The Iraq Debate Continues

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats are debating what to do about Iraq. Republicans are united in maintaining an open-ended, indefinite mission in Iraq. Democrats are calling for redeployments. The only problem is that Democrats have two proposals, meaning they're debating each other was well as Republicans. The GOP, of course, is delighted at the sight of their hapless opposition being unable to present a united front. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) offered a nonbinding resolution to pull all troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. The other, supported by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) would begin a "phased redeployment" of troops by the end of the year, with no deadline; this has the support of most Democrats.

Democrats argue that they want to send a signal to the Iraqi government that they want it to take more responsibility for their own country. Republicans were unmoved, calling the Dems defeatist cowards. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) countered with a clearheaded, measured response: "It is time to choose what is more important: a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy for Republicans to win elections here at home."

Unfortunately, "clearheaded" and "measured" don't cut the mustard in a country that values hotheaded rhetoric over clear reason. I almost wish Li'l Kim were representing New York in the Senate. Her response to Republican charges of defeatism would have been, "Who you callin' a chicken, turkey? You motherf----in' jive-talkin' honky, you ain't qualified to bitch-slap me around, I'll slap da taste right outa yo' mouth!" :-D

Of course, that probably would have been stricken from the record. :-O