The Democrat-controlled Congress is now in full swing in Washington. I say ‘controlled,’ as opposed to ‘led.’ A congress in which the majority party trips over itself to devise a policy to cut funds to the U.S. troops in Iraq without having to take responsibility for the outcome of those actions is clearly not ‘leading,’ rather they are simply ‘controlling.’ It’s a new day, and today’s Congress prefers non-binding resolutions that give the illusion of leadership while requiring that no one actually takes a stand for what they believe or be held responsible should things go badly.

This refusal to put oneself at risk politically while in majority control is a little like being the doctor who hands the bone saw to the patient and says ‘cut here’; responsibility cannot be shared, and as a rule, it is always a bad idea.

In a passing moment of moral clarity, the left of center StandUpCongress.org described Congressman John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) policy as follows:

‘Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the President’s foreign and national security policy.’

Oops. But I’m sure they meant undermine in a good way. These guys ought to work for the State Department.

The term ‘undermining’ hit a little too close to home for the Democrats, and the back-peddling on Murtha’s statement began almost immediately. Apparently Murtha didn’t get the Nancy Pelosi talking-points memo describing how, above all things:

1.Members should avoid saying or promoting anything to which the Democrats could be held accountable.

2.Despite wanting to lose the war in Iraq, for heavens sake, don’t actually say it.

3.The term is ‘redeployment’ not ‘retreat.’

Apparently, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) didn’t notice the giant sucking sound of Murtha’s political fortunes going down the toilet as he stated with great braggadocio that he would introduce ‘ resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment ‘ just like in the days of Vietnam.’ Yeah, that’ll work. The United States did such a bang-up job last time they skipped out when things got too tough for Washington bureaucrats. Apparently, the historical downside of removing troops for political purposes before victory escapes Senator Schumer and the rest of the Democratic Party. Let’s ask former New York Times correspondent Dith Pran how things went for him the last time the Americans left the battlefield prematurely.

No matter how one may feel about the current state of affairs in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should not be lulled into thinking that a loss in Iraq will somehow only be a reflection of the Bush Presidency, or that the presiding Democrat-controlled Congress will be allowed to walk away scot-free from a defeat. Losing will only hasten the day that another confrontation occurs.

To think that a culture such as our own that condones gay marriage, strives for equal rights, has such a diversity in religion, promotes freedom of expression and routinely sports thongs at the beach while consuming alcohol won’t come into conflict with a zealous patriarchal culture whose spokesmen include nutballs like Muqtada al-Sadr or Ayman al-Zawahiri, is kidding itself to its own detriment.

We, the United States, are the antithesis of everything they stand for. We are intolerable in our tolerance.

Which is why, given the nature of the threat we face, a loss in Iraq is not some remote event that one reads only in passing interest. The Democrats appear to be having a very difficult time accepting responsibility as part and parcel to having won the mid-term elections.

Unless Nancy Pelosi thinks she would look good in a burqa, I suggest she and the rest of Congress get over this timidity and start leading.

‘ Megan Donahue is a junior nursing major. She is currently promoting stem cell research, specifically how to grow a spine.