Notes from the Iraq Debate

The Senate was smart to have punted on the non-binding res. For now--their day for this circus sideshow may still come.

Still, watching this debate is a good opportunity to showcase the House: the new Congress, the new Congressmen, the players for foreign and military affairs.

Right now, the way it's working is very disciplined, controlled straight from the Majority leadership. This is not unreasonable since the discussion is still primarily one for electoral advantage. When real legislation comes forward there will be a test of whether they learned how to play the game while being abused in the minority, or whether, as so often occurs in society, the abused become abusers.

It's also, a good opportunity to smack 3-D in the face for his obduracy. For that reason, I expect few Republican defections and very close to a party-line vote in the House.

A few comments on the individual speeches:

David Kildee--MI-5; best analysis of how we got here. The "I had this one right all along" that some have taken is surely the only stance on this farce that shows a respectable level of intelligence (and thus, worthy of having their words heard this time). Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen who can take it, and, in general, the more nuanced, interesting speeches come from those who voted for initial authorization in October '02.
David Obey--WI (Appropriations Chairman); best summation of what we should do. (Inform the Shiites that they must agree to amend the Constitution to form a confederation and divide up the oil money, or we take our bats and balls and leave.)
Steve Pearce--NM-2; quoted Thomas Jefferson on the evils of Islam. Represents the lunatic fringe on the right, but in his frank acceptance of that role has some interesting commentary on the motives of the left.
Heather Wilson--NM-1; Breaking down, went for the "but what about the body armor for those people being sent over now?" melodramatic intentional misreading of the bill as a way to dodge.
Adm. Joe Sestak, PA; I've been suprised to see that he's too shy! He let them cut him off, and didn't even ask for additional time.

A lot of martial talk, some of it very vaguely related to the debate. It reminds me that one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion was to find an outlet for Americans' urge for revenge against radical jihadists.

This particular debate seems to be very frustrating to the Republicans, some of whom are looking to express their displeasure with Bushite strategy, though this doesn't look a likely vehicle (harmless though it is). I'm very sympathetic to any Republicans who truly wanted to contribute to a modification of Iraq war policy through House legislation, but surely they should have known better than to expect something like that.