« Asian Boy Finishes WarCraft, Kills Self; Parents Sue | Home | Blogger Alert »

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Showdown Under The Capitol Thunderdome

In reporting on last night’s 403-3 vote against surrender, Charles Babington at the Washington Post writes:

But the maneuvering exposed the chamber’s raw partisan divisions and prompted a tumultuous scene, which Capitol Hill veterans called among the wildest and most emotional they had ever witnessed.

The ultimate policy speech, of course, is the vote. By the end of the night, it certainly seemed that everyone was in agreement. If Babington were interested in fair reporting, he’d mention that the House adjourned for the evening far more united—united in refusing to surrender—than as it began the day. That was the practical effect of the GOP’s resolution. It was an effort, and it succeeded brilliantly, to show that dour surrender talk on Iraq is nothing more than politics: no one really wants to give up the fight.

UPDATE: Jason Broander live-blogged the Thunderdomic debate last evening.

MORE: John Buckholz e-mails:

I’m not quite clear on the GOP approach. The flim-flamming has been going on for a while, but I think we deserve an explanation. Whether or not Rep. Murtha has been consistent, and whether or not he’s said some unfortunate things (as you point out), isn’t there something more at issue here, something that shouldn’t be obfuscated by GOP smear tactics?

It seems rather clear that Murtha smeared himself. He called for surrender in the midst of battle. The GOP put his request into words and forced a vote. That’s hardly smear tactics. And though I’d agree that Schmidt went far too far, anyone who watched the whole debate had forgotten about her by the end of the night. Democrats stooped just as low and, in any event, the debate became much more civil with two respectable vets, Sam Johnson and John Murtha, duking it out on the issues just before the vote itself.

John also adds:

And what I resent more than anything is the insinuation from those who matter that if the above words were somehow spoken in a public context, they’d demonstrate a lack of patriotism or concern for “troop morale.”

To which I’d simply reply, any American politician who says anything that al Jazeera reports positively is indeed hurting morale, harming the situation on the ground, and emboldening the enemy. At least two GOP members made this—one of the most powerful points in this debate—last night to some significant effect.

Posted on November 19, 2005 08:41 AM. Permalink