Courtesy TKS reader Daniel, I call your attention to this revealing moment, illustrating the thinking of the new congressional majority:

Charlie Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?

Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kansas: I think we're going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.

Gibson: If he wants the surge, he'll get it.

Boyda: Yes.… He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision.

Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, "We're voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home."

Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.

Indeed, the American people should have thought about how they wanted troops home from Iraq in the 2000 election, two years and change before the invasion. They also should have considered how they would feel about the circumstances in Iraq in 2007 back in 2004.

Or, you know, these new members of Congress could remember that indeed, they do get that choice, that they control the purse strings, and they have a significant ability to influence foreign policy. But then again, it's probably easier to vote yes, and then deny any responsibility. After all, that's what most Democrats who voted for the invasion have done.

UPDATE: Another TKS reader, Paul, has a differing interpretation:

I take your comments (and the "headline" of the post) to mean that there is something negative about Boyda's comments about the war, the Commander-in-Chief and his inherent responsibilities, and the implications of Americans electing President Bush not once, but twice.

Believe me, I'm as skeptical of the House Democrats as any person on the planet, and I fear greatly for the country if their leaders' views hold sway in the coming two years. But I must admit to being pleasantly surprised - yes, even inspired! - to hear a rank-and-file Democrat Member actually seem to endorse the idea that a) the Commander-in-Chief really should be given broad latitude to fight the war as he sees fit (within limits, of course) and b) the results of the last two Presidential elections actually mean something.  I would assume that Ms. Boyda doesn't support the Administration's war-making tactics (certainly) or objectives (possibly). But her stated deference to the powers inherent in the Presidency and the incontestable fact that Bush was re-elected two years ago seems to be remarkably statesmanlike.  Am I missing something?

Paul raises a lot of fair points. But I don't like the overall tone of Boyda's comments - that she and the legislative branch can’t be held accountable for what happens from here on out regarding foreign policy. If she thinks a troop surge is a bad idea, she ought to oppose it. If she thinks it’s a good idea, she ought to support it. There’s something unseemly about privately believing a policy to be a bad idea, but voting in favor of it anyway because “it’s what the commander in chief wants to do.” The Democrats won control of Congress last year, and with that power comes responsibility, as Spider-Man’s Uncle told us.

And there’s a flip side to this – if President Bush is convinced a surge of additional troops is what it’s going to take to improve the situation, he ought to persuade the country, and by extension the Democrat-controlled Congress. “I’m the decider” isn’t going to cut it at this point; he has to say, fairly explicitly, “here’s what I want to do, and here’s why it’s going to work.”

By the way, as much as I loathe “flip-flopping,” supporting a military action when it goes well and opposing it when it goes badly, I would contend it is reasonable to change one’s position on continuing military operations in Iraq when the overall situation reaches a tipping point. A voter or legislator can say that they had faith that the mission was accomplishable in 2004 (a year or so after the invasion) and then conclude, in the beginning of 2007, that a stable Iraq cannot be built upon this wrecked husk of a civil society and that it will take a period of Balkan-like ethnic fighting before Iraq’s Sunni and Shia are willing to coexist.

If you've read Krauthammer this morning, or Dean Barnett over at Hewitt's site, you're seeing a lot of staunch I'm-glad-Saddam's-dead folks admit they're appalled with the way his execution was, um... executed. Basically, it took a moment that should have marked solemn justice for a lifetime of crimes, on par with the Nuremberg trials, and turned it into a Shia pep rally, as if Saddam's greatest crime was being a Sunni.

We want a stable, democratic, free and prosperous Iraq. It’s just not that clear that the Iraqis want it that badly. A reasonable person could say it’s time to pull back and let them fight it out.