The House begins a debate on Iraq

Well, now they've gone and done it - the House is debating H Con Res 63, a non-binding resolution expressing Congress' support for the troops and "disapproving" of the President's strategy of sending more troops into Iraq to do more of the same things that have worked so well up to this point. [that's dripping sarcasm, folks.]

The text of the resolution -

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

That's it.

Anyway, what is striking about the debate so far is that the Republicans generally aren't arguing in favor of the President's strategy, other than to say "give it a chance to work before criticizing it."

Nope, their basic plan of rhetorical attack is to lie, dissemble and use straw men.

John Boehner (R-OH), the minority leader, says that the resolution criticizes American troops.

Read the resolution; it doesn't. It praises the troops.

Hell, it barely criticizes Bush.

Referencing terrorism, but speaking in support of the War in Iraq, he said "we didn't start this war, they did."

Which brings the straw man tactic they are using - since there's no justification for the Iraq war, the supporters of the President, his war, and his plan to escalate the war, equate the war in Iraq with the fight against terrorism.

I suppose they might have a point here, since their war has been very effective a creating terrorists that they think we should fight against.

Kind of self-perpetuating, that.

Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) was perhaps the speaker who was most open about why he supports the war and opposes the resolution -

He argues that Muslims, specifically "jihadists", are working for the "downfall of white society."

He may be repulsive, but at least he's open about his racist reasons for supporting the war.

Note: I'm not sure that comment will make it into the official record unsanitized, but I'll post a link if it does.

14 Feb 2007

On edit: I caught the replay of this part of the debate on CSPAN last night, and either Hoekstra's comment was edited out or I simply missed it. I started to wonder if I had actually heard what I thought I'd heard.

However, when I checked the Congressional Record today, it was there.

The exact quote from page H1502 -

Al Banna is not the only studied ideologue. Another name, Sayyid Qutb, wrote, "Islam has a mandate to order the whole of human life, and that the Western idea of separation between religion and the rest of life is, quote, a hideous schizophrenia that would lead to the downfall of white civilization and therefore its replacement by Islam.''

It seems that he was quoting someone else's writings; I'm not sure how much deliberation the congressman and his staff put in to selecting that particular quote.

End edit.

The rest of the debate so far has been more subtle than that, with Democratic supporters of the resolution citing casualty statistics, the lack of defined goals, the incompetency of the civilian leadership of our troops, etc.

Republican opponents of the resolution emphasize the 'non-binding' status of the resolution and deride it as weak and ineffective, but then say it undermines the morale of our troops and emboldens our enemies or they talk about the fight against terrorism.

My take on the resolution: It *is* non-binding and certainly won't compel Bush to pull his head out of his @$$, but if it serves as a first step toward Congress reclaiming its oversight duties under the Constitution, the resolution will be the best bill passed by the 110th Congress.

Not "passed so far", but "passed" period. Nothing they'll do for the rest of their terms will be more important.

Note: I called Harry Mitchell's district office his D.C. office and was told that he is tentatively scheduled to speak on the resolution sometime tomorrow. If I find out a firm time, I'll post it.

On edit, also 14 Feb: According to the congressman's D.C. office, he will be speaking on the Iraq resolution tomorrow (Thursday) around 2 p.m. E.S.T. (noon AZ time). I'd recommend tuning in to CSPAN by 11 a.m. (AZ time) or so - the timing is approximate and depends on the brevity or loquaciousness of the other speakers.

End edit.

Three days of this....ARRRGGHHHHH!!

:)

Later!