Leaked letter explains why House Republicans refuse to debate Iraq war
Still fighting the flu, I caught the first day of the House debate on Iraq in dribs and drabs as I lay wrapped in my sweaty bed sheets floating in and out of consciousness [insert requisite whining here].
Even in that woozy state, I noticed that only one side was debating Iraq. Every time a GOPer would step to the plate, they'd start blabbering about God only knows what. One spoke of the attack on the USS Cole, another -- I think it was King from Iowa -- started with a lesson about the Barbary Pirates in the late 1700s and another delved into a lengthy and frankly silly explanation of Why "They" -- the Islamofascists -- Hate Us that seemed geared to an audience of eight year-olds.
I wasn't the only one to notice; ThnkProgress found Missouri rep Todd Akin's discourse on Davey Crockett bizarre, and Dana Milbank noted that across the board, Republicans "preferred to talk of wars other than the one underway in Iraq":
Blunt … chose Vietnam. "President Johnson was criticized a generation ago, and still today, for choosing bombing sites in Vietnam," he argued. "But his actions made infinitely more sense than this."
