Finally, A Debate to Welcome

Gentlemen of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses, the Right has finally opened a door for you. Although flawed and designed as a political tool rather than a stimulant of honest debate on Iraq and the War on Terror, the Republican resolution on Iraq provides a perfect opportunity to address the incompetence and corruption of Republican rule, the spin, the lies, the deceit and division that keep them in power against the best interests of ninety-five percent of all Americans.

They're going into this buoyed by the assassination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, something that has dropped the President's approval rating by two points. I'm sure the paradox, we get a top terrorist and the ratings drop, is weighing heavily on the Republicans. They must be thinking that even when something goes right it goes wrong. What went wrong was all the ebulation in the hours following Zarqawi's death, the huge pictures of the dead in defiance of the Pentagon's own policy - yes, we are aware of the policy, against showing pictures of casualties - and the knowledge that Zarqawi's death won't change anything - al-Qaida has already appointed a new Iraq chief. Americans, given enough chances, will finally see through the lies and the spin and, in the case of Republican prosecution of the war in Iraq and the war on terror, we have.

The resolution is from the onset flawed by declaring that America will win the war on terror. Terror is an emotion, for starters, one that will never be defeated as long as a rapist holds a woman at gunpoint or a driver notices the stalled vehicle he can't avoid. If we are referring to terrorism, a tactic, that war can also never be won as long as there's some kid with a recipe for a pipe bomb and a grudge against a principal. But that violates my principle of visceral argument. If I were a Democratic lawmaker, I'd simply challenge them on every point. How are we winning a war on a tactic? Define progress. What is the victory state or exit strategy from this war? Is it an indefinite war designed to keep the President in wartime powers in perpetuity? How will fighting a tactic, terrorism, be any more effective than fighting a set of substances, drugs?

Republicans want to limit debate on the war on terrorism for one reason: Debating it will expose the fundamental flaws in their prosecution of the war. It is for this reason that we need Jack Murtha to go head-to-head with the Republicans on prosecution of the war in Iraq. They're exposing their underbelly and we should be quick to slice it open for them and revel in the opportunity this resolution presents. Turn the debate to Iraq and this attempt at division and diversion will be ours to win. Expose the errors: It is well known that Saddam didn't support terrorism and no Republican resolution, regardless of the majority, will change that fact. It is also known that Iraq was never the central front in the war on terrorism until we broke Iraq and made it a terrorist haven. They cite Afghanistan as a victory in the war on terrorism even as we're losing it and Somalia to Islamists. They name Libya as a shining example when it's well-known that they gave up terrorism for economic reasons. Simply expose the skewed facts, the spin, the lies and even if the resolution passes, it will be a victory.