Iraq debate on Meet the Press

For the record, there are Republicans I like and admire. There really are! Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, even Lindsey Graham, but the former, short-lived Speaker of the House John Boehner (above, right) is one annoying guy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) (above, left) got into a pretty spirited debate this morning on Meet the Press that I found simultaneously interesting and irritating.

The heart of the debate centered on Iraq, where the two leaders and their respective parties fundamentally disagree. Like that's news. (Quick aside - I'm mildly amused at the seating arrangements above - notice the Democrat is on the left and the Republican is on the right.)

Anyway, Iraq can never be brought up these days without two things being immediately stepping to the forefront - the troop escalation, and cutting off funding. Boehner and Hoyer didn't disappoint this morning. (Another quick aside - I'm sick to death of the term troop surge - it's an escalation, Republican morons!)

Quite naturally, Boehner went on the offensive, suggesting that Democrats are going to cut off funding for the troops "in the field," and Hoyer took great pains to assure viewers that Democrats would never do that. This was an exercise in Political Posturing 101.

My only question to Steny Hoyer is, "Why WOULDN'T Democrats cut off funding for the troops?" as a last resort? We've heard nothing but rosy forecasts from this administration since the war began nearly four years ago - "Another six months... another six months... another six months...etc." is all we ever hear. When does the senseless killing end? If it takes the Democrats digging in their heels and cutting off funding to do just that, then so be it.

Does anyone honestly believe that President Bush would leave the troops in the field without MREs, bullets, socks and armor? Yea, right.

What irks me most about the War in Iraq is that both parties have refused to budge, because one side won't admit defeat. I guess simply doing the right thing died a slow death in American politics a long time ago.

The bottom line is that if funding is cut off, the troops are coming home. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may have to happen. Bush and the Republicans will do or say anything to keep the troops over there, and thereby averting defeat of their party's ideals and the fact that a Republican president started this war. So, while both parties bicker and debate, our troops are facing a hail of bullets, terrorism and civil war each and every day. Sleep well, lawmakers.

But, hot dog! Bush hasn't lost this war, yet! So, Republicans hold out hope that they can save face as a party, no matter how many lives, American or Iraqi, it takes. And that's the biggest tragedy of all.

I'm so sick and tired of politicians on television, regardless of party (but admittedly, mostly Republican), getting on TV saying that "Failure is not an option" and that "We must win this war." We are failing, and we aren't winning. But wait! I'm not Supporting the Troops if I say that, right? I'm laughing in the face of the next person who says that to me, because as I've said many times before, people who say that don't understand America, Democracy or freedom.

I have to give props to Hoyer for one thing this morning. Boehner was whining and complaining about cutting off funding for the troops, and Hoyer looked at him and said, "With all due respect, didn't you vote for a non-binding resolution that was against sending 20,000 troops to Bosnia in 1995?"

"That was before troops were in the field," said Boehner.

"Well, the 20,000 the president wants to send is the surge [troops that aren't yet there]," said Hoyer. Score one for Steny. What Hoyer is implying by that statement is that the Democrats are considering cutting off funding for the additional troops that Bush wants to send to the Middle East, not troops who are there now.

A leading proponent of this idea is Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), who had been widely quoted as wanting to add several restrictions about the president's proposed troop escalation.

In this morning's Washinton Post, as discussed on MTP this morning, this was reported about Murtha:

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a sharp critic of the war and the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees defense funding, is separately preparing language to block money for the additional troops in Iraq unless the military meets certain readiness standards. He said he will introduce his proposal on March 15 as an attachment to Bush's request for Iraq war funding. "The hope is we will affect the surge," Murtha said.

Also, from CQ Today (on Murtha):

Murtha said he would probably [try] to block the use of funding to extend the tours of soldiers beyond one year. "We're going to stop that," [Murtha] said.

I don't see nothing wrong with either proposal by Murtha.

Hoyer went on to further explain what Murtha meant, and that's that the additional troops who are headed into the field in Iraq have the proper training and equipment, and if they don't, they aren't going. What Democrat or Republican honestly thinks that's a bad idea?

Boehner had a few more whoppers that are worth mentioning...

"I think we need to find a way to help the Iraqis build a safe-and-secure Iraq," said Boehner at one point. Hey John - the best way we can do that is to leave. I guess he hasn't been paying attention the past four years. With intelligence like this in Congress, I have to ask myself why I'm not running. Not that I'm brilliant or anything like that, but I have common sense and the decency to not put people into harm's way when it's not warranted, and to get those same people out of harm's way when a war isn't working.

Boehner wasn't done with his demagoguery yet, though.

He went on to state that he believes that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists might follow us all the way over here [to America] (and I'm paraphrasing here, but click Here to read the transcript if you don't believe me!).

Is Boehner great, or what? Someone get me the Tom Ridge scare color chart and the duct tape and plastic for the bottom of my door. The terrorists are coming! The Terrorists are coming!

Someone needs to rip that scare tactic out of Karl Rove's playbook and burn it.

And Boehner, like most Republicans, continues to rail that "Democrats don't have a plan." Hey genius, Republicans haven't had a plan for four long years. What about that?

It's time for something different.

Lastly, DemocratIC leaders have stated they want to implement many/most of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's recommendations.

Sounds like a plan to me. Perfect plan? Nope, but it's got to be better than the course we've been taking.

Olbermann on media coverage of Dems

I had to include a quick clip of Keith Olbermann this morning, talking about media coverage about the Democrats' selection of Steny Hoyer late last week. Again, I'm repeating myself, but you'd think the Democrats were having a fight to the death. Absurd.

Pelosi makes history while media takes a nap

Sally Ride. Sandra Day O'Conner. Dee Dee Myers. Madeline Albright. Nancy Pelosi.

Today, Pelosi (Above, Left) made history, joining the list of "women firsts," becoming the first-ever female Speaker of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress.

A funny thing happened on the way to history today, though. The press coverage has been at times idiotic, inaccurate and moronic. On a day history was made, you would have thought the Democrats were assaulting each other with sticks, bats and knives in the U.S. House.

Jack Murtha (Above, second from right) mounted a campaign against Steny Hoyer (above, far right) to be House Majority Leader. Pelosi endorsed Murtha, but today Hoyer prevailed. Big deal. Two men ran against each other, and there was a vote, with a clear-cut winner. But, the coverage has focused on the "in-fighting" among Democrats and how the party is supposedly "divided."

In my humble opinion, the coverage should be focused on two things: Nancy Pelosi's ascension to power in the House, becoming the most powerful woman politician to date in U.S. history; and how Trent Lott, after a racist, unforgivable gaffe in 2002, has returned to a position of power for the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate.

Instead, we get the supposedly liberal press focusing on the Murtha v. Hoyer contest. From what I can see, there is no story, and the trifecta of Pelosi, Hoyer and Murtha are ready to get on with the business of running the House and promoting the Democratic agenda.

I'm looking forward to seeing what these three accomplish. It's put up or shut up time for the Democrats in both houses of Congress. Not only do I hope they don't let me down as a Democrat, I hope they don't let the country down.

Bush/Pelosi pow-wow

I'll keep this one short, but I had to comment on the press conference and the preceding lunch where Pelosi and her people met with Bush and his people. I would have loved to been a fly on the wall when Pelosi and Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer met with Bush and Cheney.

But, so far as the press and the American public could see, everything was terrific. Yea, right. You can almost HEAR the clenched teeth, but I give all involved credit - this is how our democracy works - when the election is over, you put away the gloves and get down to work.

“The elections are now behind us, and the congresswoman’s party won,” said Bush as he and Cheney met with the Hoyer & Pelosi. "But the challenges still remain and therefore, we’re going to work together to address those challenges in a constructive way."

Cheney, however, was conspicuously absent from the mini-press conference that was held after their lunch. Hmmmm. Well, we'll see if that has any significance, although I suspect it doesn't. One thing's for sure, though - this will be one of the very few occasions over the next two+ years when Pelosi and Bush aren't firing flaming arrows at one another.

Following Bush's comments, it was the new Speaker's turn. Pelosi, as has been her norm since Tuesday evening, took the high road, too. "We’ve made history. Now we have to make progress," she said.

Well said, Ms. Speaker. Do us proud.