A Chilling Example of Republican Thought

From Think Progress;

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will hold a debate on the Iraq war. Media reports say Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) “hopes to match the serious, dignified tone of deliberation that preceded the Gulf war, in 1991.”

ThinkProgress has obtained a “Confidential Messaging Memo” from Boehner instructing his caucus to conduct a very different kind of deliberation. Here's a quick summary:

1. Exploit 9/11. The two page memo mentions 9/11 seven times. It describes debating Iraq in the context of 9/11 as “imperative.”

2. Attack opponents ad hominem. The memo describes those who opposes President Bush's policies in Iraq as “sheepish,” “weak,” and “prone to waver endlessly.”

3. Create a false choice. The memo says the decision is between supporting President Bush's policies and hoping terrorist threats will “fade away on their own.”

The full text of the memo follows.

To: House Republican Members

From: House Majority Leader John A. Boehner

Date: June 13, 2006

Re: Confidential Messaging Memo – Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror

This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a debate about the war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and our efforts to strengthen our national security in a post-9/11 world.

The past week has brought news of several important, positive developments in Iraq and the Global War on Terror:

– U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded killer.

– The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and security ministers as part of the new government's continued progress.

– Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minster of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss our growing partnership with the new democratic ally.

Clearly, these positive developments are the result of steadfast support of both our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and across the globe. We should not refrain from touting such progress

During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points:

The Importance of Our Actions

It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.

So, during this debate we must make clear to the American people that the United States had to take action in the best interests of the security of our nation and the world community. As Republicans who supported military action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the United States had to show our resolve as the world's premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.

As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently:

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

A Portrait of Contrasts

This debate in the House of Representatives gives our Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American people our case for strong national security policies whose purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on our own soil.

Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era. Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a fundamental question facing America's leaders:

In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats' weak approach is and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term national security interests of the United States.

Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat

As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.

Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism face difficult challenges. The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many tough days since Iraq's liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy.

Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we face as their rationale or motivation for retreat. As Republicans, we understand the diplomatic and national security hazards of such a move. We must echo the American public's understanding of just how great the stakes are in Iraq and our long-term efforts to win the War on Terrorism.

Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

U.S. House Shoots Down Net Neutrality Provision

There's not much I can add to the article that I've posted below.

The U.S. House of Representatives has defeated a provision to require U.S. broadband providers to offer the same speed of service to competitors that’s available to partners, a major defeat to a coalition of online companies and consumer groups.

The 269-152 House vote against the so-called net neutrality amendment late Thursday came after a last-minute push for the measure from many technology companies. After the House defeated the net neutrality amendment, it passed the underlying bill, a wide-ranging broadband bill focused partly on speeding the rollout of television over IP.

Without a net neutrality law, the Internet will turn into a two-tiered network in which the fastest speeds are reserved for content produced by the large broadband providers and companies that pay extra fees, net neutrality backers said. Customers who want to go to Web content from competing Internet companies will end up in a “slow lane,” net neutrality backers said.

“It is a shame that the House turned its back on the open essence of the Internet,” Gigi Sohn, president of consumer rights group Public Knowledge, said in an e-mail. “Instead, the House ... voted to allow the telephone and cable companies to discriminate by controlling the content that will flow over the network.”

The Senate is debating its own broadband and telecom reform bill, but the current version doesn’t include a net neutrality requirement. Lawmakers have introduced four standalone net neutrality bills, but the defeat in the House could mean the issue is dead until 2007.

Large broadband providers such as AT&T and Verizon Communications opposed a net neutrality law, saying it would bring unneeded regulation to the Internet. There’s little evidence of broadband providers blocking or impairing competing content, they said.

Executives with AT&T and BellSouth in recent months have also talked of new business plans that would allow them to charge Internet companies extra for faster speeds. Broadband providers need new ways of paying for the costs of building next-generation broadband networks, and charging large Internet companies makes the most sense, they said.

The Hands Off The Internet coalition, a group supported by AT&T and BellSouth, praised the House’s defeat of the net neutrality amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. The amendment would have required broadband providers that set aside faster connections for new services such as video over IP to offer the same speeds to competing services.

“Bipartisan common sense won out over the bottom lines of a few big online companies,” Mike McCurry, co-chairman of the Hands Off The Internet coalition, said in a statement. “They would dramatically shift the cost of building tomorrow’s Internet onto the backs of consumers.”

The underlying broadband bill, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, passed by a vote of 321-101. The bill would allow the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to investigate complaints about broadband providers blocking or impairing of Internet content only after the fact.

The bill would also streamline local franchising requirements for telecom carriers that want to offer IPTV services in competition with cable TV. The bill would in essence create a national franchise, allowing AT&T and Verizon to roll out their IPTV services without going through lengthy franchising negotiations with each local government where they want to provide service.

Verizon praised the House passage of the bill. It would bring “more choice, better services and lower price” to consumers, the company said. The company also cheered the defeat of the net neutrality provision, saying Congress “won’t go down the road of legislating solutions to problems that don’t exist.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, also calls for requiring voice-over-IP providers to offer customers enhanced 911 emergency dialing service, and allowing municipal governments to offer broadband data and video services. Verizon and other broadband carriers have opposed municipal broadband services.

Several tech and consumer groups engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign for a net neutrality provision. Members of TechNet, a trade group representing tech vendor senior executives, sent a letter to members of the House Thursday urging support for net neutrality. Among those signing the letter were executives with eBay, Microsoft, and the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capital firm.

Without net neutrality, small companies that can’t afford to pay extra broadband fees won’t be able to compete for customers, said John Doerr, a partner in the influential venture capital firm. “The telephone and cable giants want to be able to add a surcharge on,” he said Thursday. “We have to work hard to make sure there’s not that discrimination.”

-Grant Gross, IDG News Service (Washington Bureau)

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article