I didn’t get to catch Bush’s address to the nation tonight due to the fact that we were traveling back from Colorado, but this headline from the Wall Street Journal’s summary of it caught my eye because I think it’s a spot-on, if largely unintentional, commentary on the predicament Bush is in with the war:

The Wall Street Journal has labeled this a two-front war, and they are referring to the fact that President Bush has had to prosecute the war in the face of opposition both from our enemies in Iraq and his political enemies here at home.  I think that is a fantastically astute observation, not so much because the Democrats here at home share any of the motivations of our enemies in Iraq (though certainly a couple of their objectives) but rather because it illustrates just how harmful Democrat defeatism and “get-Bushism” has been.

People who have been critical of the war in Iraq will be quick to respond to that by saying something along the lines of “but dissent is patriotic” or “Bush’s policies aren’t above criticism.” And they’ll be absolutely right in that response.  Dissent is patriotic, and Bush is as worthy of criticism as any other politician.  But what Democrats are planning on doing with their new majority in Congress goes beyond mere dissent.  They are planning on actively undermining the President and his policies with endless politically-motivated “investigations” on Iraq and threats to cut off the war’s funding, and that’s dangerous both for our troops on the ground and this nation in general.

Dangerous for our country because these things tell our enemies that our democracy is incapable of committing itself to finishing the military conflicts it engages in.  Dangerous for our troops because they will still be on the battlefield fighting this war even as the Dems pull the funding rug out from under them.

When it comes to war the Constitution gives Congress two clearly defined roles:  They authorize/deauthorize wars and the appropriate funding for the wars.  But really, Congress only has one moral role when it comes to war as I don’t think cutting off funding for a war our troops are still dying in should be an option for any politician who truly supports the military.  So if the Democrats in Congress want to take action on the war in Iraq let them vote to deauthorize it.

But they’re not doing that.  They haven’t even hinted at doing that.  Instead they’re busy bad-mouthing our President and threatening those cuts in war spending that will undermine the military’s ability to carry out his policies.  Things which, to this observer, don’t seem to be in the best interest of either this nation or the safety of our troops, even if they are probably politically expedient for the Democrats themselves.