Peter Wehner has some thoughts over on The Corner about how silly Republican leaders sounded when claiming that a critical number of their own caucus voted no on what all recognize is an important issue (which is not the same as saying it is an issue on which someone simply must vote “yes,” by the way), the bailout bill, because Nancy Pelosi first said mean things when talking about it.

I agree, but also note that the worst that can be said about them, in today’s world, is that they merely sounded so very European.

After all, this is precisely the argument advanced by our continental superiors when explaining their UN and related antics in the run-up to the Iraq invasion (Google “squander post-9/11 goodwill,” a search which at least now also registers many entries pushing back against the absurd talking point).

Many voiced this mindset to me in tony Brussels salons: you said mean things about my global warming treaty, squandering the brotherhood we shared when we all were Americans on September 12. In short: “No Blood for Oil!” But “Blood for Kyoto? Well, OK. . . . ” Does anyone really buy that?

I have enjoyed their wide-eyed looks as I walk them through how, at least in the Euros’ case, that is demonstrable twaddle. We “withdrew” [sic] from a treaty that Clinton never pushed and the Senate never ratified, in March 2001. As I recall, September 11 came somewhat after that (what is it with global-warming types and cause-effect confusion?).

So “squandered post-9/11 goodwill” was nothing but an excuse for certain attitudes and behavior, not a reason, and the same is likely true of the Republicans – if there truly were any — voting against the bill as a result of Nancy Pelosi saying mean things.

My take is that this claim was simply unwise rhetoric by Republican leadership, sort of like when Newt Gingrich accepted responsibility for the government shutdown which came when the president refused to sign legislation – legislation the Congress quite clearly did not refuse to pass. That stuck to his shoe to very bad effect, and I hope yesterday’s nonsense does not serve the media’s purposes in similar fashion.

All of which is to say that maybe it’s time to drop the posturing and keep it simple on the government response to a mess they orchestrated: “fix the problem!” I imagine a chorus of true reformers going to the floor, airwaves, and press availabilities chanting that could help turn this into a true teachable moment. But more shooting from the lip isn’t useful at this point.