NO Guts

I read with interest the story by Peggy Noonan about Chuck Hagel having "guts." I completely disagree with her in that I don't think Hagel's position has anything to do with guts. I think it has to do with riding what he feels is current public opinion. How gratifying it was to see that Kate O'Beirne agrees with me. Here is her entry in the Corner:

The Senate has unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to take command of U.S. forces in Iraq to implement the new mission in Baghdad with the help of additional forces. Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disapProval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a President with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of General Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass. Because General Petraeus is an experienced, credentialed, credible advocate of the new strategy, Senators have no interest in tangling with him. When you're playing at being a military strategist you sure don't want to go up against the real thing, so better to have an unpopular commander-in-chief be the face of the new mission rather than the veteran general who will be in command.

That's right. Either you think it's a disaster over there and you use every means possible to get us out, or you admit that maybe, just maybe, we have a chance for victory. Or...like Chuck Hagel and the Democrats, you pretend to support the troops while doing everything you can to undermine them.

JASmius adds: Well, I didn't call him perfidious devilspawn for nothing.

Incidentally, I was reading over my posts in and following the notorious "memo of understanding" back-stabbing that Hagel, his Sith Master "Sailor" McCain, and five other of his padawans inflicted upon the Republican Party two years ago that sealed the fate of their majority this past November (as I predicted it would), and I came across this little piece of prophesying in reply to a B4B commenter who thought that any GOP betrayal of principle was hunky-dory as long as they stayed pure on the WAIF:

{If Social Conservatives with their not one more dime campaign can so cavalierly toss the good things that Republicans have done toward the war effort and withdraw their support over something that is relatively minor than I almost think that is worse than what the anti-war Democrats have done.}

Reclaiming the judiciary for constitutionalism is not "relatively minor," it is crucial if we are to remain even the quasi-republic we are today. It has also been the leading domestic issue and selling point to the GOP base the last two election cycles. If electing all these Pachyderms yields us fratricidal swindles like the one yesterday, what makes you think those same Pachyderms will be any more trustworthy on backing the military? C'mon, Mad, "moderates" are poll-watchers extraordinare; if the public at large can be turned against the [WAIF], what makes you think RINOs won't head for the peacenik tallgrass as fast as their fat, little legs can carry them? [emphases added]

Sometimes my foresight stuns even me. Which makes my current pessimism all the more depressing.