This is exactly why Russ Feingold was so prescient in pushing the Iraq debate forward today; because the batshit insane Republicans will give a million commercials' worth of soundbites that will show their callousness, stupidity, and tone-deafness on this issue. We've already extracted at least two today. Here's the first.
Speaking about a Democratic proposal to force Iraq troop withdrawal within 120 days, Hutchison said Tuesday that such a proposal would "put a bullet right in the hearts of our troops who are there."
Really?
I think what puts a bullet right in the hearts of our troops are... bullets. Bullets shot by Iraqi insurgents. Bullets shot by Shiite militia. Bullets that have killed nearly 4,000 Americans. Bullets that could have been stopped by the body armor that she voted against providing those troops.
"Poor choice of words from a senator who voted against providing our troops with the body armor needed to stop bullets in the first place," said Rodell Mollineau, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Indeed, Reid's office was quick with the oppo research, producing a 2003 vote in which Hutchison joined other Republican senators to kill an amendment that would have provided $322 million for body armor and other equipment while reducing funds for Iraq reconstruction.
Get this, Hutchinson's office is spinning that she meant to say "bulls-eye". Which is of course, better. It's better to metaphorically target a troop for murder than to do the actual metaphorical killing yourself, you see.
This isn't even the only slip of the lip of the day. Huckleberry Graham, who has repeatedly pronounced that the Iraqi government would be reconciling its disparate factions any day now, has now claimed the job is done:
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) returned this week from a trip to Iraq and was “brimming with optimism.” This morning on Fox News, Graham said he wishes Washington would be more like Baghdad:
"The truth is that political reconciliation in Iraq is going better there than it is here at home because of better security."
So, does Graham really want Washington to function more like Baghdad? Does he want to see one political faction assassinating the other’s officials? Politically-linked murders of judicial investigators, doctors, and politicians? Sectarian bombings of civilians trying to freely practice their religion?
I always wonder if that makes the Republicans the Shi'a or the Sunni in that scenario.
The point here is that Republicans somehow think this kind of talk bolsters their case on Iraq, when in fact they are completely out of touch. As an example, hundreds of American troops are dead because Congress and this Administration failed to do their job to provide equipment like armored vehicles in a timely manner. And those who want to pull us out of this nightmare, which at best will be a quagmire based on the input of all the experts, the ones interested in ending this occupation are the ones shooting a bullet into the hearts of the troops? This is was passes for the Republican side of this debate?
In that case, let's have this debate every day from now until November.