I guess one of the advantages of being a presidential candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in heck is that you can call ‘em as you see ‘em, like when the Senate votes on an Iraq resolution:
The result is a conflicting mix of signals that says the Senate “disagrees” with the troop increase; endorses Bush’s insistence that U.S. security depends on a self-governing Iraq; lists military objectives; conditions support on “benchmarks” that must be met by the Iraqi government; eschews withholding funding; and says that its recommendations “should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces.”
“I don’t know how you can vote for this resolution,” [Connecticut Democratic Senator Christopher] Dodd said, “and then simultaneously be for a redeployment of forces in the coming months.”
You almost want Dodd’s proposal requiring a new authorization for the war to come to the Senate floor, just to watch the panic in senators required to actually have a position and commit to it.
Aw, heck, why don’t they just introduce a resolution declaring, “We, the Senate, like all the good parts of the war and disapprove of all the bad parts. We demand all credit for anything that goes right, and reject any blame for anything that goes wrong”?