House Democrats Don't Want To Debate The Consequences

Well, the boys and girls over at Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine are whining (again) about the House GOP and its effort to control the terms of the debate under the idiotic title "House GOP doesn't want to debate the war."

Well, not exactly. This time, it's over the meaningless, craven, "non-binding" resolution offered by Democrats opposing the President's strategy on Iraq. Not that Democrats have any "strategy" other than appeasement and, ultimately, surrender. But they apparently fear the electoral consequences of actual action on their purported "convictions," i.e., if you oppose our efforts in Iraq, then you should have no compunction about defunding the effort.

Here's what the boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine said, citing another far Left website:

Via ThinkProgress, a leaked letter circulated by the House GOP leadership:

In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: "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." Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate "the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

The kids declare it "stupifying."

Well, not exactly. They do provide a link to the actual letter, which is something other than "stupifying." Perhaps that explains why they don't mention the actual upshot of the letter:

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.

Congressmen Shadegg and Hoekstra (the latter, a former client of mine), instead propose that:

... the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement. No radical Islamist leader ... 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.

Apparently, the far Left find it "stupifying" that someone would suggest that the debate should not be over short-term pain, but rather, about long-term consequences. Sound familiar?

Dishonestly is the stock in trade of the far Left. They shrink from truth and consequences like vampires shrink from crosses. So instead of addressing these important issues, they depend upon their echo chamber in the far Left blogosphere to offer nothing more than astonished belittlement.

It is hardly surprising that thinkers of this calibre are "stupified" by the suggestion that the long-term consequences of their short-term electoral strategy be considered. What is truly sad is the fact that such craven behavior may be gaining traction with the American public.