GOP House Forces Another “Defining” Debate On Iraq War
Perhaps they should just shut Congress down for the rest of the year. It seems to have gone from being a problem-solving legislative body to a body with a partisan function to define political opponents.
This time the House GOP is forcing another debate on the Iraq war clearly aimed at backing Democrats into a position that can be used against them in the mid-term elections. It’s part of a series of issues transparently political (versus problem-solving), a use of Congress perhaps unparalleled in recent times. But, the Washington Post notes, is there a risk for the GOP in the way they frame and present the debate — which appears as if it’ll be used to “define” the Democrats in speeches that’ll be carried on CSPAN, live on cable, and in sound bytes throughout the campaign?
Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.In the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death and President Bush’s surprise trip to Baghdad, Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on good news and trying to force Democrats on the defensive. Bush continued his own campaign with a morning news conference and a White House meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, while House leaders strategized on today’s 10-hour debate.
We carried the link to a memo yesterday that the Post details here. It makes it abundantly clear that this is not a debate to enlighten America, not a debate to seriously discuss what’s at stake in Iraq (from the standpoint of those who feel the mission must be completed or those who feel it must be aborted).
It’s a good, old-fashioned powerplay to define the opposition — in the same spirit as the Terry Schiavo issue and the gay marriage constitutional amendment issue. The key question is whether this ploy works or whether Republicans, Democrats and independents who thought Congress was supposed to work at solving problems decide in November to throw out people who indulge in this election year political macarena. MORE:
A memo from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate “a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.” After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party.“As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world,” Boehner wrote.
But the day-long debate will also give voice to some GOP lawmakers’ misgivings about Bush administration policy — and years of congressional support for it — in an election year in which Iraq will be a central issue. The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress. Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy.
“I can’t help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don’t have that sense of urgency,” said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.), a usually soft-spoken Republican who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. “To me, the administration does not act like there’s a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn’t act like there’s a war going on. If you’re raising money to keep the majority, if you’re thinking about gay marriage, if you’re doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who’s about ready to drive over a land mine?”
“He must be a RINO…”
6 Responses to “GOP House Forces Another “Defining” Debate On Iraq War”
Aren’t we tired of this partisan hackery?
I really didn’t expect any kind of meaningful debate in an election year. This is the Republican party playing hardball. They are looking for positions on policy that Karl Rove can use to decimate the Democrats in November. Notice the all or nothing false choice on the war. With ‘em or against ‘em, “dead or alive”. If the Democrats come out against the war they are traitors who would cut &run rather than support the troops. If they support the resolution they are flip-floppers who have betrayed the left wing of their own party. Lose-lose proposition for the Dems. The conservative base is lapping it up, believe me.
Aren’t we tired of Democrats bashing this administration and not backing it up with votes? I sincerely believe that neither party wants to end the war. I think alot of Dems are just playing “face” and have no backbones.
Partisan. They knew it would be. Its a tactic of wasting time and hiding their failure in Iraq. Midterms are upon us…repubs are crapping down both legs. Yeah…and payback is gonna be a Mofo
Sory, William but there is nothing to do with “bashing this administration” in this excuse for a debate. Frankly, if I was a Democratic member of the House I just wouldn’t take part in this bad joke.
Jim has the right take on this. The democrats and moderate republicans, if they have any sense wouldn’t play into this obvious hackery. Instead show up and let the liberal hawks, and neo-con republicans talk all they want untill they are blue in the face, decline speaking untill they have whipped themselves into a good froth, and with the full alotment of time in reserve for counter debate. Simply send up a single person, Murtha or Gilchrest would be good choices. Lay a simple “what are the stated goals in Iraq in detail (this weeks version), and how close are we to achieving it, how can we speed up the process of each stated goal in the congress, and upon acheving these goals how soon after can we remove the US military entirely from Iraq”. Walk away from the podium to watch many of hardcore neo-con republicans, and liberal hawks fall all over themselves not explaining any part of it. Go back up with your remaining time, and lay out funding plans, expected goals (goals within reason) and timelines for these goals (with allowances for resistance in Iraq), and finally upon reaching reasonable goals a full withdrawl, and handover of the reins to the Iraqi gov., and walk away from the podium leaving them probably stunned as hell. Because they are gunning for a fight you don’t give them a target, just let them attack air. After letting them do the election year twist ask if we might move on to other pressing issues instead of the dog and pony show they are putting on, rather than offering solutions.
I think that’s a moderate way of approaching the issue. Because a full immediate withdrawl isn’t feasable, nor is remaining 7000 miles from home in the middle of another country’s civil war. They (the Iraqi gov.) have to pee or get off the pot, and we need seriously let them know we mean now, not later. And we need to set reasonable goals as benchmarks for us getting out, not play it by ear as Rumsfeld, and Bush have done for the last 2 1/2 years, and many of the war hawks have run cover for.
I think it would get a good response from the public if that happened, because it’s a reality based stance, and inject civility back into congress on the issue.
Oh but what a pipe dream I have woven here, because it won’t ever happen. It will be the normal congessional pissing contest achieving nothing other than the usual taunts, and accusations spilling back here to cause more dissention, because alas it’s election season in the USA.
PING:
TITLE: Dare
BLOG NAME: The Heretik
I dare you. A brief stop now before we move on to the flag burning amendment.
Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrat…