The resolution the House is debating this week is surprisingly straightforward; House Dems even managed to keep the whole thing to just 58 words. Point #1 says we support the troops; point #2 says Congress “disapproves” of Bush’s escalation strategy.
And yet, listening to this week’s debate, it seems as if most of the Republican caucus wants to ignore the resolution and debate something else. As it turns out, that’s a deliberate strategy.
So this explains a lot. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office has obtained a letter that GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra sent out to House GOP colleagues about escalation. The letter gives GOP members pointers on how they should approach the battle over it on the House floor this week.
Hoyer’s office has now posted the letter on his Web site (.pdf), and it lays bare the GOP’s strategy for dealing with debate over the House’s anti-escalation resolution and reveals just how worried party leaders are about having a genuine discussion about the “surge.”
It sure does. “The debate should not be about the surge or its details,” Shadegg and Hoekstra told the GOP caucus. “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. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”
It’s an unusually helpful admission. The resolution is about whether the escalation is a good policy, a matter which Republicans should be prepared to debate on its merits. But they’ve come to realize that substantive discussion of the issue at hand is a loser for them.
We could have told them that a long time ago. Come to think of it, I think we did.
So, if Republicans don’t like the resolution but are too scared to debate it, what do they want to talk about? According to the strategy memo from Shadegg and Hoekstra, “the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamic movement.”
Maybe the House can have that debate next. After all, the facts aren’t on their side when it comes to the global threat, either.
I’d love it if Dems could make the GOP a deal: drop the nonsense and debate the Iraq resolution on the merits, and then the House can have another debate on the administration’s broader national security goals. Given what we know, Republicans are on the wrong side of both.
For what it’s worth, the Majority Leader’s office has the Shadegg and Hoekstra strategy memo posted as a .pdf, but for those of you who can’t open .pdf documents, and for those who want to be able to copy and paste from the document itself, I went ahead and transcribed the whole thing. It’s worth reading, if for no other reason, to see how scared GOP leaders are of a serious debate on the subject at hand.
* * * * *
Iraq Resolution Debate
Their Terms or Ours?
February 13, 2007
We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.
Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President’s new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.
We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all “un-believers” by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.
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. If we let the Democrats force us into a debate on the surge, or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.
Rather, the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement. No radical Islamist leader, including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahari, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has ever claimed that the goal of radical Islam is Iraq alone or if they succeed in Iraq this war against us would end. In fact, Robert Kagen recently wrote a piece for the Washington Post entitled “Grand Delusion” noting many politicians’ desire to wish the war away. He notes that those who call for an end to the war don’t want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end, but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away.
Thanks to the liberal mainstream media, Americans fully understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq — both in American lives and dollars. The American people do not understand the consequences of abandoning that effort or the extreme views, goals, and intentions of the radical Islamist movement that is fueling the war in Iraq and the attacks on westerners and unbelievers throughout the world.
The attached map and list of some of the attacks worldwide since 2002 illustrates the global nature of this threat.
Join us in asking our Democratic colleagues the essential question: If we do not defeat radical Islam in Iraq, then where will we do so?
We will send further information in the coming days. However, should your staff require further details, please have them contact Eric V. Schlecht at 5-3361 to get these insightful books: “Knowing the Enemy” by Mary Habeck and “America Alone” by Mark Steyn.
Sincerely,
John Shadegg
Pete Hoekstra