The commander in chief

As was to be expected, leaders of the Daddy Party agree that once a military commander tells the POTUS that he needs more troops, then the former is now the commander in chief.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement that he was "deeply troubled . . . by reports that the White House is delaying action on the General's request for more troops" and was questioning the "integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency" Obama himself set in motion. "It's time for the President to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated," Boehner said, "because the longer we wait the more we put our troops at risk."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that "any failure to act decisively in response to General McChrystal's request could serve to undermine the other good decisions the president has made" on Afghanistan.

Never mind that there aren't any troops to send right now. Or that Afghanistan is in the midst of an election that is "tainted" at best. Or that the goal of the war -- to eliminate al Qaeda from within its borders -- has been achieved.

What's been odd is, what does Richard Holbrooke have to say? Isn't he our special envoy to Afghanistan?