Griper Blade: Debating Iraq Without Debating Iraq

OK, this is just stupid. In the debate on Bush's surge in Iraq, GOP House leadership are urging Republican congresscritters not to debate the surge, Iraq, mistakes made in Iraq, or whether or not we can win in Iraq. In a letter (PDF) obtained by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra tell fellow Republicans, "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 Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

So, in a debate about a resolution opposing Bush's surge in Iraq, what do they recommend they discuss, if not the surge and Iraq? "We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" 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..." we're told, "[T]he debate must be about the global threat of the radical islamist movement."

So, what happens to terrorism if we don't win in Iraq? As far as I can tell, pretty much the same thing that happens if we do. It's not like we win in Iraq (whatever that means) and terrorists say, "Well, that's that. We gave it a good shot, but they beat us fair and square. Time to get out of the terrorism business."...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Tags: news | politics | war | Iraq | congress | terrorism | Bush | propaganda | republican | democrat