On Thursday, the House of Representatives will hold a debate on the Iraq war. Media reports say Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) “hopes to match the serious, dignified tone of deliberation that preceded the Gulf war, in 1991.”
ThinkProgress has obtained a “Confidential Messaging Memo” from Boehner instructing his caucus to conduct a very different kind of deliberation. Here’s a quick summary:
1. Exploit 9/11. The two page memo mentions 9/11 seven times. It describes debating Iraq in the context of 9/11 as “imperative.”
2. Attack opponents ad hominem. The memo describes those who opposes President Bush’s policies in Iraq as “sheepish,” “weak,” and “prone to waver endlessly.”
3. Create a false choice. The memo says the decision is between supporting President Bush’s policies and hoping terrorist threats will “fade away on their own.”
You can read the confidential memo for yourself HERE."
Well, that link says a lot about the word "confidential" in our post-9/11 world. But this paragraph indicates just why they wanted to keep it confidential, and why it did not remain so.
Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.Isn't it just wonderful - aside from the actual, very troubling policies - to be told what you, as a Republican, must believe in the face of near-overwhelming reality?
These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats’ weak approach is and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term national security interests of the United States.
How very Orwellian.
As a Libertarian, or perhaps more accurately, a Jeffersonian Democrat, I will state with conviction that there is almost no case where the use of force by the State against anyone can "protect my ideals." I suggest that the ideals held by the Majority Leader and El Presidente de la Norte have nothing whatsoever to do with any idea or ideal Jeffeson ever set pen to write about - save in terms of the starkest condemnation.
But even if all the Republican members are still dedicated drinkers of the Kool-Aide, they have staffs. Staffs that are neither idiots nor interested in the sort of disruption to their lives and families that a continued Republican majority would entail. Staffs that would like to be working toward their own goals for people that have a faint hope of achieving them.
With the proper guidance, of course.
Oh, and they might just have some ethical issues with the Leader, if not purely moral ones. But as pure long-term political survival is sufficient to explain such leakage, I invoke Occam's Razor.
tag: leaks, house majority leader, talking points, 9/11, social control, ethics, politics, bush cronies, John Boehner, Republicans, Jeffersonian Democrat, , terrorism, foreign policy