House GOP doesn't want to debate the war

By: Rob
Published On: 2/13/2007 11:03:07 PM

Via ThinkProgress, a leaked letter circulated by the House GOP leadership:
In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: "The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily." Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate "the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
No kidding. Read the whole letter, it's stupifying.

Comments



Died in vain? (Quizzical - 2/14/2007 12:42:45 AM)
I listened to part of the House debate today, and heard one Republican Congressman tell a story about how the father of a Marine who was killed in the battle for Fallujah asked him to not allow his son to have died in vain. 

As a nation we've certainly made a huge investment in the Iraq conflict, both in blood and money.  We've lost a lot of good men and women.  When I read some of the obituaries I often think that we are losing people that this nation, big as it is, can't afford to lose.  So it is fair to suggest that it might make sense to try to salvage the situation rather than simply cut our losses and withdraw. 

However, when I hear this type of reasoning about not allowing our soldiers to have died in vain on the one hand, and the constant re-definition of what "victory" would be, on the other, there's quite a disconnect.  These days, "victory" has been redefined to mean leaving a stable Iraq government in place that wouldn't be a sanctuary for terrorists.  That could mean a lot of things, anything from a military dictatorship (a new Saddam Hussein) to an Islamic Republic (Iran's little brother).  So -- they will not have died in vain if we leave a stable military dictatorship?  Or an Islamic Republic? 

So we would be fighting the global war on Islamic extremists by installing an Islamic Republic in Iraq? 



Danger for Democrats - need Mark Warner (Bernie Quigley - 2/14/2007 6:21:46 AM)
At this point there seems to be nothing to win in Iraq. Jim Webb should take the lead discussion in public persona in Senate and I'd like to see Carol Shea-Porter do so in House. Danger is as expressed today in Harold Meyerson's column in W. Post: "The Ghost of New Hampshire." Dems become the "anti-war" party. The author calls Senator Clinton the new Ed Muskie and Obama and Edwards the new "McGoverns."

This will hand the Presidency in '08 to McCain as it did to Nixon in 1972. We can win the debate and win the Presidency, but not with the same people. Senators are supposed to be warriors who fight it out with sticks and knives leaving piles on the floor. But to send the same warrior to the Presidendial race is not effective (that is why Senators should not run for President).

This Iraq war is being compared to Vietnam now but lessons should be learned from the Mexican War. Ulysses S. Grant said it was a war simply of the strong against the weak (as the Iraq invasion was presented as a cake walk). However, he said, anyone who did not participate in it would not participate in the dramatic historical events ahead in either North or South. The "anti" people did not, he said. People have to be satisfied that they did the right thing in going to war and if we become the "anti war" party we appear to be besmerching the honor of the common people who fought. We are not, but it is hard to explain at the Legion Hall.

That is why we need a Presidential candidate who is not part of the Senate & House floor debates & is "distanced" from the debate. In the Presidential race next we need to appear to be turning a historical page and going "home" and getting "post war" and going on to the next thing. We did that with Jimmy Carter. In this case that would be Mark Warner.