Reader Elmer sends today's Corning Leader front page [pdf] and jump [pdf], where Randy Kuhl makes some statements that sound like he's going to support continued US presence in Iraq.
The Leader piece begins by noting that General Petraeus could not say whether the war in Iraq was making us safer. Kuhl says he believes it does, for the following reasons:
But has it diffused [sic] al-Qaida from attacking this country? The answer is yes. Has it defused Iraq from attacking us? The answer is yes.
Have they had to use resources they would otherwise be able to direct at killing people in this country for other purposes? The answer is yes. Have we kept bin Laden in a hole? The answer is yes.
Later in the article, Kuhl says that any decision on troop movement rests with President Bush, and not Congress, because Congress lacks the necessary 2/3 majority to override a veto.
In yesterday's Democrat and Chronicle, Kuhl also made the following statement:
I trust Gen. Petraeus’ proposal [...] I firmly believe that he knows best. I don’t think his plan for redeployment of our troops should be second-guessed by Congress.
There are two currents running under both of these statements. The first is a very myopic view of our security. The bin Laden reference seems especially clueless -- most would argue that the resources diverted from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq have allowed bin Laden to prosper. The second, and more disturbing, is an abrogation of the role of the legislative branch of government. The lack of a 2/3 majority is not carved in stone. And oversight is not second-guessing, it's the constitutional role of the legislative branch.