host of Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Ted Kennedy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are working together to get approved a non-binding resolution condemning Bush's troop surge and the money required to support the mission.
Warner, Reid, and Kennedy all voted to confirm Petraeus. That vote was to put him in position as commander of the Mulitnational Force in Iraq. Not for a troop escalation, nor for any of Bush's other plans. Simply for Petraeus as being qualified for the job he was nominated for. Period.
There's no hypocrisy at work here, there's oversight. That's something the conservative press has a hard time accepting, so maybe I can provide a metaphor that could help.
Let's say I run a factory and have just hired a new foreman. The board of directors has approved him as being someone who's fit for the job. We're having trouble with our production due to some machines that have broken down. The new "Diplomacy 1500 (r)" machine is sputtering terribly, for instance, and a number of men have died trying to replace its normal role (which involves welding thermite to TNT or something, you get the point).
Ignoring this, I decide the best course of action would be to hire 21,000 more employees to do the incredibly hazardous job the machine used to do. My foreman agrees with me that this would be effective. The board of directors, on the other hand, thinks we should fix the damn machine and refuses to fund the new hires. Some dolt at the local paper than accuses the board of being hypocrites for hiring the foreman even though he disagrees with them.
This isn't hypocrisy, it's oversight. It's what's keeps us from making horrifically stupid mistakes over and over again, and it's what was missing when Republicans controlled Congress.
At least there's one thing I can agree with in this editorial:
If pulling the plug on all U.S. military operations in Iraq is what Congress really wants, then lawmakers should do itYes, yes they should.