Here’s a purely hypothetical, purely rhetorical, question: if President Bush suddenly decided to bring the troops home from Iraq, would that be undercutting the troops?

So if the Senate demands, or a Senator proposes, or a Senator supports, any measure which forces the President to start bringing troops home, how is that undercutting the troops?

Obviously, the only person being undercut by such a measure is the President. All the talk of undercutting the troops is pure distilled hogwash, perpetrated only with a view to saving face for the President. And only by those who think that saving face for the President is more important than saving the lives of American soldiers.

And it is the clear consensus of American voters, is it not, that on the subject of Iraq the President is so out of touch with reality, and so far beyond any hope to being recalled to a nodding acquaintance with it, that we have to undercut him. It is the clear consensus of American voters, is it not, that at this point in time, and on this subject, it is in the national interest to undercut the President.

Senators like Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel understand very clearly that it is their duty – to their constituents, and to America – to undercut the President on Iraq. And they have articulated this very clearly, very eloquently.

All those Senators who think this is a matter of politics and not a matter of conscience, who are still looking down at their shoelaces, or are busy doing something else, how do they propose to look their grandchildren in the eye? How do they propose to sleep at night when their conscience finally catches up with them? And let there be no doubt: the time is certainly going to come when every one of them will be forced to face what they chose to do by averting their eyes.

(And let it also be said that “emboldening the enemy” is just “undercutting the troops” in a different dress.)