Repeating Friday’s fiasco

In a year filled with embarrassing, often shameful, congressional theatrics, last Friday’s “debate” on withdrawal from Iraq was among the more disturbing. Apparently, we may see a repeat soon.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) called for a redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, prompting the GOP to pull a little stunt. House Republicans unveiled a one-sentence mischaracterization of Murtha’s position, apparently to set a trap for House Democrats — vote against Murtha or for withdrawal. It was a cynical stunt, Democrats saw through it easily, and the entire fiasco produced little more than news accounts about Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) calling Murtha a “coward.”

The odd thing is that those same House Republicans seem to look at the debacle as a success. Indeed, they seem almost anxious to do the whole thing all over again.

The Republican who initiated last week’s overwhelming House vote to keep U.S. troops in Iraq said he will do it again if Democrats don’t cease their calls for withdrawal.

“If they start this again, we’ll call the vote again,” said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, whom members credited with suggesting holding a vote. “As far as I’m concerned, if they haven’t learned from this, if they go back to this cheap talk, I would be more than happy to call for another vote.”

It’s as if House Republicans will do anything to avoid a substantive debate over the future of the war, even if that means repeating the same petty partisan games over and over again. Shameless.

It is all they can do at this point in time. This is their “4 corners offense,” hoping to run out the clock with no real debate, no investigation and therefore no inconvenient revelations on the run-up to war prior to the 2006 elections.

  • A few weeks ago, I made a statement claiming Texas Senators & Reps were the looniest of all. Someone from Arizona begged to differ with me and mentioned Hayworth as proof. I saw Hayworth on Hardball last night. I may have to concede. Hayworth is truly a juiced up nutzoid.
    Disclaimer: This in no way suggests that Cornyn is sane.

  • I’m from AZ originally. Left years ago about the time Heyworth was making the jump from Limbaugh-style local sportscaster to the House. He’s a goof and has done little but cement that fact every time I’ve heard him speak. He’s a freak and an embarassment, but then Phoenix isn’t a normal place.

  • “The odd thing is that those same House Republicans seem to look at the debacle as a success.”

    And the right wing bloggers, too. I was stunned
    by the number of comments that applauded this
    ridiculous stunt. They really seem to think it
    put the Dems in their place. Exposed them as
    hypocrites. Apparently, they have no idea that it
    was a cynical misrepresentation of Murtha’s
    position. Are these people really that simple
    and shallow?

  • They believe they won a victory because it’s all about the fight itself — not the outcome, or even the point of it all.

    They ENJOY the fighting, the anger. So do the people who keep electing them.

    (Meanwhile, Juan Cole is reporting that the Iraqi request for a withdrawal timetable WAS CRAFTED BY THE UNITED STATES. What happens if Bush & Co. “stay the course” and then pull the rug out from under Hayworth & Co.?)

  • While the Democrats did avoid the obvious trap of voting for the nonsensical “immediate withdrawal” bill proposed by the Republicans, they may yet be caught in the more nuanced trap of “flip-flop” accusations should they now manage to get to the house floor a well designed, rational withdrawal plan they can vote for.

    A sizable part of the US population will not look beyond accusations of changing positions to the specific validity of the bills in question. And there are sufficient “news reporting” organizations which will not provide the in depth knowledge of said bills in their articles.

    I think the Democratic approach to the submission of a Republican sponsored bill; so vapid as to be incoherent when viewed in relation to the situation it is addressing; should be to refuse to vote on the bill at all as a matter of principle. The substantial Present/Not Voting number could be explained to the public as not wanting to waste time and money on nonsensical drivel.

  • Comments are closed.