“A bullet in the heart of our troops.” That’s how Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison described the effort by Senate Democrats to discuss a bill that would end funding for the Iraq War. Imagine that. A discussion by a democratic legislative body about the war, how it’s funded and what the implications of that war are for the American people and our economy, is akin to a bullet in the heart of our troops? That is truly a low and horrible charge to make.

This disturbing line of thought shows that the Republicans in the Senate haven’t really changed all that much since nominal though only marginal control ofCongress turned over to the Democrats last year. Republicans in ‘05-’06 would routinely refer to Democrats who wanted a timetable for withdrawal of our troops as “cut and runners,” and accuse them of favoring “surrender to the enemy.” The Republicans preferred a quiet, compliant Congress that didn’t ask hard questions about whether or not the war was actually achieving any demonstrable goal or meeting any kind of provable progress. Nope. Republicans let it be known that debate itself was wrong and somehow anti-patriotic.

The American people were not fooled by this type of reasoning. They turned the Congress over to Democratic control in November of 2006 largely because they were fed up with how the war was being run and the lack of progress there.

This war has inspired books with names like “Fiasco” and “Hubris” and “State of Denial” precisely because it’s been conducted without a plan, and without the proper equipment needed to keep our troops as safe as possible. Our troops have done everything asked of them, made incredible sacrifices to serve their country,and often endured financial and family hardships in order to fulfill their military service commitments.

But troops don’t vote on arming themselves. They don’t conduct the hearings and demand the oversight over contractors and vendors responsible for staff, equipment and other services . The troops don’t vote on the funding measures and don’t interview the Generals and Cabinet officers who are responsible for the planning and conduct of the war in Iraq.

The troops fulfill their duty and go where their orders send them. Congress is supposed to make sure that those who issue the orders know what they are doing and are accountable for their actions and plans. Congress does that. That’s what the Constitution uniquely assigns to them to do. It’s not “anti-troops” or “unpatriotic” for Congress to do that. It’s a vital job that saves lives by holding people accountable for their actions.

Sen. Harry Reid’s office noted, in reaction to Sen. Hutchison’s remark, that she voted against a resolution that would have put $322 million into providing better body armor for the troops in 2003. That same bill also reduced the monies allocated for reconstruction in Iraq. This is sadly ironic, in light of her choice of words yesterday.

It is the job of Congress to be a check on the Executive branch of government and make sure that the policies proposed are being carried out in the best way possible. A discussion in the US Senate over whether or not we should continue funding a War that is still not showing the kind of progress that the Bush Administration has promised is not some anti-troop measure. It is precisely what Congress should be doing.