Straw Man Collapse

The straw man strategy has worn thin.

I don't know why, exactly. The dissent-is-treason and you're-with-us-or-you're-a-terrorist pretzel logic, the shrill rhetoric played so effectively by the White House over the past few years, no longer inspires dance. The nation seems to be yearning for a new sound, something a little less derivative and with a better beat.

At least the song didn't work for the House Republicans in their bald-faced attempt to distort Rep. John Murtha's call for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Because the GOPers couldn't really pin the Vietnam War hero and defense hardliner as a leftist loon (well, Scott McClellan tried, but it was just too laughable to stick), they went to Plan B, the straw man approach.

It goes like this:

A says it wants C.
B says C is really D.
B bashes A for saying D.

It seemed crafty, at first blush: Claim Murtha is calling for immediate troop withdrawal (as soon as is "practicable" was Murtha's actual caveat) and force the Democrats to vote on it. Well, gosh 'n golly, no wonder the make-believe resolution authored by Repubs only garnered 3 votes of support. No one credible in this policy debate supports immediate troop withdrawal -- Murtha, least of all -- and so the vote ended up an exercise in would-be political gamesmanship.

New Donkey writes:

"Listening to House Republicans scream about staying the course, fighting the terrorists on their turf, bringing democracy to the Middle East, etc., etc., you'd never know their Senate counterparts had voted overwhelmingly to repudiate the administration's strategy in Iraq. For his part, Murtha, put in the impossible position of leading the opposition to what Republicans were describing as his resolution, pretty much limited himself to reading letters from troops and their families supporting his earlier statement. There was no real debate.

"It's not surprising, given Murtha's credentials, that Republicans gave most of their time to Vietnam vets, but what was surprising was how often they expressed the opinion that America 'cut and run' in Vietnam, and how angry they still seem to be that we didn't stay there until, well, eternity."

Maybe the Vietnam comparisons were appropriate for other reasons. The so-called debate itself seemed to be a quagmire.

As The Washington Post reports:

"At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"'He asked me to send Congress a message -- stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message -- that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,' Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.

"Democrats booed and shouted her down -- causing the House to come to a standstill.

"Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks. 'You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!' yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass."

Yes, they certainly are. The resulting 3-403 vote defeating the absurd resolution simply illustrated the depths that a political party will sink to once it is pissing blood and shitting the bed.

America is waking up, and the same old propaganda isn't cutting it.

Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq War (and whether we must remain until, well, eternity), surely we can all agree that elected leaders should and must behave with responsibility, honesty and integrity.

Instead, the House Republicans acted like buffoons.

Sad buffoons. And the saddest thing of all: Only a year ago their bogus resolution would've been perceived by political observers as genius.