The House of Representatives is going to be spending the next three days debating a non-binding resolution that opposes the President’s escalation of the war in Iraq. It will have an effect on the national discourse, but probably little more than that. However, it is illuminating to see the Republican reaction. Let’s take a look at the GOP talking points.
Democrats have very pointedly promoted the nonbinding measure as a direct challenge to the president, a theme that is sure to run through Democratic comments in the debate this week.
But there will probably be little praise for the president from the Republican side of the aisle.
While acknowledging that “mistakes were made,” a set of talking points sent out Monday by Republican leaders to their members does not include a single clear endorsement of Bush’s strategy.
Rather, they focus on putting Iraq in the context of the global war against terrorism, criticizing Democrats as weakening troop morale and challenging Democrats to cut off funding if they oppose the president.
So, here they are:
- 1. Iraq is part of a larger Global War on Terror.
2. Criticizing the escalation hurts the troops’ moral (and emboldens the terrorists).
3. If we really oppose the escalation we should cut off funds (even though the GOP would use procedural shenanigans to prevent that).
We have a serious foreign policy problem. And the GOP is opting to go for misinformation and schoolyard taunts to back up a President that they are afraid to directly support.
This is a totally bankrupt position to take. And the GOP is going to pay heavily for it. Very heavily.
Listening to the GOPers on CSPAN today, it’s pretty obvious who got dealt which talking point cue cards.
Jack Kingston of Georgia says this is an insult to the troops in harm’s way. And he says that if we oppose the war we should vote not to fund it.
Patrick Murphy is not presiding over the Democrats’s side. Yahoooo.
‘now’ not ‘not’.
i cannot believe Patrick Murphy is a Blue Dog, a proud Blue Dog.
It is surprising that he decided to caucus with them. However, he is the house co-sponsor of Obama’s anti-war bill, he’s pro-choice, and he is an all around great guy. He has so far done everything that he promised he would do.
I am just surprised. And I feel really sorry for Ileana Ros-Lehtinan. Or maybe I do not. Will voters in Miami ever wake up? And what about Peter King from New York?
Do you know of anyone in Athens, Georgia, who is ready to run for Charlie Norwood’s vacant seat?
Talking point: Iran and the world is watching. They are watching. They want to see they have broken our resolve.
I’m proud of Patrick. He did really well.
Yes. And did you notice how Ileana Ros-Lehtinan tried to neutralize his presentation by pointing out that Mke Pence’s assistant is a veteran of the Iraq War? The callousness is breathtaking.
I have spoken personally with Patrick Murphy about this, and he told me that he agrees with the blue dogs on “fiscal responsibility and strong national security.” His words not mine. Also told me he wouldn’t have voted for the bankruptcy bill.
I still have the email actually.
He takes the fiscal responsibility stuff seriously, but his loyalty to the party is unquestionable.
There are so many to choose from! I have been trying to listen to this and have gagged from time to time, and other times just hold my ears until they stop their idiotic rants. sheesh!
I hope someone compiles a log of all the idiot Republican arguments, most of which seem to revolved around the central idea that Democrats don’t support the troops because we don’t want any more of them killed!
I am at a loss to understand how sending our children off as cannon fodder in a hopeless, ill-conceived, and illegal war proves that we love them. Or that we have to send more of them to die so that the ones killed last week shall not have died in vain. What am I missing here?
Another talking point: war is ugly, but it is necessary. And it is better to fight them in the beginning before the war becomes worse. I have heard both at least four times. And lots of WWII analogies.
What else can they say? They surely can’t tell the truth:
“We invaded Iraq to control the oil supply for the next 40 years. It doesn’t really matter what happen to the country or its people as long as we can maintain permanent bases from which to threaten the whole region. As a side benefit, we are making our friends very rich while bankrupting America. This provides the perfect opportunity to gut all those “general welfare”, “common good” social programs that have chapped our hide since FDR. You idiots think that appointing incompetents who’ll destroy the social safety net is just lazy greed and cronyism. You fail to appreciate the two-fold genius of attacking every government safety net from within while also rewarding our loyal friends. Because we’re rich, we will benefit all the more when 99.9% of Americans are dirt poor. We can’t wait until China calls in their loans so we can pay them off with your Social Security, providing a perfect excuse to privatize everything. See, war is good because war is the single most efficient way to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.”
now don’t get me wrong but here we are sitting here fiddling while rome burns again. Folks, we do not have the time any longer for non- binding resolutions. These sick bastards are moving a third carrier group into position and you can bet you asses that when this group gets there we will attack Iran. The only answer to this insanity is to immediately start the Impeachment process! yup- that is what is necessary to stop these insane people. Even if it never comes to pass, it will create an alternative focus and it will mobilize the public. All we need is about 6 to 8 months. Then the lame duck can go eff himself.
Think about the alternatives folks.