McHugh not sounding like much of an expert

© Press-Republican (Plattsburgh)

January 25, 2007

Rep. John M. McHugh (R-Pierrepont Manor) is in a tough spot. He is a rock-solid Republican at a time when rock-solid Republicanism is under more fire than at any time, probably, since the Nixon administration. What’s a Republican to do at a time when his president’s performance is scorned by two-thirds of the population?

The first thing he is to do is to be utterly candid in his public assessments of the president’s positions.

As usual after a presidential speech, members of Congress sent out their reactions to news agencies in their districts after President Bush’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

Here is McHugh’s statement e-mailed to the Press-Republican:

“There is no question that, traditionally, the State of the Union speech is a place to set out a broad agenda and, domestically, the president did that tonight. He talked about a number of important issues, including health care, education, immigration reform and energy independence. The question now remains, were the American people heard, as I believe they tried to be back in November? They want a new day of cooperation, of bipartisan effort, and that can only happen by both the Congress and the White House working together. I certainly do hope that will happen.

“About the question of Iraq — quite honestly, I continue to be deeply concerned. Not about the capabilities of our American troops, as we have the best in the world and they can do whatever it is we ask of them. Rather, will the Iraqis step forward? Will they, for the first time, really, in nearly five years, begin to take the steps necessary — steps only they can take, and that must be taken to secure their future? Our entire venture in Iraq depends on that, and it is a source of ongoing concern.”

McHugh thus sidestepped a commitment for or against the president’s controversial new policy of committing more troops to Iraq — which even new commanding Lt. Gen. David Petraeus admitted to Congress was a problematic step in a “dire situation.” Congress — even some Republicans — have disparaged the idea as futile and destined to merely prolong America’s agony.

McHugh’s statement, expressing vague hopes, concerns and questions, does nothing to verify or deny his support for the policy. And he is not just another congressman with a political opinion. He has toured Iraq half a dozen times, most recently late last year. He ought to be sounding like one of Washington’s legitimate experts on the topic, with an authoritative view on the controversy.

He chose the political expedient, apparently not wanting to dent either the president or his own relationship with the chief executive.

We’d hoped for a firmer expression of his opinion. We implore him to speak out from his pulpit founded on a genuine expertise on the matter and abandon the political obfuscations.