The link I posted to his column right after the decision at post #6 pretty well explains his position.
Thank you for that link. I haven't followed this that closely, but I read the article first. If I understand Colonel North, his issue here is about the effect on our troops in bringing up this "non-binding resolution".
He sees hope and peril in the current endeavor, but is trying to say in another way that "You CANNOT support the Troops unless you support their mission."
Which is fine by me...