So Rep. Jack Murtha yesterday made a speech supporting withdrawal of troops from Iraq, a speech in which he stated the following:
My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
That does not mean he wants to leave troops there until it is the right time to leave, he believes the right time is now (‘immediate redeployment’) and the only consideration regarding the withdrawal should be that it is done in a way that the withdrawal is not a bloody retreat in which security will be so lax that thousands will die in the withdrawal. In the Q and A following his statement, he reiterated that point:
Q: Congressman, Republicans say that Democrats are calling for withdrawal, are advocating a cut-and-run strategy. What do you say to that criticism?
REP. MURTHA: It’s time to bring them home. They’ve done everything they can do. The military’s done everything they can do. This war has been so mishandled from the very start. Not only was the intelligence bad, the way they disbanded the troops, there’s all kinds of mistakes that have been made. They don’t deserve to continue to suffer. They’re the targets. They have become the enemy! Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. The public wants us out of there.
Rep. Murtha then introduces a piece of legislation which calls for the following:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The GOP strips down all of the other nonsense from Murtha’s resolution, and plans to hold a vote on the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
In other words, the same damn thing. They will vote on an immediate withdrawal of troops, just as Murtha expressed in his bill and in his statement.
And Kos is pissed. First, he tells the Democrats to run from the vote:
Actually, the smartest thing to do would probably be to simply disappear for the vote. A 218-0 vote would be pretty useless as a political weapon for the GOP. No need to give them the satisfaction of a vote.
This is what you guys want! You have been telling the public for a year now that we have lost in Iraq, and Armando spends everyday calling for the withdrawal oof troops from Iraq, and now we are going to have a vote on it, and you tell your folks not to vote? Gimme a damned break. You want the troops out- here is your damned vote.
Then, Kos freaks out because some in the press are calling the GOP version the ‘Murtha bill.’ I can’t control the media, but this is absurd:
Funny how the Republicans in the debate keep referring to the “Democrat resolution”, even though they introduced it and it bears ZERO resemblance to the actual Murtha resolution.
Why are Republicans afraid to bring Murtha’s actual resolution up to a vote, rather than this nakedly political piece of shit? And why do they insist on calling their own resolution a “Democrat” resolution?
What a bunch of liars.
You want the troops out. You consistently state the public supports you. You have spent the last two years saying Bush lied to you, this was a war for oil, and so on. You tell us over and over again the public is behind you. You now have a vote on what Murtha proposed yesterday- immediate withdrawal of the troops.
So shut up, quit your damned whining, reach down between your legs and grab a pair of grapes, and vote on the resolution. It is as simple as it gets. Do you favor immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq? Yes or no.
Even an unnuanced simpleton like me can figure this one out.
*** Update ***
I have learned some interesting things in the comments. Apparently, without the word ‘practicable’ in the resolution, what is going to happen is that military commanders all over Iraq will come out in to the middle of their compounds with bullhorns, and state the following:
“Attention troops. This is a retreat and an unplanned withdrawal. Throw down your weapons and head for the border. Congress called for immediate withdrawal, and failed to tell us to do it when ‘practicable.’ Therefore, we are going to throw aside all of our training and years of logistics experience and just run like hell.”
aop
Pretty smart move by the GOP.
jg
The republicans aren’t interested in going along with Murka. They want to use his statements back at him. Its politics. Why should the dems play along? You think it isn’t a stunt?
Mike S
Murtha’s resolution.
So why won’t they bring it to a vote as he has writen it?
Jay
I love Murtha’s ridiculous “over the horizon presence” of Marines. In Syria? Iran?
Good for the GOP. The Democrats wanted to make this a political issue and they got and now they’re showing they’re full of hot air.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Democratic stupidity? This should be filled under Republican stupidity.
Honestly, talk about playing politics with a war. This vote is 100% PR. The only people this stupid bullshit pleases is rabid defenders of the Iraq War. Which is the GOP’s goal anyway right now–pander to the base that way Bush can’t go below 30.
Unfortunately, your dumbass is falling for it.
This vote is akin to the Democrats bringing forth a vote on “Whether Bush is doing a good job on that war effort”
Shut up and vote? Give me a break.
Rick Moran
Dems have been caught like rats in a trap and are having apoplectic fits. It’s one thing to spend day after day calling for the troops to come home, that the war is lost, that Bush is evil, yada yada… Apparently it is quite another to actually, you know, put your money where your mouth is and VOTE.
I guess they want the luxury of trashing the war without going on record as being against it. Smart, but cowardly.
John Cole
Earliest practicable means that the earliest date it is safe to withdraw them, not meaning he wants them to stay indefinitely until the war is won. The important point is the “HERBEY TERMINATED” bit.
Of course the military is not going to withdraw in a dangerous way, so the ‘practicable’ crap is something for the Dems to hide behind.
You want the troops out? Murtha said he wants the troops out? Then vote to immediately withdraw them. Plain and simple. Vote to withdraw the troops, or STFU.
Pb
John Cole,
Hardly.
Apparently you can’t. Is what’s left of the GOP also composed of simpletons as well? It would explain a lot.
SomeCallMeTim
What total bullshit. If the two resolutions are the same, why not just vote on the one Murtha actually wrote? Then you could accurately claim he was the author, too. Because it’s not the same. Jeebus. This is even your field, John. Gimme a fucking break.
Unless you have an explanation for why they couldn’t vote on something authored and offered by Murtha for attribution, I have no idea why you wouldn’t think there were significant differences.
Are you telling me that if I “strip down” your posts and put them up around the Internet, you have no problem with me attributing them to you? With no authorization or approval from you for how I strip it down? I eagerly await this answer.
Total bullshit.
jg
Plain and simple? Lack of understading of how politics is played the same as lack of understanding of military life. Hopefully no revious or future congressional types go batshit on you.
Mike S
ppGaz
DKos is right, the Republicans can’t tolerate any dissent, or any actual debate on this topic. It’s a little like some blogs in that respect. But I digress …
Where do you think you are going with this, John? Are you headed for being one of those old Iraq War Hawks who will spend your dotage explaining how the “media” caused us to lose Iraq, following in the footsteps of the TallDaves of the world? Pooh-poohing those “stupid voters” who don’t have enough sense to keep America clapping for its most boneheaded governments in TallDave-esque fashion?
Sure, I’m piling it on thick. But underneath it lies the question: Where do you see yourself headed with this? Are you really prepared to ride this Iraq clusterfuck all the way to the bottom?
Lines
Ahhhhemmm!
Flame War!
And the first few rounds are done and over before I even have had a chance to throw out my moonbattery frosting! Its like blueberry, but better!
Rep. Jean Schmidt had great things to say about Murtha: (you know, the Jean Schmidt that loves her some military men and shows it by calling them cowards).
But just to post my two cents, John is either trying to draw everyone into a flame war, since posting has been light this afternoon, or he’s high on glue.
The Disenfranchised Voter
And kos is completely right. The Democrats should refuse to vote on such a stupid fucking bill. Especially given that some Repubs are claiming it is a Democratic bill.
Wow, more Orwellian tricks! Let me know when 1984 has arrived would ya–if it hasn’t already.
Refusing to vote is the best way to stop this misleding, political football shit.
John Cole
Murtha stated he wants immediate withdrawal of the troops. His bill asked for deployment to be ‘hereby terminated.’ The GOP bill removes all the bullshit, and states that a vote of ‘aye’ means that you favbor exactly what Murtha said yesterday and proposed in his bill.
Now go vote on it. You want the troops out, vote AYE. You want the troops to stay, vote NAY.
It is straightforward, simple, and can not be distorted or spun. And for whatever reason, that bothers you.
ppGaz
No.
But of course, what is going on in Washington is theater, not government.
I am not sure what the word is for what is going on in the blahsphere at this point.
Probably just “blah”.
John Cole
The bill is simple. DO YOU SUPPORT IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TROOPS?
Yes or no.
Simple. And you folks are whining about Orwell. I wish every damned vote was this straightforward.
Pb
John Cole,
“THE bill” is demonstrably not the same. In a number of ways. To say otherwise makes you a fool, a liar, or both. What’ll it be.
jg
GOP bill? I thought it was a Dem bill written by GOP.
ppGaz
Well, without wasting my evening reading the texts, I think the Republican version deliberately strips out the buffered drawdown which makes the withdrawal at least safe for the troops. It’s my impression from a scan that this language was deliberate so as to try to leverage as much phony theater as possible from the voting.
As usualy, if there’s bait out there, you’ll swallow it and the hook and the line and the sinker and the fishing pole.
Jay
Man, this move by the GOP has really touched a moonbat nerve. You play with the bull, you get the horns. The Democrats should put their money with their mouths are or like John said, STFU.
Chickens.
John Cole
PPGAZ- The military will not withdraw in a way that makes it dangerous, and the House and Senate will not demand it. This bill is straightforward. Do you want the troops to remain, or go?
Yes or no.
ppGaz
Jesus, John, give it up. You aren’t even in the ballpark.
This whole thing goes down as yet another nail in the Republican tire.
Who is more qualified, in the Congress, to write his own measure, than Murtha? Why isn’t his text the one being voted on?
If your goal on this pleasant Friday evening is to piss on our legs and yell “It’s raining” because you have no entertainment lined up …. well, too bad. You lose.
Pb
John Cole,
Ah, but the REPUBLICAN House bill *is* demanding it! Why does your party want to CUT AND RUN, John?
Mike S
Bullshit. The re-write makes it look as if he is calling for a mass withdrawll immediately.
Not to mention that this bill never went to committee for mark-up. That telle me that the cowards that run your party are afraid that when the bill was refined that their own people may vote for it.
Davebo
Well, I can’t say I’m suprised that John misrepresented both Rep. Murtha’s proposal and the childish reaction by the Republicans.
But John Avarosis has an interesting idea.
What do you think John?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/democratic-house-members-should.html
Some might call it childish. But no more so than the GOP bill today and this idiotic rant of yours.
jg
How this isn’t seen as an obvious political game is beyond me. Seriously John, you think the GOP is playing this straight up? What basis is there for believing this isn’t something to use against the dems later?
If the bills the same why not vote on the one the dem actually wrote?
Why rewrite half of it then say put up or shut up?
ppGaz
Asked and answered, John. Months ago. I’ve made my position on this clear a number of times: No.
Next question?
Pb
Mike S,
Another obvious difference: the Republican bill doesn’t do a damn thing. It’s a “sense of the House” resolution. It has no teeth. It is a waste of space. Pure pathetic disgusting politics.
caleb
“The bill is simple. DO YOU SUPPORT IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TROOPS?”
If the bill is “simple”, why do they have to change it?
Common sense loses this round.
SomeCallMeTim
So call for a vote on the bill he offered, don’t offer your own bill in his name. Or call the bill your own, and get a temperature based on what that says. But don’t pretend the two say the same thing. If they said the same thing (and, seriously, this can’t be a hard thing to understand), you wouldn’t need the second bill.
This is unbelievably disingenous.
Pb
Davebo,
Ha ha, that’s a great idea!
Heck of a job, Bushie!
Perry Como
It’s obvious that the Democrats are just trying to hide behind “words” in order to obfuscate the fact that they hate our troops. Thank God that the Republicans had the wherewithal to introduce a resolution that says what Murtha really meant. In a body that creates laws we would hate for “words” to get in the way.
The Republicans should introduce another amendment to the resolution (the Rep. Jean Schmidt should introduce it):
It is further resolved that the Democrats hate America, hate our troops and they are traitors.
rs
“redeployed at the earliest practicable date”=”terminated immediately”?Make sure you have a lawyer present for any contracts you sign.
M.A.
PPGAZ- The military will not withdraw in a way that makes it dangerous, and the House and Senate will not demand it. This bill is straightforward.
It is no such thing. It says “immediately,” and that’s a deliberate way of making it look like Murtha wants the troops out whether it’s safe or not.
Unless the Republicans are prepared to vote on a bill for a gradual withdrawal of troops, without adding nonsense to make it look like Murtha wants all the troops out immediately, the Republicans are not serious. Which they aren’t.
Davebo
Other possible resolutions to offer:
– We are winning the Iraq war.
– Invading Iraq was a great idea.
– Knowing what they know now they’d vote to invade Iraq again.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The Orwell comment had to do with the Republicans calling this the Democratic bill when it was authored by Republicans you twerp.
I’d let to see you tell me they aren’t conciously calling it the Democratic bill when they know it is not. How great would it be to have the Democrats turn down a “Democratic” bill?
The bill is a Republican bill, they know that. This lying shit they are pulling is straight out of 1984.
jg
I bet thats exactly how Rush, Hannity and Oreilly will spin it too. “The dems want to cut and run’. The truth won’t matter.
Lines
Very very few elected Democrats have called for an immediate withdrawl and to distort the blahosphere as all “liberals” and “all liberal views” of Iraq is disengenuous.
Caruso, bite my ass you worthless shit throwing cretin. You know nothing of what you speak, your reading capabilities equal that of a trained baboon. Go crawl back under Oliver’s umbrella and try to find a spine, you twit.
But after any bill has been editted by Republicans before being brought up for a vote, it usually means they are doing it for political reasons, not because its a worthwhile bill anymore.
Never trust Republican’s when they are in power.
Shit, never trust them when they arn’t in power. Its the best way to feel a sting between your shoulderblades.
Mike S
It’s made dishonest dicks happy is what it’s done. This is what your party does. they re-write bills in the worst possible light. It’s the party of fucking cowards now. I expect assholes like you nto cheer it, I expect better from people like John.
John Cole
Is Perry Como Doug J.? It is getting so I do not know whether or not to respond to some of you (Doug J has been using multiple IP’s, I think).
As for John’s suggestion at Americablog, fine with me. I would vote no, he is not doing a good job.
Davebo
John
And as to the other suggestion. Specifically the “Knowing what you know now would you authorize the war?”
John Cole
M ike S.- How is this re-writing the bill unfairly?
TYhe Democrats want the troops out now. They have stated so repeatedly. They state the public agrees with them. Murtha asked for immediate withdrawal yesterday.
Now they can vote on it.
And quit pretending the vote makes it looks like you don’t care about troop safety in the withdrawal. It is a simple vote.
Do you want the troops to remain in Iraq, or do you want them withdrawn? Period.
ppGaz
Time to come down off the ceiling. I don’t think there’s strong support for an “immediate withdrawal.” I have never advocated one, myself.
So what will the assholes … er, I mean Republicans … get from today’s theatrics? They’ll get credit for trying, again, to make a political game out of a war.
Before you jump to defend these spuds, remember …. you are dealing with a president who made a comedy routine out of not being able to find WMDs in Iraq.
A comedy routine. Think carefully. Are these the guys you want to go down defending? People who made jokes out of the WMDs our troops died to defend us from?
Think carefully.
cd6
I think the Republicans fucked it up by not putting out Murtha’s resolution. THEN they could say “vote for it, now”
Instead, by putting up their own version, which nobody on the left thinks is the same, they let the dems vote “no” and then say they were voting out of protest for the bill replacement, while their personal opinions on withdrawal remain off the record.
Sojourner
The reality is very simple. The Bush administration, through deception, incompetence, or both, got the US into a war that has no successful resolution. That’s the sad truth.
All this BS concerning whether the Dems want an immediate withdrawal is a temporary diversion from this reality.
Nobody knows how to bring this to a successful resolution. How many years, how many decades, is it going to take to bring the Iraqis to the point where they can defend their own country? The fact that after two years, the number of fully trained troops is in the low thousands (not tens of thousands) is a clear indication of the problem. In the mean time, Iraq continues to serve as a useful training ground for terrorists.
So cut the shit about how the Dems don’t have any ideas for resolving this. The reality is neither party does. But it was a Republican administration that created the mess in the first place.
jg
You don’t see it being spun that way?
Darrell
Very well said. Time for Dems to put up or shut up.
Davebo
John. Now your just being outright “misleading”. Awe heck, you’re lying your ass off.
TYhe Democrats want the troops out now
They did? Using this logic Republicans voted against authorizing the war since Ron Paul voted against the authorization.
M.A.
And quit pretending the vote makes it looks like you don’t care about troop safety in the withdrawal.
Of course it makes it look like anyone who votes for the resolution doesn’t care about troop safety in the withdrawal. That’s why they eliminated all language about being careful for troop safety in the withdrawal: so they can then say that anyone who votes for the resolution wants the troops out without caring about safety.
If they had scheduled a vote on Murtha’s actual resolution, you would have a point and they would have had the Democrats dead to rights (forcing them to put up or shut up). But this is not a serious resolution and it’s not intended to be, so why should any Democrat take it seriously?
Lines
Challenge of the day:
Find 15 elected Democrats that have publically stated they desire an immediate withdrawl.
Otherwise John is just throwing alcohol on a fire to see what happens.
Jeez John, I understand you like to irritate the left now and then, but this is unusually dense.
Pb
I’d like to propose a replacement to this story. Here it is, in its entirety, below:
Everyone can see that these stories are functionally equivalent. I just took out a few extra words. And added a couple. But really this is much simpler. So this must be the same story. Why can’t John Cole see that?
james richardson
I admit I was scratching my head when I read Kos’s remark to just walk out. Hello? This is the vote you’ve been waiting for!
But to me, THIS is the important part of Murtha’s bill:
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
To me, this says Murtha does want SOME presence still in the area… an immediate, but not a TOTAL, withdraw. Why did the GOP drop that aspect?
Perry Como
I think I’m going to change my name to “Perry Como (not DougJ)”.
Watching the debate on CSPAN was hilarious. If anyone wants a textbook example of a strawman argument, this resolution is it. It’s disingenuous on its face. If the Republicans really wanted a vote on the issue, they would have moved Murtha’s resolution forward.
Political theater, nothing more.
Davebo
With any luck, the Dems still in Washington by the time the vote is called will vote “Present” and we’ll have, in the congressional record, a unanimous vote by only Republicans calling to keep the troops in Iraq.
Come June of next year that record could come back to haunt them.
The Disenfranchised Voter
And I’m sure you would be ferishly attacking the Republicans in they disagreed with voting on such a silly bill.
At least I remain consistant. If it were the Dems who introduced a bill like that I would attack them for doing so. This vote is frivalious and complete political theater.
It is also disingeniuos at that. It is a Republican bill now–not a Democratic one.
jaime
I agree with Jean Schmidt. Murtha is a coward. I mean he didn’t even fight in Korea for God sakes. Her fine history of marathon running, watching cars race, and trustee cheerleadership makes her the perfect person to both run our military policy and call people’s bravery into question.
OTOH, I hear Nancy Pelosi has a letter by a troop that requests that he be able to wear Schmidt as a flack jacket.
cd6
I don’t know where Bill Frist is right now, but I bet he is totally personallu affronted by everything that went on today
Davebo
Geez John.
Take a break, have a beer. It’s Friday and there’s no foaming at the mouth on Fridays!
;0)
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ding ding ding. We have a WINNER!
It is that simple people.
John Cole
Davebo- you are right, I was wrong. The Democrats DON’T want the troops withdrawn. They just want to attack the opposition and PRETEND they want the troops withdrawn.
ppGaz
Yes, that’s what this is all about … what it looks like.
Please swipe your card again when you want to talk about what it is and not so much what it looks like.
Because if the topic is what it looks like, then I am going to keep pointing you to the Bush video where he jokes and looks under the sofa cushions for the WMDs.
Tell me what that looks like. I have never yet seen one loudmouth chest-thumping Republican sumbitch talk about that video.
Steve S
Why are the Republicans so afraid of Murtha’s resolution?
Seems to me there was something in there that scared them. I would think a unnuanced Simpleton like John Cole would realize that, but apparently not.
John Cole
Jean Schmidt is a bitch and should be censured for her remarks about Murtha. But that is beside the point.
I will note that Murtha is allowed to call republicans chickenhawks, however, and none of you found anything wrong with that.
Davebo
See, I told you a beer would help!
I can’t help but notice you have issues with the singular versus the plural.
But that’s a good thing. Heck, have a dozen beers!
It’s Friday and your party is making fools of themselves.
That definately calls for beer!
SomeCallMeTim
If you bring the vote on that, Democrats would jump at the chance. Are you saying you don’t want the troops to withdraw, John? ‘Cause I want them out sooner or later. Apparently Republicans want them to stay forever. Let’s find out. Write or e-mail your Congressman, John, proposing exactly that language. Which should not be a problem, as it’s equivalent (by your own reckoning) to the Republican resolution, which is itself equivalent to the Murtha resolution.
Write away, John. We’re happy to vote on your newly proposed language. Hell, if you want, we can help you start an e-mail campaign. Seriously.
Brad R.
John- I don’t want an immediate withdrawal. I want a plan. Being told to stay the course won’t cut it. We need to figure out how we’re going to leave Iraq. We cannot give 150,000 troops there indefinitely. This administration has failed completely to offer a realistic exit strategy (and please, do not conflate “exit strategy” with cutting and running).
caleb
Rewriting Murtha’s bill into what has been represented equals rewriting President Bush’ Social Security plan…..”Do you want to destroy Social Security”. Yes or No.
Pb
I’d like to call a vote to adopt the amended version of this story proposed on the floor. All in favor, say Aye. All opposed, say Nay.
Davebo
John,
Murtha’s chickenhawk call was a response to Vice President Other Priorities inference that he didn’t have a spine.
I think it’s safe to say that Murtha could yank his spine out and beat the crap out of old Go Fuck Yourself, put it back in, and still make it to happy hour.
Steve S
ppGaz nailed it again.
I don’t understand what Cole’s problem is, he just keeps carrying water for the GOP whenever they’re being dishonest.
Darrell
Davebo, I saw George Foreman this afternoon at Whole Foods on Kirby@Alabama. Moving slow but still looking good.
back on topic, JCole nails it. Dems want to attack the opposition and trash the war without having to vote on it. Great move by Repubs calling for an up or down vote. Put up or shut up.
Gray
Murtha: “The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.”
GOP: “Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”
Even an unnuanced simpleton like you should be able to figure out the difference, Mr. Cole.
Don
If the bill was introduced with the expectation that it would ever pass that would be a reasonable course of action, but it’s not. It’s a floral version of sending someone a survey asking “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Asking people to go on record with a yea or nay on an unnuanced position so you can beat them up with it later is a waste of everyone’s time.
Those who vote for withdrawl will get beat up over it as unpatriotic quitters, likely with their original votes to go to war tossed out to show they are flip-floppers. Those who vote to stay will get beat up with that vote every time they try to reign-in the administration’s out of control spending or get a commitment to an exit strategy.
What exactly is the point?
The Disenfranchised Voter
He didn’t call Dick Cheney a chickenhawk. He pointed out that he had 5 deferments. The reason for this was that he was defending himself from Dick Cheneys bullshit comments.
Now–if you’d like John–go ahead and defend Cheney and his remarks. I’d love to see you try.
Davebo
Darrell
What the hell are you doing shopping at Whole Foods?
You one of the lilly livered tree huggers or somethin?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Oh and “Aye”
M.A.
You’d have a point if the Democrats were being given the chance to vote on Murtha’s resolution. They are not. Wonder why?
ppGaz
The idiots really blew their cover with this gaffe. What do you think every Democrat on earth will point to, the next time somy lying Republican starts whining about “politicizing the war?”
Today’s boner is the most blatantly stupid act of politicizing the war we’ve seen so far.
Amazing … but trust me, you have not seen the bottom of what these numbskulls are capable of yet. Stock up on the popcorn.
Steve S
Interesting point, SomeCallMeTim.
I would have to say based on what I’m hearing, especially Cole’s responses… It’s all about whether or not the Republicans win. It’s got nothing to do with what’s best for our country or even the people of Iraq.
Bob In Pacifica
I always like how Republicans include “Shut up” in matters of our democracy and public discourse.
It’s a stunt. So how about putting it up for a discussion? What’s the rush?
And how about putting up Murtha’s actual language?
Hey John Cole, why don’t you just shut up? Doesn’t sound so nice when you’re getting fitted for the muzzle, does it?
The interesting thing is that now that the Republicans are putting it up for a vote (albeit in a truncated form as a political stunt), there are a lot of Americans who will be able to see the possibility of getting the hell out of Iraq, and they will see it as something very good and something that needs to be done as soon as possible.
(And John, I didn’t mean for you to shut up. I believe in real discussions of issues, unlike Congressional Republicans.)
Darrell
Birkenstocks on sale! Just kidding. Whole Foods rocks. Best produce, meats, juices, you name it. Too many “hate is not a family value” bumperstickers in the parking lot though
Steve S
John Cole,
Can you please explain to me why it is you Republicans think the only way you can win an argument is to build a strawman to fight?
Why not call for a vote on Murtha’s amendment as written?
Why change the wording?
What are you so afraid of that you are unwilling to engage the debate straight on?
Perry Como
I’d like to table the motion and propose a shot:
Four Horsemen
3/4 oz Jagermeister® herbal liqueur
3/4 oz pre-chilled Rumple Minze® peppermint liqueur
3/4 oz Bacardi® 151 rum
3/4 oz Goldschlager® cinnamon schnapps
Didn’t this round of political name calling start with the President’s speech on Veteran’s Day? And Cheney saying people like Murtha are making irresponsible remarks?
Cheney and Murtha have a long, friendly history, btw.
Steve S
In Darrell’s family not only is hate a family value, it’s a virtue.
Pb
Incidentally, this is for those who want to read some real chickenhawk rhetoric from the Senate–that is, something a Congressman actually said, and in context–a compelling and astute observation on Sen. Lautenberg’s part.
ppGaz
Hot sake and cold beer all around.
Kampai!
(Lou Dobbs’ daily survey: 87% of respondents vote for withdrawal from Iraq. About two minutes ago).
The Disenfranchised Voter
Trust me, I’d like nothing more than a shot right now–or a cigar.
Unfortunately, I’m out of both.
Gray
“Stock up on the popcorn.”
Yup, I’ve got my beer and snacks, thx, ppGaz. Btw, who introduced this bill? I wonder if the headlines tomorrow will say ‘Dems reject GOP bill for immediate withdrawal from Iraq” Second line: “Bill was sposored by Rep. Totalidiot (R Neverland)” :D
Bob In Pacifica
By the way, in saying “You have spent the last two years saying Bush lied to you” are you saying that the Bush Administration has been completely honest? How about somewhat honest?
Stand a little closer to Representative Schmidt for the group picture, Mr. Cole.
Darrell
I love it. Libs splitting hairs (depends on the meaning of the word “is”) pretending that Murtha wasn’t calling for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. As if the Republicans’ resolution is substantively different in any meaningful sense. Dishonest as hell on the part of you libs, but expected
ppGaz
At this point, and given the behavior of the White House yesterday … one has to conclude that they are in a complete panicked meltdown.
Seriously, I think you are likely to witness the complete meltdown of this Republican government in the next few months.
Pb
Say what you will about Andrew Sullivan — he’s no simpleton. I don’t agree with him on the war, but I commend him on his honesty and sense of fairness.
Gray
Prost ppGaz! T D V, how about a beer and a cigarette? Here’s to you!
Darrell
Perry Como Says:
Ugh.. Hangover in a glass with all that sugar
Mike S
They left out the part about practicality. The reason they did this is to make people think of the helicopters picking people off the roof in Saigon.
You know how dishonest the leadership has been. You know for a fact that they spin dishonestly. And I am sure you know that they plan o use this vote in the same way.
If it was a good idea, why did they not simply vote on the bill or use the exact wording in a “sense of congress” resolution?
Lines
Darrell, you damn simpleton, its apparent that you, like Jay Caruso, don’t understand the nuances of politics. Using a 20 pound sledge to open hazelnuts is probably not a good idea.
Why do you comment? Just because you think you’re funny? Just because you think its tweaking “libruhls” noses? You’re an idiot and you do the party you are defending a diservice, just like John Cole is attempting to do with this post.
of course, this is all just a flame war post, useless from the initial salvo to do anything but create chaos.
Pb
Gray,
Not surprisingly, this isn’t the first time they’ve pulled a stunt like that either–although this was even more naked, transparent, and despicable. Which is apparently why the nutty side of the GOP is so firmly behind it.
M.A.
I love it. Libs splitting hairs (depends on the meaning of the word “is”) pretending that Murtha wasn’t calling for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. As if the Republicans’ resolution is substantively different in any meaningful sense.
Of course it’s substantively different. That’s why they rewrote it — to turn a serious proposal into a “cut and run” proposal. It’s not Murtha’s resolution, but a parody of it. The fact that you can’t see the difference is due to the fact that your whole worldview is a parody.
And the same goes for the Republicans, who blew it here: if they had introduced Murtha’s actual resolution, they would have forced the Democrats to go on the record as being for or against it. Now the Democrats will vote against it and say, accurately, that it wasn’t Murtha’s resolution, just a GOP parody of it. With a little more thinking, not a GOP specialty, they could have had the Dems dead to rights.
Gray
Sullivan is a weird guy – sometimes his brain is on holidays: “Why won’t the Republicans force a vote on the Murtha proposal – a phased withdrawal over six months – rather than “immediate” withdrawal?”
Why not???
Because there’s a high chance that some honest, patriot, reality based GOP moderates would vote “Aye”, that’s why!
Tim F.
Politically, this is the first smart thing that I’ve seen Roy Blunt do. At least he’s better than Frist at meeting stunts with stunts.
ppGaz
Beer yes, cigarette no! I smoked my last cigarette a few months ago, I’ll never pick up another one.
jaime
If the Repubs are against ‘cut and run’, what are they FOR? What is victory? What does Sam Johnson mean when he says “We’ve got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through,”
Does this include giving them body armor? And an exit strategy? And proper family support while they’re gone? And ending stop loss policies? And bankruptcy bill exemptions? And proper hazard pay?
Or does ‘see the mission through’ include placing open mouth under Bush’s rectum and swallowing his shit whole?
Pb
M.A.,
Unless, of course, it got passed. That’s why this is a worthless “sense of the House” resolution that bears no relationship to the original bill, instead.
scs
I say, let’s call a vote on Murtha’s resolution. Let’s call out this bs once and for all.
ppGaz
This material may be too graphic for some viewers …..
Mike S
I love this. Chickenshit Republicans re-writing Democratic bills and then having some of their most dishonest supporters praising it.
Republicans have no balls. Put it up as written and let the chips fall where they may. Deceitfull fucking cowards.
Pb
jaime,
No, you’ve got it all wrong–the Republicans are *for* ‘cut and run’ — they just proposed a resolution saying just that, against heavy Democratic opposition!
Gray
Pb, I wouldn’t doubt for a second that exreme nuts like the powerliners or the lgf’s fall for that lousy stunt. But I can’t get it into my head that JC is bragging about this absolute low level of honesty shown by the GOP today…
:(
scs
I also suggest Dems clarify what “practicabale” means. Does that mean after Iraq is stablizied, or as quick as we can to get the troops logistically out of there. I suggest Murtha’s bill was the biggest stunt.
Gray
ppGaz, it’s difiicult to stop smoking in exciting timesd like these.
My head is already fuming again…
Darrell
Of course it’s substantively different. That’s why they rewrote it—to turn a serious proposal into a “cut and run” proposal
No, they only eliminated Murtha’s weasal-wording “earliest practical date”, which means whatever the Dems say it means. Murtha and the Dems postured as if they want an immediate pullout. Now it’s time to vote on what Dems have been calling for.. sans weasel words
Pb
Gray,
I know JC loves his pointless flame wars, but this is low, even for him. I’m guessing that he was just parroting back what he read on Red State, where Leon H. refused to back down from the ridiculous misreporting he cribbed from the GOP stenographers in the ‘liberal media’.
John Cole
The way I see it, too.
Pb
scs,
Murtha explained what he meant, and in detail. Were you paying attention, or did you have your fingers in your ears at the time?
jaime
I agree…Jean SMITH does make me sick to my stomach.
John Cole
I just read Schmidt’s comments. She should be kicked out of the house.
Mike S
Andrew Sullivan
Pb
John Cole,
Re: Jean S*_*_*_… that’s probably the one thing we can agree on here.
Perry Como
Darrell is right on the money and it goes back to what I was saying earlier. The House doesn’t need all of these “words” in their resolutions. “Words” mean things and get in the way of the true purpose of a resolution. I once again applaud the brave Republican majority for cutting out all of the pesky “words” in Representative Murtha’s resolution.
Gray
I would like to know if JC is for or against a vote on Murtha’s original proposal?
Mike S
No. “Weasal-wording” is “the British have learned…” “Earliest practical date” is talking about having a drawdown start with a planned withdrawl.
jaime
I propose a non-binding House resolution to put Jean Schmidt in a large box with a hungry raccoon for 30 seconds.
Gray
Perry, good point! Why all these useless words in the GOP bill? Why not just ask: “Iraq withdrawal NOW?”
:D
scs
Dem’s are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. When I ask, what would you have preferred, keeping sanctions on Saddam and watch Saddam and Co. enrich themselves from oil for food scandals while Shia children starve, or remove the sanctions so that Saddam will be awash in oil money and can start rebuilding his arsenal, they say “NO that’s not the issue. The issue is Bush lied and we deserved a debate on that before we started the war.”
Then I ask, okay, well what are these specific examples of Bush “lying”? In other words, what did he say to the public that he didn’t have good reason to believe himself? They don’t have a real answer. Then you ask, okay, let’s pull out the troops now, will that make you happy? They whine about that too- that’s not fair! they say.
What the hell do Dem’s want?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed more with Sullivan than right now.
scs
I just now heard about this. I am not glued to the TV set you know.
Gray
I do hope you won’t say that if it comes to the question of safer sex, T D V…
Perry Como
She was almost censured. Whether or not people agree with Murtha’s current position, he has alot of respect on both sides of the aisle.
If anyone has not heard what Murtha said yesterday, I’d strongly recommend listening to the entire press conference. He is genuine in his concern.
Mike S
What a pathetic lie. You have been shown again and again where they misled us.
At least Darrell is dishonest but Smart. You’re dishonest and a dumb ass.
Pb
jaime,
Seconded! :)
scs
since you all seem to know what “earliest practicalbe” date means, maybe you can explain it better. What is the “drawdown” date?
Gray
“Then I ask, okay, well what are these specific examples of Bush “lying”? In other words, what did he say to the public that he didn’t have good reason to believe himself?”
Good question. Would you sleep much better if you would know without a reasonable doubt that W is a complete moron, unable to grasp the meaning of ‘lie’, scs?
Perry Como
That should be obvious. An islamofascist America. Wait. That was last week. According to this week’s calendar the Dem’s want a godless state with drive-thru abortion clinics.
They flip-flop so much they can’t even figure out which way to hate America.
ppGaz
Yes, this is the way this story will go into the books.
The Republican noise machine now has no control over events and news cycles any more.
By all means, John, keep this one front and center. It’s a major loser for the Hapless Hastert gang, and it will drive public support for the war even farther down the toilet. I predict historic lows for Bush and the war in the coming weeks.
Let me tell you what this is really about: A battle for control over the GOP message, and next year’s elections.
The spectacle you saw today is just the beginning.
Meltdown. Collapse. Implosion. Pick your language.
Geek, Esq.
This isn’t Murtha’s bill, so the Dems should vote against it.
scs
Mike S, you have never once posted a reasoned reply to anything I have said. That makes me think you are unable to. I haven’t seen you prove your IQ yet. Maybe it’s because you don’t have one.
Pb
Let me settle this debate once and for all:
Bush lied. And, he’s a moron. Q.E.D.
scs
DougJ, the Perry stuff is getting old.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
But she won’t. In fact, Schmidt will be praised by extremists on the right.
Wouldn’t it be a shame if someone were to portray her remarks as fairly representing the true belief of mainstream Republicans? That would be bad…
The Disenfranchised Voter
I have no idea what you are talking about. I should let you know that I don’t read Sullivan. I just see what he writes when someone points me to him.
I think the best course of action is for the Dems to vote “Present” and then demand a vote on Murtha’s bill afterwards.
John Cole
Yes, Mike S., because a resolution without the word ‘practicable’ means that rather than a planned, coordinated withdrawal, commanders all over iraq will get out with a bullhorn and state:
“Attention troops. Throw down your weapons and run for the border.”
Seriously. Without the word ‘practicable,’that is what will happen.
What the Democrats want is the ability to posture and preen, to state they want immediate withdrawal, yell and stomp their feet about Bush’s botched war, and when asked why they have not withdrawn the troops or voted to withdraw the troops, they can state it is not ‘practicable.’
Murtha was on the record twice yesterday supporting the immediate withdrawal. Now he and the Democrats can vote on it.
Paddy O'Shea
A little reality check for all the armchair connie warriors here who still think there is something left in this administration worth defending – The new Harris/WSJ poll puts Bush’s approval number at 34%. To put this into an easily grasped perspective, Richard Nixon at the very depths of his very Watergate misery was at 29%. Bush is now only 5 percentage points away.
Time to start cutting your losses, boys. Bush is nothing but a cooked up chicken now.
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1132217395.shtml
slide
What all you wingnuts seem to forget is that as long as the war in Iraq is in the news you lose. The people are going against this war big time. They don’t belive they were told the truth going in. They don’t belive it was executed competently. They don’t think its going well. They don’t think we will eventually win. They don’t think it was worth it. So, please keep Iraq front and center with all the silly games, I’ll just sit here and watch Bush’s poll numbers drop even further.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well I certainly have. And I’m fairly certain you’ve seen my evidence that the Bush Adminstration lied. I’ve posted it here about 10 times. Perhaps you remeber the Powell and Rice quotes from 2001?
I’m not posting it here again as it has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic.
Brad R.
Murtha was on the record twice yesterday supporting the immediate withdrawal. Now he and the Democrats can vote on it.
John- most Democrats DON’T FAVOR IMMEDIATE withdrawal. That’s the distinction you’re missing.
Sine.Qua.Non
I’m speechless, John…..and, damned surprised. Have you been reading Jeff again?
srv
We can’t leave until we’ve found the salami.
Jack Roy
I’m going to hypothesize that Mr. Cole has been drinking already (as is his right and duty as an American, of course). I’m not going to touch further the original post, and I think Schmidt’s a loonie, but kicked out of the House is a little bit of a stretch. The rule being the rule you should follow it, but not allowing disparagement of other Members is a fundamentally puss-bag rule. How many more Americans would watch C-Span if they allowed kung fu fights like in Japan? Could do wonders for our civic engagement.
Mike S
If you weren’t so mind numbingly stupid there might be a point. I tried when I first saw you around here but you were either willfully ignoring the points are too friggin stupid to understand.
OH SNAP! Is that what passes for a smack down in the special needs schools?
Gray
T D V, me too. But some time ago, I read that Sullivan has aids and still uses gay contact sites to search for partners for unprotected sex. Makes me wondering about his common sense …
ppGaz
Jesus, man, you sound like a cartoon.
What the Democrats want is to put pressure on these failed buttheads and watch them self destruct. You ain’t seen nothin yet, compadre.
This is blood politics, John. Republicans should understand these rules. When your opponent starts to protect his body and drops his guard, you give him the left hook and the right to the jaw.
But please, don’t listen. I’m alost at the point where I am going to enjoy watching you go down with this ship. I hate to say that, seriously, but you are in total denial here. Apparently you are going to have to go all the way to the bottom before you figure this out.
Jason
I’m with Sullivan on this one.
Why are the Republicans so scared of Murtha’s resolution? Who cares if they are ‘weasal words’ or not. This ‘Republican’ resolution gives the dems a perfect out. They were stupid for not using Murtha’s exact words.
scs
Wrong Mike S. I am repeating the experience I had on a post segment a week or so ago. Some people brought up potential “lies” that Bush said. I, and others, knocked them all down one by one, explaining that Bush did not have specific info to know that those statements were false. At best, a few statements were mistaken or exaggerated or based on inconclusive intelligence. If you feel you have a bona fide lie, I’ll be glad to hear it.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Which is exactly why the Republicans are pulling the bullshit they have been pulling for the past week. Demonizing the opposition, pulling BS like we are discussing right now, etc.
Their strategy is to secure the base. If they can secure the base, they will keep Bush above 30. That is all they care about. It is obvious that this move in the house and calling people who are against the Iraq war “irresponsible” is nothing but a pandering to the base of the Republican party.
I am not surprised that someone like Darrell would fall for this but I’m slightly surprised John would.
Gray
srv – Salami? ppGaz said, let’s get Popcorn, but I wanted something more hefty, so…
Oops…
scs
Well, someone finally spoke the truth. They don’t care so much about our actual plan of action, Dems just want to harrass Republicans. That is THEIR plan.
Mike S
Are you kidding? You’ve watched, and commented nuerous times, on just how dishonest Republican spinning has been. That is exactly what Little ean and Big Pharma will say as well as the leadership in the house will spin this.
jaime
What the Republicans seem to want is to equate supporting the troops with staying in Iraq.
Again. What is winning? What does victory look like? Until you and the Republican controlled government can answer that, you hold no sway over the opinion of the majority of Americans regarding this war.
I hate to speak be a Mehlman and speak in talking points, but stay the course is not a war plan.
Jack Roy
TDV— Actually, Cheney’s numbers are around 19, so we think that’s the hard-core floor. It’s not energizing the “base” (i.e., those who will support the administration no matter what), it’s tapping those who hate Democrats more than they like what Bush is doing, presumably a larger number.
Actually—wait, wait, I might have gotten that switched up. Eh. ‘s’Friday.
ahem
You lefties are so fucking stupid, it’s painful. Rant on…
ppGaz
How old are you? Did you just discover that there’s politics in Washington DC yesterday?
Is there not one of you who can speak an honest sentence?
slide
John is the type of guy that can’t admit he made the wrong decision in supporting this war. A war that will go down in history as a huge strategic blunder. A blunder that not only is going to hurt US interests for a long long time but a blunder that the administration lied to get us into. A double whammy, historically speaking. The poor boy president, I almost feel sorry for the dimwit. Oh, btw, did he throw up in the Japanese Prime Minister’s lap yet?
Brad R.
Here’s Murtha’s original resolution:
Here’s the GOP version:
Seems like a pretty big difference to me.
John Cole
Brad:
I don;t think they do. But look at Murtha’s resolution, which is SOOOO different:
In other words- Immediate withdrawal.
slide
Question: what percentage of Bush’s “base” can tie their own shoes without assistance?
ppGaz
You can’t invent this:
Matthews: How long should we keep 100,000-plus troops in Iraq?
Hitchens: I don’t accept the grammar of the question.
Repeated attempts to ask, repeated refusals to answer.
Not even the Seinfeld writers could invent the crap coming out of Christopher Hitchens’ mouth at this hour.
Popcorn!
Jack Roy
Slide—
Quibble: I think John’s been most willing to admit that he and others got things wrong. My own suspicion is that he just can’t stand to be on the same side of an issue as Kos, so when there’s only two sides presented, he has to take the other.
(Sorry to put you “on the couch,” John—all in good fun.)
jaime
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/11329-1.html
Swift Boating has begun
scs
Mike S, I don’t even know who the hell you are. Nothing you ever wrote ever stood out to me until you started attacking me personally recently. I suggest you either reply in a reasoned way to me, or don’t reply at all. If you aren’t able to do that, please don’t come to this blog, as John made it clear that he is aginst your kind of infantile behavior.
JWeidner
I’m with Perry (Not DougJ) Como. All those pesky “words”. They just get in the way. “Words” make brain hurt. Brain no hurt when “words” go away.
Mike S
Perry Como
Listen to what Murtha had to say on the issue. He’s a hawk, not an idiot.
nyrev
What with Doug J.’s shennanigans, I often wondered if Darrell wasn’t just an invention in order to make the GOP take seem less unreasonable in situations like this. But then you have situations like this where Darrell and John both agree that the GOP is exactly right, ya librul traitors, and a little more of my faith in mankind is chipped away.
Pb
One last time.
What Murtha said:
What Murtha didn’t say:
Do you agree with these facts or dispute them?
Gray
“What is winning? What does victory look like?”
jaime, like always, this boils down to the question if the goal sacrifices the means. There are always some irresponsible idiots who would use all means to win, even if they leave scorched earth behind. In this case, it’s the reputation of the House which is at stake.
slide
Not on things militry. He can never admit that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan were right and he was wrong. :-)
jaime
Jack Roy, if you don’t support kicking Schmidt out of the house, will you support my “Jean Schmidt vs. hungry raccoon” resolution?
Gray
Pb, nice try, but you should know that they won’t listen. Let’s just make fun of them, everything else is a waste of energy.
ppGaz
Oh dear.
Caroline
This amendment is silly. Murtha isn’t even voting for it he said tonight on Hardball. If it means the same thing why wouldn’t Murtha support it.
Jean Schmitt just crapped all over the GOP. At first it was Dem’s are defensive, moved to arguing over the war, moved to once again the GOP smears veterans.
It looks like a net loser for the GOP. Heck, if they thought it was such a great idea why didn’t they schedule the vote for Monday morning?
It’s just plain silly and as Murtha himself says, the general public has moved on to wanting the troops withdrawn. He says the public is ahead of congress on this.
Pb
Gray,
I already tried that. But look at John’s last comment–is he being intentionally stupid now? Who ate John’s brain?
Jon H
“Well, someone finally spoke the truth. They don’t care so much about our actual plan of action, Dems just want to harrass Republicans. That is THEIR plan.”
Turnabout’s fair play.
The GOP never gave a rat’s ass about the troops. If they did, they would have put together a real adult, serious strategy, not a fucking fantasy. Which is all Bush has been working with for three and a half years. And the GOP has been happier than pigs in shit to have it that way.
Face it – you don’t want to win in Iraq, John, you just want to have it as a political cudgel. Forever. No matter how many Americans and Iraqis die because of Bush’s incompetence.
The GOP has spent 200 billion dollars and 2 thousand American lives in pursuit of political leverage and a fucking pipe dream.
Congratulations, fuckers.
ppGaz
I’m just off the phone with No Controlling Legal Authority, and he says that John is right … when you parse Murtha just so, and then expose his words to the vapors of mercury, you get SURRENDER.
So that settles it.
Perry Como
I will second the resolution if you ammend “hungry raccoon” to read “ravenous wolverine”. This would be a great example of bi-partisan compromise.
scs
Mike, please don’t block-quote anything that states it’s by me, which I never wrote. That is in effect a “lie”, and I don’t appreciate it.
Gray
“at the earliest practicable date”
Communication check – 1, 2, 3..
Earth to JC, listening? Do you copy? Pls check brain activation control! Repeating message: “at the earliest practicable date”. Confirm reception, JC! Do you compute? JC? JC???
nyrev
A Republican and a Democrat are traveling on the interstate during rush hour. The Republican is driving. The Democrat asks the Republican to stop at the earliest practicable time so that he can use the crapper. The Republican says “Fine,” slams on the breaks, and kills them both. Damn Democrats and their nonsense qualifiers.
Apparently reading comprehension is for librul traitors.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hitchens is such an asshat. He hand his ass completely handed to him by Galloway that I almost kept the TiVo’d debate I had between the two.
scs
ppGaz, you are at your best when you are being humorous. You get my humor award for the week.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*He had
Jon H
Figures Cole would discard everything but the GOP talking points.
Why not stick with what Murtha wrote, instead of listening to the hand up your ass, John?
Jack Roy
John,
Pardon the interruption, but you seem to be reacting to a supposed contradiction in Murtha’s text—namely, that deployment is terminated and supposedly immediately, but that redeployment is timed to the earliest practicable (i.e., soon but not immediate) date—in a way different than I did, so if I can ask if you know something about legislative/military jargon that I don’t. Namely, when “deployment” is terminated, does that mean that the military force no longer has authorization to continue forward military operations, or that they have no further authorization even to be in the locale? I would have thought the former, that Murtha’s language would terminate the on-going military campaign to stabilize and democratize Iraq, but that forces wouldn’t actually receive orders to move elsewhere until redeployment, which is set to a different (but related) timetable.
Shortly, isn’t Murtha’s original language saying “the operations are no longer authorized, and get them out of Iraq at some later date X” and the replacement langauge saying “the operation is replaced with a new one: to get the hell out now”?
Mike S
Sorry. That’s what pops in my head when I read your comments.
aop
Enough with the poll numbers, already. I think Bush is wrong on Iraq, too, but just b/c 65 percent of Americans are now opposed to the war doesn’t make it any more wrong. Two years ago 60-something percent of the public was pro-invasion.
Jon H
Cole is using Republican English, which has a vocabulary of about 1000 words. All the tough ones are stripped out, but it has a really long appendix on how to use the remainder to lie real good.
Ahmed Chalabi
Too many “hate is not a family value” bumperstickers in the parking lot though
I’m sure your KKK robes in the trunk of your car counter that bumper sticker quite nicely.
jobiuspublius
Then why not leave it the fuck alone? Because it’s not the same dam thing. Is it?
ppGaz
Thank you. I’ll take the Car Wash Coupon Book, please.
Jack Roy
Jaime—
I was definitely feeling your compromise until I saw Perry Como’s. Now I’m split—do I let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Heh heh heh.
Mark Wilson
If a someone in Congress does not want an immediate withdrawal, they can just vote no. Why is that a problem?
Jon H
John writes: “You want the troops out? Murtha said he wants the troops out? Then vote to immediately withdraw them. Plain and simple. Vote to withdraw the troops, or STFU.”
You want the troops to stay?
Then the GOP ought to vote to keep them there for ten fucking years.
You don’t have the balls to commit to that.
Caroline
LOL. I saw that. Was he drunk or what? No wonder Hitchens attaches himself to every losing cause that comes around. He doesn’t have the sense to know the difference.
jaime
Perry, I would have agreed, but the box I was thinking of would be about the size of a wall trunk and may not have enough room for Schmidt and the animal in question.
How about Schmidt vs. Ravenous Raccoon?
rs
This plays well on the TV news-the Republican controlled House playing games with a war while one of their members calls a Marine a coward.I think they picked the wrong guy to fuck with in Murtha.And there is no positive way to spin Iraq-the topic is a net loss for Republicans no matter what context.
Perry Como
Be nice Mr. Chalabi. btw, Iran is on holding line 2.
Jon H
Oh , and John, if the GOP is so freaking great, maybe they should quit pussying around with supplemental funding bills, and vote on a massive trillion-dollar 10 year Iraqi occupation funding bill.
Put your vote where your mouth is, John.
If you want to stay until it’s done, then vote on it and commit, don’t just keep farting around *as if* they’re going to be coming home any day now.
Face it John, you want it both ways.
Pb
scs,
Whoa, what’s the problem? You don’t seem to mind when the GOP does the same thing to Murtha. Why the double standard, scs? Is it ok to lie about what members of Congress say, but not about what you say?
Brian
PB,
Murtha, in the same statement, closed with this:
IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME
He later said in his press conference:
“Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty”
You really read this and say he doesn’t want them to come home, pronto? You guys have been agitating for this moment for months, even years. Now you have it. Put your principles on the line, or retreat like the weasels you are.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Mark:
The Republicans are calling their version the “Democratic Resolution”.
So I will pose a question to you. If they want to vote on the Democratic Resolution, why not vote on Murtha’s bill?
ppGaz
Now now, you two. Don’t make me stop the car.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm apparently I missed the part of Murtha’s sentence that said “pronto” or now.
But I guess making shit up better suits your case, eh Brian?
Pb
Brian,
I read everything Murtha said, and heard some of it too. I’d support his amendment, and not the GOP’s phony one. There’s a difference between bringing our military home safely like Murtha proposed, and cutting and running like the Republicans proposed.
Oh, and fuck you for calling me a weasel, you ignorant asshole.
Brian
Disenfranchised:
You’re spliting hairs to wriggle out of a critical vote, and ONE THAT THE DEM’S HAVE DEMANDED, at least rhetorically.
It’s time to face the music.
Jon H
Again, John, why won’t the GOP put their names down on a vote for the permanent Iraq war you demand?
Because they know it wouldn’t fly. And they’re pussies.
Perry Como
My only fear is that Representative Schmidt has less sense and more viciousness than any kind of raccoon. Instead of a box could we use a large burlap sack?
Jon H
“It’s time to face the music.”
So why don’t the GOP vote for eternal occupation of Iraq, if that’s all they will accept?
Why keep pussyfooting around as if hey, maybe they’ll be home by *this* Christmas?
The GOP won’t commit.
You’re all a bunch of goddamn pussies.
jg
This is amazing. People sitting here arguing the wording of the bill as though it made any fucking difference. Its been said a few times already but one more won’t hurt (or really even get noticed).
The whole point of this stunt is; how will it look on FOX News. Thats all. Un-nuanced.
Anyone really think its beyond the GOP to do this? Beyond either political party?
Mark Wilson
Disenfranchised:
I fully support any effort to change the name of the resolution to something neutral and then vote on it.
The Disenfranchised Voter
No Brian, you’re wrong. You know you are too.
Why can’t the Republicans vote on Murtha’s actual resolution? Why did they need to doctor his and still claim it was a Democratic Resolution??
They changed his rational resolution into a “cut and run” resolution. Why are they afraid to vote on the real version.
Gray
” Is it ok to lie about what members of Congress say, but not about what you say?”
Hehe, that’s a nice new game, Pb. Let’s see if we can shorten scs’s postings. Too many words in them anyway:
“Mike S, I don’t even know who the hell you are. Nothing you ever wrote ever stood out to me until you started attacking me personally recently. I suggest you either reply in a reasoned way to me, or don’t reply at all. If you aren’t able to do that, please don’t come to this blog, as John made it clear that he is aginst your kind of infantile behavior.”
Shortened:
-I don’t ever wrote in a reasoned way at this blog.-
Hmm. Still makes some sense…
ppGaz
Democrats are, right now, calling the Sunday talk show producers to try and get Schmidt in front of cameras this weekend.
My God, what a great weapon for our side.
The Disenfranchised Voter
That wasn’t my question…
Why not vote on Murtha’s bill?
jaime
Does this include John Kerry? I could have sworn I saw him on TV disagreeing with Murtha. I guess if you don’t have a strategy of your own, invent the opposition’s and attack it.
Perry Como
They are debating the We Know What Murtha Meant Resolution on the floor on CSPAN-1 right now. Grab your popcorn (or salami).
Pb
jg,
Yeah, the resolution itself will in fact make no difference whatsoever. But the sheer dishonesty of it does and will. That’s the difference between reality and politics.
Also, it is in fact not beyond the GOP to do this–I know because they voted for it. Also, it is in fact beyond the Democrats to do this–I know because they voted against it.
Jon H
John writes: “Apparently, without the word ‘practicable’ in the resolution, what is going to happen is that military commanders all over Iraq will come out in to the middle of their compounds with bullhorns, and state the following:
“Attention troops. This is a retreat and an unplanned withdrawal. Throw down your weapons and head for the border. Congress called for immediate withdrawal, and failed to tell us to do it when ‘practicable.’ Therefore, we are going to throw aside all of our training and years of logistics experience and just run like hell.””
Actually, John, with the incompetents in the White House and Pentagon, *this just might happen*.
I mean, it’s no more outlandish than, say, staffing the CPA with a bunch of clueless politically-connected morons from Heritage, is it?
Sine.Qua.Non
Are you ok with this bullshit too John?
Mike S
Just wait for a practical time.
Tony Bennett
I just want to say that Perry Como is one hell of a singer.
Pb
Gray,
In the interest of brevity and without loss of generality I move that scs’ comments towards Mike S be struck from the record and replaced with “I know you are, but what am I?”
Jon H
The GOP wouldn’t vote for a bill declaring that the military would stay until 2011, either.
They want our troops to bleed, without committing to anything.
Reality Check
Hello?
Congress doesn’t have authority to issue any orders whatsoever to the DOD. They have funding authority, period. Having given their permission (QUITE explicitly) to the use of military force, they have no further input.
Vote and be damned.
Tony Bennett
Perry Como is not DougJ. But neither is he Paul Anka.
Jon H
” I move that scs’ comments towards Mike S be struck from the record and replaced with “I know you are, but what am I?””
I move that scs’ comments be replaced with “I, scs, am a human buttplug.”
PAN pan (Anon...)
I don’t understand what John Cole has against Rep. Murtha. Why shouldn’t he have the right to write the terms of his resolution in a way that correctly elucidates his plan and makes it clear that he has the safety of the troops in mind? Even if you know and I know that the Republican resolution would, if it were to somehow become policy, make accomodations for the troops’ safety, it needs to be made explicit as part of the resolution so that the GOP cannot use a yes-vote to slime opposition as ‘anti-troop’.
If John continues to take the position that the two resolutions are the same, I hope he will also loudly reject any future attempts by the Republicans to question the democrats committment to the safety of the troops.
Mike S
What a great point.
Gray
Good job, Pb! Not too many words. :D
Jon H
“Are you ok with this bullshit too John?”
Once again, evidence that the GOP hates few people as much as it hates veterans.
They really seem to save up their venom for the vets, huh?
Even the vets on their own side.
Brian
Eat shit, Jon. This “pussy” will force you to do it, too.
We started this mission, together, and we will finish it, together. Timetables are the stuff of weaklings. “Bush made us do it” is the stuff of weaklings.
Reach down and see if you have any balls. No, you don’t? Well, guess that makes YOU the pussy, eh?
Murtha asked for this battle, and we engaged it. And like in Iraq, we will stay in this fight until there’s Dem blood on the floor of the House.
Perry Como
There should be some ground rules for the House debate:
Every time you hear the phrase “undermine”, take a drink.
Every time you hear the phrase “terrorist”, take a drink.
Every time you hear the phrase “freedom”, take 2 drinks.
Every time you hear “Vietnam”, do a shot.
Gray
Pan pan, my suspicion is, sometime in the future (Summer 2006?), the GOP will make a huge fuzz about Dem’s voting against this bill. When the toll reaches 3000, the rethugs will say: We introduced a bill to stop this slaughter, but the liberals voted against it (after they spoke for it, those dang flipfloppers).
Pb
Brian,
Please tell me you don’t think our soldiers are over there fighting the Democrats in Iraq.
However, I will agree with your point about Bush being a weakling.
Mike S
Brian ith making me tho hot. I love tough guyth.
Gray
Bingo!
Ancient Purple
After reading that, I won’t need to take my Ambien tonight.
jaime
There was a timetable for handover, timetable for first elections, timetable for drafting the constituton, there was a timetable to vote on that constitution, and there will be a timetable for voting on that constituion.
All of these timetables are arbitrary timetables set by a President who will not be pressured by arbitrary timetables.
scs
By the way Mike S, the word is “practicable”, not “practical”. slightly different shades of meaning. But maybe you’ll get to that in vocab lessons next week.
And Gray, what are you dating Mike S now? If I had a searching ability to tally how many times Mike S had responded to me in the past, I’m sure it can’t be many. Or if there were, I truly don’t remember any of them. I remember plenty of others, just not him.
Anyway, if you think I’m so damn stupid, just ignore me. That’s what I do to people whom I consider stupid who don’t mess with me. That fact that you are jumping on me with such venom makes me think that I am instead pissing you off because I am challenging your world view. Sorry about that.
And PB, glad you picked up on my irony there. Funny the ones who cry ‘lies’ the most, are the ones who do it most readily.
Steve
I just watched a replay of Murtha’s press conference on C-SPAN.
They asked him when the withdrawal would happen and he answered, without hesitation, that under his proposal it would probably take about 6 months.
To pretend this call for an “immediate withdrawal” is the exact same thing as what he proposed is deeply dishonest.
I am not offended by the GOP’s political theater but I think it is really lame to pretend it is not political theater.
And for those on the moonbatty left who actually do favor an “immediate withdrawal,” the way Saddam’s troops used to throw down their guns and run from the battlefield, maybe this vote tonight will convince them that it simply is not going to happen that way.
Tony Bennett
You cannot make this stuff up, folks!
I’m telling you, you are watching a GOP meltdown here.
This obvious tit-for-tat attack on Murtha is classic GOP politics. Do these guys really think that the people will not see through this stuff they are pulling today?
Well, honestly, I hope they don’t, because they are digging themselves a very deep hole.
Pb
scs,
If that was irony, then I commend you for it–but I don’t see how it would square at all with your position.
Also, who said anything about ‘lies’? Are you mischaracterizing my position? If this is further irony, then I’m not getting it. Maybe you should have quit while you were behind.
Tony Bennett
Brian is DougJ on meth.
Gray
“That fact that you are jumping on me with such venom makes me think that I am instead pissing you off because I am challenging your world view.”
Hey, you’re taking this personally? Come on, this whole topic is a big funny joke! Where’s your sense of humour? Take it easy! No normal person would really consider engaing in a serious discussion about this most recent repub parody on democratic discourse. This is just JC’s way of having some fun after wotking hours, relax and enjoy it!
Pb
Steve,
I think that even the people in Congress who would favor anything close to an immediate withdrawl still think this phony GOP ‘cut-and-run’ bill is a stupid bill, and would much rather support Murtha’s bill. Go figure.
ppGaz
Help! Some guy named DougJ just stole my computer ….
Stop! Thief!
Jon H
Brian writes: “We started this mission, together, and we will finish it, together”
So pass a GOP bill declaring that we’ll be there until 2011, and pony up a trillion bucks to pay for it.
Commit.
Or are you afraid to?
Frankly, I bet the GOP will pull this shit every year until a Democrat wins the White House. But once a Democrat wins the White House, the GOP will be all ready to jet the fuck out of Iraq.
SomeCallMeTim
Freedom Fries. This is the Republicans new Freedom Fries. A deeply unserious proposal meant for the media and the folks that watch Faux News. Some of them had the decency to be ashamed of that down the road, but, AFAIK, not all of them.
Freedom Fries, again. Unbelievable.
Perry Como
Oh sweet Jesus. Kucinich is up.
scs
I enjoy polite, reasoned discourse, that is how you learn the most. This other nonsense is a waste of time, for you all and me. But maybe you aren’t interested in learning – just attacking.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Alright after watching some of the debate I’ve change my position slightly. I still think what the Republicans are pulling it bullshit, but they have framed this vote as basically do you support the troops or not. The Democrats should vote no on the Republican resolution but then demand that Murtha’s resolution be taken up.
Sine.Qua.Non
I don’t even favor an immediate withdrawal……I just hate that when you’re in the middle of sex.
Pb
The Disenfranchised Voter,
Why am I not surprised. All they know how to do is lie and attack. They should appoint Jean Schmidt to majority leader.
Sine.Qua.Non
Disenfranchised: The rules attached to the Repub Amendment do not let them.
Jon H
Maybe the Dems should propose a bill which takes the buildings housing AEI and Heritage by eminent domain, knocks them down, and uses them as Arlington National Cemetery overflow space.
Now, that, would be an *excellent* political stunt.
Jon H
“but they have framed this vote as basically do you support the troops or not.”
So the GOP gets to pretend they give a crap about the troops, while still stiffing them every which way they can, and getting them killed for a lost cause.
Mission Accomplished!
The Disenfranchised Voter
Uhh no Murtha asked for this battle and you ran from it. You came back with your own version of the “battle”.
Hmm I guess you could say the Republican “cut and run” from Murtha, eh?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well then the Democrats should all vote “Present” and that is all.
Gray
Yup, Pb. The repubs finally accepted that nobody is taking their charade for serious anymore. So they decided to be honest about the true status of the House today. It’s just a kabuki theatre, and the right controls everything. Libs are only the extras. The way the GOP directs the new show will finally reveal the actors to the audience. Yup, it’s a bold move.
Perry Como
Whoa. Rep. Renzi (R) gets it. He knows the difference between the Murtha resolution and the Duncan resolution.
Jon H
“Hmm I guess you could say the Republican “cut and run” from Murtha, eh?”
Murtha: “Pistols at Dawn!”
GOP: “I accept!”
(next morning)
GOP: “Murtha, clearly when you said Pistols at Dawn, what you really meant was that you would get a Nerf Gun, and I would get a 5.56mm minigun mounted on an armored humvee.”
Murtha: “No, I meant pistols”
GOP: “No matter, I make the rules, and the rules favor the coward. Minigun and nerf it is! Now, we’ll see who supports the troops!”
Murtha: “You are without honor”
GOP: “Honor? Never heard of it.”
Stormy70
Finally. Put up or Shut up Democratic Reps.
This was the perfect end to a lovely Harry Potter afternoon.
Look at the Democrats scurry for the exits after they vote to keep the troops in Iraq. I thought since “most Americans” are supposedly against the war, then why do the Dems feel the heat on this vote? Hmmmm.
Sine.Qua.Non
actually……..that’s an interesting idea Dis
LMAO Gray
Jon H
“Put up or Shut up Democratic Reps.”
Oh yeah, Stormy?
Just how long has the GOP committed to staying?
They never committed. They won’t even budget for the damn thing, so they can pretend it might end any old time.
scs
Is this part of the civilized discourse John Cole was talking about? Hey, I was merely posting away, minding my own business, and Mike S and his online cronies here had to gang up on me. I have always been polite to everyone on here who has been polite to me. Sorry I can’t say the same about you all. And you are all Democrats, right?
If you can’t handle discourse with someone who is a little more right than you are, go to a leftie blog. There are pleny of them out there for you.
Gray
“This other nonsense is a waste of time, for you all and me.”
scs, finally you dig it! I recognized this when JD claimed to not understand “at the earliest practicable date”. It would have ruined his joke. Hahaha!
There won’t be any serious discussion on this topic here. Forget it. Have some fun.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes stormy, all the polls, even the ones at your beloved Fox News, are part of a vast Democratic conspiracy! What supreme logic.
How you can even take yourself seriously is beyond me…
Gray
“And you are all Democrats, right?”
I do hope so! Dunno about the political orientation of the others, but I have nether been a fan of totalitarian or anarchical systems.
The Disenfranchised Voter
If you can’t handle an obvious joke why not join the “Foundation of Tight Asses”?
Perry Como
Stormy, a Republican Representative just got up and defended Rep. Murtha. He pointed out that the Republican resolution mentions nothing about redeployment and vouched for Rep. Murtha’s character.
If the Republican’s want a vote on this issue, make it on Murtha’s resolution. Anything else is dishonest.
Jon H
“If you can’t handle discourse with someone who is a little more right than you are, go to a leftie blog.”
Aw, come on scs, we’re just using tried-and-true GOP tactics like “slime and defend”.
Sine.Qua.Non
I swear to god, Rep. Steve King is a moron… he is asking why no one is complaining about Afghanistan? Lemme see…..COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE????
Steve
Republican Rep. Renzi came out and said in no uncertain terms that Murtha’s “redeployment” and Hunter’s “immediate withdrawal” are TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE QUESTIONS.
He says Murtha is an honorable man, that his resolution deserves an honest debate, and that unfortunately his proposal has been wrongly spun as calling for an immediate withdrawal. He says a vote on the Hunter resolution is necessary in order to make sure the troops understand that Congress is not debating an “immediate withdrawal.” I completely understand and agree with that point.
I’m sure John, Darrell, Stormy, etc. will go on pretending that the two resolutions say exactly the same thing, but it was nice to see a Republican – one who SUPPORTS today’s action, too – admit that they are completely different.
neil
That does not mean he wants to leave troops there until it is the right time to leave, he believes the right time is now (‘immediate redeployment’) and the only consideration regarding the withdrawal should be that it is done in a way that the withdrawal is not a bloody retreat in which security will be so lax that thousands will die in the withdrawal.
This is totally unsupported by the statement. He’s calling for redeployment, not permanent removal of all U.S. troops from the region. You’re intentionally and cheaply distorting his position into something that’s obviously unreasonable instead of honestly discussing the issue of redeployment. More like that, please.
It’s interesting to consider what would happen if we did withdraw completely, though. It seems to me that a bloodthirsty dictatorship with authentic links, this time, to terrorist organizations determined to attack the U.S. would be in power before long, such as we never really had for Saddam. Perhaps it would’ve been a better idea not to hit this particular hornet’s nest, especially if it turns out we can’t “finish the job” without committing genocide.
scs
Alright, Jon You think that is so amusing, but many of you I mentioned (Mike S) are the thinnest skinned guys around here. I find it pretty pathetic how you all have to link arms and join forces together. But if group think is your thing, have at it I guess.
scs
In fact, this has been a huge waste of time because I have had to rebut some of you boneheads on here, and haven’t had time to really digest the serious comments on here. I suppose your plan to deflect the issues worked.
ppGaz
Like I said, folks. You can’t invent this stuff.
Today will be right there with “Heckuva job Drownie” day on the GOP highlight calendar for the year, and Stormy doesn’t get it.
What’s amazing, though, is that John thinks just like Stormy.
They think this is some kind of victory for them.
ppGaz
Sometimes when you think you are outnumbered, it’s because you’re wrong, dude.
This is one of those times.
Seriously, do you want to go down fighting for a guy who made jokes about not being able to find WMDs?
Seriously.
Jon H
“Perhaps it would’ve been a better idea not to hit this particular hornet’s nest, especially if it turns out we can’t “finish the job” without committing genocide.”
Bush got stung by a bee, and responded by sticking his dick wasp-infested knothole. Now he’s having a bit of trouble getting out of there. But damn, if that wasn’t in an especially sexy knothole.
And no, I’m not saying 9/11 is a beesting, the idea is that a bee is not a wasp; we were attacked by one thing, and we attacked something different, and now we’re stuck. And the damn ‘bees’ are still out there.
Sine.Qua.Non
I think this is a complete embarrasment for this country.
Gray
“And you are all Democrats, right?”
Actually, I’m a Republican, too. I’m very much for states and state rights. A centralized nation smells too much like Stalin for my taste.
scs
And by the way, as a rightie on this issue, I repeat, I say, let’s clarify “earliest practicable” somewhat and then have Murtha’s vote. Let’s get this over with once and for all. I am tired of hearing Dems whine.
Perry Como
Oh great. The moonbat from North Carolina, Rep. Walter Jones is going off. Freakin’ liberals. How many ways can you hate America in three minutes?
caleb
Republicans really fucked up today.
Had they just put up Murtha’s original resolution for a vote, it would have been a brilliant strategy.
Instead…they offered up their own 2 line interpretation and it is going to bite them in the ass.
So goes the continuing fall of republican power………
Sine.Qua.Non
Jon…on target.
scs
Wrong on what dude?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Walter Jones, R-NC, just threw sand in the GOP’s gears by asking for an explanation of Bush’s strategy.
The gentleman from Georgia didn’t like that.
Gray
“I say, let’s clarify “earliest practicable” somewhat and then have Murtha’s vote. Let’s get this over with once and for all. I am tired of hearing Dems whine.”
Sounds good. Now why aren’t you a Rep for the GOP? They can use a lot of that spirit.
ppGaz
?
Okay, I am going to have to go ahead and ask you to read all of my posts here, including the Tony Bennett ones, and write a report of not less than 1000 words and have it here by 8 am tomorrow morning.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hey a Republican who holds true to real Republican principals. You sound like my kinda guy.
Gray
ppGaz, don’t forget, three copies are needed, signed and stamped by a sworn official :-P
jg
This is so grade school. Put up or shut up is how congress moves now?
John Cole
Just as an aside, this is the fastest I have ever sen us break the 300 comment threshold, and on a friday night at that.
And honest to goodness, when I wrote this, I thought most of you would be agreeing with me. Got that one wrong.
scs
No I mean in this segment. I’m not going to live to a thousand.
Bob In Pacifica
I wanna talk about the home-schooled kid with the 54 guns in his house and Jesus Christ in his heart.
Gray
So much for principals, T D V. They all got somewhat murky and fuzzy in the last years…
Pb
Dude, where’s my resolution?
Sine.Qua.Non
That idiot Rep. from Nevada just said Saudia Arabia rather than Iran. Bad move.
Gray
“Just as an aside, this is the fastest I have ever sen us break the 300 comment threshold, and on a friday night at that.”
NP, JC, after we got rid of that nonsensical idea of serious discussion, the comments are really flowing :-P
ppGaz
Har! Yes, I meant this thread only.
I figure an hour of study, an hour of research, and an hour of composition …. you can have your paper ready by bedtime.
scs
John, you shouldn’t have been surprised. I think many of these posters have been imported from old Soviet prisons.
Sine.Qua.Non
John? Have you been drinking?
Perry Como
Listen to what Murtha said. Somewhere around 6 months. And his reason given for leaving (other than his loathing of America) is that the our troops have done what they can and now it’s time for the Iraqis to step up. As long as our troops are in Iraq hand holding, the Iraqis will use us as a crutch. Instead the Iraqis should take charge. And then there’s that pesky “word” redeployment. But hey, the Republican resolution gets rid of those pesky “words” that confuse the issue.
Jon H
“I think many of these posters have been imported from old Soviet prisons.”
Or new CIA ones.
Same thing!
Sine.Qua.Non
HEY! scs! I was imported from Venus you twirp!
Gray
scs, actually, it was a polish prison, and it wasn’t me, but my father, but close enough…
Jon H
” But hey, the Republican resolution gets rid of those pesky “words” that confuse the issue.”
Give them *some* credit.
At least they successfully resisted the urge to insert references to Jesus.
scs
Okay, let’s put similar language in the bill. Otherwise it won’t mean much.
Pb
John, when was the last time most of us did agree with you? Or are those the posts that get like no comments…
scs
Nah. Sunnis are Republicans.
Gray
But at least he never told stories that sounded like Abu Ghraib. Nothing against the Poles…
Pb
Jon H,
I’d actually love it if they did insert references to Jesus–now *that’d* be a debate worth watching.
Jon H
Speaking of old prisons, wouldn’t it be ironic if we took over some old Asian facility for the CIA and found American POWs? (Sad, tragic, even, but ironic. Like Twilight Zone ironic.)
Heck, Vietnam ought to be on our list of potential torture-buddies, right?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well you’re probably right scs. The majority of us would have been in Soviet prisons because we disagree with totalitarian governments.
How about you?
W
Seems to me the proposed Murtha Resolution is imposisble on its face:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
US deployed immediately terminated (hereby) and withdrawl to occur as as practicable.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
US forces to be deployed in MidEast but not Iraq.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
US government to use diplomacy and not force in Iraq.
What is the problem?
Let’s take 2 first. By what authority is the US to set up a deployment of forces somewhere in the Mideast? It is not just a US issue. The sovereign nations will have someting to say about this. This is an example of a person drafting a contrcat which they have no authority to enforce. It is imprecise.
Let’s take 1 now. Notwithstanding the fact the Iraqi’s have asked the US forcves to remain the resolution simply says “hereby terminated”. Unambiguous. And way to spit on Iraqi’s. And “as soon as practicable”? For goodness sake, if you cannot resolve to actually do something actually on a date, do not waste time on a reolution. Agains with the imprecision, except for the ‘hereby terminated’.
Lastly 3. This is the heart. Diplomacy is to be used and not force in Iraq. It fits perfectly – deployment in Iraq ends now, troops out as soon as practicable in favour of diplomatic actions. And all this against the express wishes of the Iraqi government, mind. What is diplomacy, when the fellow on the other side of the table is wearing a suicide belt? Just asking.
Murtha is a decorated military veteran. That he could imagine his resolutions do not amount to, as John puts it, troops out immediately is simply fanciful. He knows what he is saying. It is in his resolution.
But the weasel words of ‘practicable’ and ‘diplomacy’ and the arrogance of US troops being ‘over-the-horizon’ – as if what is actually over the horizon belongs to the US to do with as it sees fit – make his resolution as holey as a slice of swiss cheese.
That’s why Kos wants a vote on that form of Resolution.
And that’s why Johns wants the resolution to focus on the only accurate thing in the whole 3 sections: hereby terminated.
Vote:US deployment hereby terminated.
The rest is pure wankery. And notice how Iraqi’s don’t get mentioned at all.
ppGaz
A prison for shined shoes?
Oh, you meant “Polish“.
Mike S
OH SNAP again! Balloon Juice’s representative from the Special Olympics weighs in again.
Don’t over estimate yourself, little one. The best thing about you is your ability to make me laugh. I don’t get to see my 8 year old nephew very often so I use you as a substitute for him. The only problem with that is that he is a little brighter than you.
scs
Do I get a bottle of Scotch as a reward?
Gray
T D V, scs is pro Bush, so he is pro totalitarian. That’s obvious. Tsts…
Perry Como
That’s non-gulag to you.
scs
Whatever, Mike S, I’m done with you. You don’t address me, I don’t address you. Sounds like a plan to me.
Gray
scs, you CAN’T drink scotch. In the UK, they just voted against Blair’s kind of patriot act. What’s wrong with good ole Jack D.?
Gray
Oops, is Tenessee a blue state? Sry, dunno…
ppGaz
Consider it done.
Sine.Qua.Non
Ah Cripes, THAT moron Gohmert from Texas is on…..ugh. Gomer!
Hey you got your wish….Gohmert just put God into the discussion.
scs
Gray, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know. And I know ppGaz.
Gray
OK, everyone got his drink? Here’s to us and so on!
It’s the nightcap for me, early in the morning here. Will hit the mattress. Was fun today, CU all!
jg
Al Jazeera might make a headline so no talking.
Perry Como
Well, it’s a resolution if I’m not mistaken. fwiw, it sounds like Murtha is tired of a non-existent strategy in Iraq. Withdrawl would depend on an exit strategy, part of that lack of strategy in the current plan. Putting a hard date in a resolution would be bad. But the intent of letting the Iraqis taking control is worthwhile.
Of course I’m not Rep. Duncan, so I don’t want to put words in Rep. Murtha’s mouth (or rewrite his resolution).
Sine.Qua.Non
this House Of Rep. rhetoric is making me want to puke
Perry Como
Someone just did. Parody is dead.
james richardson
re: your “practicable” update:
I think the worry is, that’s what the GOP will try to spin it into.
jg
Why don’t the republicans want to discuss strategy?
Jon H
P. Como writes: “That’s non-gulag to you.”
Gulagette.
jobiuspublius
LEAVE IT AS I WROTE IT OR I WILL SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS
Gee, I wish I could see that on network TV.
Jon H
How come John Cole sounds just like Sean Hannity?
Stormy70
I am drinking coffee so I can stay awake past 8:30 tonight. Waking up at 3:45 in the AM is getting old, but I am seeing the light at the end of the work tunnel.
ppGaz
All of us who are students of Michael Brown will surely applaud that sentiment.
Most importantly, this blog is doing a great service to our troops. Once they parse out all the carefully worded horseshit, they’ll see that the government is just making itself stronger to support them better.
scs
My personal opinion is we should wait until the next Iraqi elections (the next ones after January). But I feel there should be a gradual pullback to the Iraqi bases within a year.
Jon H
“Why don’t the republicans want to discuss strategy?”
Why don’t they vote on a bill saying “We’re staying until 2020, or until we win, whichever comes first.”
Then in a few years they can try to decide what “we win” means.
Perry Como
The authority of the host government, in this case my guess would be Iraq. Some troops would remain in bases, but they wouldn’t play policemen. That’s not the job of a soldier (unless you’re an MP). But policing the civilian population is best left to the Iraqis.
Gray
Stormy, here it’s 3:17 and I’m going to bed…
Nightynight
Mike S
They are a rubber stamp. Debating strategery might cause them to disagree with Bush.
Sine.Qua.Non
“American remains resolved in the war on terrorism.” So why isn’t that what we are doing? Why isn’t that what we did instead of invading Iraq, Rep.Phil Gingrey?
Perry Como
Perhaps someone has answered this before, but what is a victory in Iraq? What are the quantifiable goals?
Sine.Qua.Non
They are now voting for the next 15 minutes.
Sine.Qua.Non
Exactly Perry, Bush has never indicated WHAT that means.
ppGaz
Snort. I defy you to find ten Americans who can describe what a “war on terrorism” is, and how it is fought and won.
Jon H
“The authority of the host government, in this case my guess would be Iraq. Some troops would remain in bases, but they wouldn’t play policemen. That’s not the job of a soldier (unless you’re an MP). But policing the civilian population is best left to the Iraqis.”
Why does this remind me of Colonial India for some reason?
Kinda tricky, you know. Keeping the good weapons away from the Iraqi troops in order to avoid a modern sepoy mutiny, yet expecting them to fight an opponent we have trouble with despite having much better equipment.
jg
And Congress won’t let the question be asked.
James C.
Apparently Murtha is an even bigger crook than the infamous Tom Delay, as per the Los Angeles Times:
According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, …”the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well.
“KSA directly lobbied Murtha’s office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.
“In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.
“Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).”
And this is the HERO of the democratic Party…what a fucking sleazeball!!!
Andrei
I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge that John Cole just admitted he could be wrong.
OMFGWTFBBQHTFIX!
Ok… done. Now…
Like others have said… if it WAS the same damn thing, then why did they REWRITE it and ask to vote on their version?
Seems kind of petty to do something like REWRITE a proposed bill if it really is just the SAME DAMN THING as the thing they rewrote.
Don’t take us for fools John. I know Limbaugh and his ilk take their audience for fools, but show us a little respect already.
scs
A functioning government. The people haven’t even had real elections yet, and we are just going to bail?
Pug
How come John Cole sounds just like Sean Hannity?
Good question. John is usually much less Hannity-like.
BTW, Murtha did not call Cheney a chickenhawk. He pointed out that Cheney had five draft deferments, which he did due to other priorities. The man had his chance to fight for his country.
Very few Democrats have called for an “immediate withdrawal”. Hell, even Al Franken isn’t for that. I wonder, though, why is the Iraqi army so unprepared to fight? The insurgents seem quite ready to “bring it on”. What’s wrong with our side? They’ve had almost three years now to get ready. What’s the deal?
Sine.Qua.Non
I’m going to be writing a really pissy letter to that horses ass Duncan Hunter, Chair of the Armed Forces Committee.
2265 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5672
FAX: (202) 225-0235
Online email: Duncan Hunter
Mike S
That’s funny. If he’s guilty of this he should resign.
I’m glad you admit that Delay is a corupt slimeball though.
ppGaz
Well, no. That won’t do it.
What is required is a government capable of mounting a defense. Capable of raising an army that will defend it, and manage the policies that keep that working.
Without that, the government cannot last 90 days. A paper government will not stand in Iraq. It is going to require a government with teeth. And right now, they don’t even have one tooth. And no prospects.
That’s the problem. All this theatrical posing around the trappings of government mean nothing until that government can defend itself and its borders. They are years away from that, if they will ever have it.
Stormy70
Night Gray.
All the cool people are on the Harry Potter thread, by the way.
Dave Ruddell
What’s the difference between an immediate withdrawal and a withdrawal as soon as practicable? I’m asking a serious question here, and I’m looking for an answer that has units of time (weeks, months, what have you).
Murtha seems to believe that in order to withdraw troops in a safe manner will require approximately six months. Remember, his primary concern is not about what happens to the situation in Iraq, it’s about bringing the troops home. I’m not sure of his expertise in logistics and force protection. He was a Marine for 37 years, so he must have some idea what he’s talking about, but I have no idea if in his time he served in any role that would give him expertise in logistics. Does anybody know more about him? (I got the 37 year figure from his House web page)
So, at one end we have six months. On the immediate withdrawal we have…I don’t know. Clearly it’s not going to be one day, or one week. Is it possible (never mind practicable) to withdraw the troops in less than six months? Of course, if they were being evacuated due to some threat, I would think so. On the other hand, it would seem obvious to me (and I think this is John’s main point) that absent such an urgent reason, the Pentagon would not withdraw the troops in a manner that is likely to jeopardize their safety, although it may jeopardize their comfort (at least temporarily)
So, back to my original question; what is the difference between the two scenarios? A month? Two? Anybody have an idea?
scs
That’s why I support hanging around bases and cutting down on forward operations, as a reserve in case someone wants to invade or some dictator gets any ideas.
ppGaz
The question should be posed to the people who wrote the second version. Apparently they thought it was important to make the distinction, so why not let them explain it?
Perry Como
Fair enough. Reagan said bayonetes can’t do that, but I digress. According to the current timeline (evil as they are), government elections occur at the end of January. Wouldn’t it be a vote of confidence to tell the Iraqis, “Elections are coming up in 2 months and you deserve to run your own country. The US is withdrawing our troops so you can do that. We will continue to work with you diplomatically because we believe that Iraq will be a very successful democratic country.”
Jon H
“That’s why I support hanging around bases and cutting down on forward operations, as a reserve in case someone wants to invade or some dictator gets any ideas.”
Kinda like a new West Berlin.
Tractarian
scs is right on this one, the House GOP leadership needs to stop the shenanigans and put the Murtha proposal up for a vote. It would and should go down in flames – “cut and run”, even if takes 6 months, is still a recipe for disaster.
So, Darrell, Mr. Cole, please answer the following question:
Why won’t the House GOP leadership call a vote on the Murtha resolution?
And don’t tell me they wanted to get rid of the “weaselly” words (whatever that means), because remember – this resolution wasn’t designed to pass anyway! So why would they need to improve it in any way?
If the Dems had the same political chutzpah as the Repubs, they would go around the country tomorrow informing everyone how the GOP just introduced a White Flag Bill and wants an “immediate” withdrawal from Iraq.
Mike S
I realise he’s not Chalabi or Curveball or Abramhoff or Scanlon or Ney or Delay or Cunningham or Blunt or Noe or Taft… but I guess you have to start somewhere.
ppGaz
Uh, no. When you have an opponent who is intent on shooting himself in the groin over and over again, you stand aside and offer suggestions for loading more ammuniton. The Republicans need no help screwing the pooch on this issue. They seem to have canine reproduction down to a tee.
scs
It is not an instant process. Even here we have between Nov and Jan to set up a government, and sometimes slow going after that to fill all positions in a new admin. How much time will Iraqi’s need to get settled? Much much more time. At the very, very least 6 months, and I would say one year for a decent minimum, 2 years to be safer. We waited this long, why not wait till things are a litle more settled?
Mike S
BTW. Check out just exactly how the new Republicans think.
ppGaz
They have no means of self defense, and no prospects.
jaime
If we leave “cut and run” there will be daily violence, ethnic tensions, and a real possibilty of an Islamic Republic in Iraq. We wouldn’t want THAT to happen.
Perry Como
If he is doing something illegal, toss him on his ear. Corruption is non-partisan.
ppGaz
Actually, I think that at least a plurality, if not a majority, of Americans support exactly that. Getting out even if it means a less favorable outcome for Iraq.
There is not a deep appreciation for how completely the Spuds have squandered the good will of the people on this thing. And they are not going to get it back, that ship has sailed.
slickdpdx
Why all the handwringing Dems? If its different and that changes your vote, vote against it.
Mike S
Because that will cost another 2000 or so American lives and somewhere in the neighborhood of $220,000,000,000 at least.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’d like to find out who these 6 Republicans voting against continuing this silly debate are.
Those are Republicans that I can respect.
jaime
WOW! I love’s me some C-SPAN. Some friggin nutjobs. Most people calling in are terribly incoherent. Did I just hear that the terrorists were responsible for the WATTS riots?
ppGaz
The clueless just keep lining up here. Watch the vote, and see what happens.
Mike S
I said if he’s guilty he should resign in my earlier comment. I was just pointing out the irony of his comment.
Sine.Qua.Non
Screwing the Pooch?!! ppGaz!!!!! Isn’t that bestiality?
Perry Como
Because as long as our troops police Iraq we will be an occupying force. And again, soldiers are not policemen. Soldiers fight wars, they don’t manage a civilian populace.
Whatever direction Iraq is going, our continued presence is counter productive. We can provide supplies, training, etc., but the Iraqis need to take charge.
scs
Mike S -talk to the hand.
The Disenfranchised Voter
What a stupid ass question. Why all the handwringing on the original resolution?
What a fucking tard.
ppGaz
Uh, guilty of what? What is he charged with, and by whom?
He’s charged with the fact that Pelosi’s nephew has a job?
Or, did I miss something?
Mike S
Scares the bajeebus out of me that some of these people actually vote.
Sine.Qua.Non
Hey? What the hell are we going to do for news while these jokers are on break?
ppGaz
Well, not if you’re a pooch.
scs
I agree, that’s why I said gradual pullback to bases and ceasing forward operations (one year maybe). Like someone said upthread, a West Berlin strategy.
Mike S
heh. I tried to be nice but the Guiness record holder for smallest brain was still offended.
Sine.Qua.Non
210-202 it passed
Andrei
The real issue here is the fumble on the Democrats side of the fence. They should have made their first point more specific and bullet-proof in terms of langauge. They should have stated that once a “practicable” redeployment plan was developed and passed, then the immediate withdrawl of the troops would commmence. What they shold have done is put a timetable on drafting a plan, instead of tying that action to the withdrawl of troops. That would have removed the ability of the GOP to focus on the action of calling back the troops which is obviously impractical and keep the discusison more on the fact the GOP have yet to develop a plan to win and end the war.
Then the GOP couldn’t have pulled this crass political stunt.
And it is a stunt, because if the GOP were being honest about holding a vote on the issue of getting troops home form Iraq for real, they would be willing to help the Dems and point out their polical error here by putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If it wasn’t a stunt, they’d be willing to draft a bill that could be voted on for its merits and stand confident in their vote on an honest bill. That or leave the bill language as written vote on it.
All John and the rest of the GOPers are trying to do now is rub the mistake in their noses, which has the distasteful effect of upping the voltage on using the war as political football yet again. But hey, what else is new? It’s not like people’s lives.. the soldiers fighting on foreign soil, Iraqi citizens living with the violence, yours if a terrorist infiltrates our country again, mine for the same reason, or our children who will live with the consequences of what the bold experiment in the Middle East will look like 50 years from now… are on the line or anything..
Stevo
Now it is time to dance!
Sine.Qua.Non
goodie, another hour of debate
Sine.Qua.Non
That was only the vote to have the vote on the resolution.
nyrev
The point of withdrawing as soon as practicable is not just to ensure our own safety, but to ensure that Iraq doesn’t collapse into the vacuum that “immediate withdrawal” would leave behind. That, as well as the proceding parts of Murtha’s resolution that deal with responsibility and diplomacy, is what was excised from the resolution by the GOP. Frankly, I think that the GOP should just take full credit for this revised resolution and run with it. Hell, it’s better than the GOP exit plan up to this point, which as far as I can tell is “We can leave once Terror surrenders.”
But it’s significantly different from Murtha’s proposal, and not in a particularly good way. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
Perry Como
I don’t see your disagreement with Murtha’s resolution other than time frame then. The Iraqis have had time to become somewhat self-sufficient, however our presence hinders further progress. I’m not sure about anyone else, but a bunch of foreign soldiers playing policeman on my block would not sit well with me, no matter how good their intentions are.
If we truly believe that Iraqis want a democracy, let’s get out of their way.
jaime
It’s turned into dueling war heroes. Our applause was better than your applause. The serial divorcer vs. Count Chocula. It’s on.
scs
Well timing is everything in life. I think 6 months is too soon. Their elections are not even for 3 months. I’d say at least a year.
Perry Como
Not meaning to sound snarky (for once), do you believe the Iraqis can not self-govern?
scs
Geez, give them a LITTLE time to get settled after their first real elections, why don’t you? I mean tough love is cool, but come on now.
Lost Dog
De-e-e-licious! Absolutely de-e-e-licious!
Telling a lie is one thing. Voting on it for posterity is another. De-e-e-licious!!!
Bob Munck
Suppose Rumsfeld had a big button on his desk labeled “Iraq Emergency Beam-out” which, when pushed, would cause every American in Iraq to go all sparkly and suddenly be standing in the post office of his or her home town. THEN it would make sense to talk about “immediate withdrawal” and a nation-wide vote would almost certainly be strongly in favor. It would probably even pass in the Senate, but maybe not the House; it’s impossible to overestimate the sheer stupidity of the U.S. House of Representatives.
jaime
I love that Schmidt’s getting smacked on the nose. Freepers no longer heart Curt Weldon anymore.
rkrider
HAHA Dumbasses-
Republicans Walter Jones and Rick Renzi, along with the Democrats, spoke in defense of the character and patriotism of Murtha. By the end, the Republicans were denying that the resolution had anything to do with Murtha. Before they were labelling it the “Murtha Amendment.”
The naked attack on dissent, this New McCarthyism, has been thoroughly discredited.
In short, the Republicans went after the wrong Marine.
This is an Open Thread to discuss the one hour debate that will now commence on the Fake Hunter Resolution.
Henry Hyde opens the debate by praising John Murtha as a “great American.” Think that is what they had in mind when this started?
Perry Como
This goes back to the question of quantifiable results. I haven’t seen any notion of “when we are done”. Some would say that’s unpatriotic (snark is inevitable), but there have to be measurable goals. There was an interim election, there is a constitution, and the Iraqis are going to hold another election in 2 months (Jan. 30th, right?).
I’d really love to see Iraq become a democratic state. I don’t see it happening while we are the security force.
jaime
Murtha rocks the friggin Kasbah.
ppGaz
Hell no. They got a whiff of the evening news and cable cycle and found out that they were getting their asses kicked. Another huge miscalculation by the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
These boneheads can’t even manage a session of the House … and we think they will bring “democracy” to Arabia?
Oooookay …….
Krista
416 comments…holy crap. Is this some sort of record?
ppGaz
The righties lined up for a little spankin’ and we had to oblige ’em. Took a while but I think we got everybody.
Perry Como
My guess is this is a microcosm of a national debate that needs to take place. Mr. Cole is good enough to let both sides vent their arguments. I’d guess this will play out on the national stage in the coming months.
ppGaz
The “national” debate is over, and the results are in.
What will happen now is the agony of Washington catching up with the people.
After that happens, then the blogs will get caught up too.
Jon H
scs writes: “Well timing is everything in life. I think 6 months is too soon. Their elections are not even for 3 months. I’d say at least a year.”
Of course, if Murtha had said “1 year”, he’d still be getting roughly the same treatment.
And probably also the same if he said 2 years.
Or 3 years.
Sine.Qua.Non
Has anyone actually heard ANYONE, any representative, actually bring up Bin Ladin or any other terrorist?
jaime
Who’s that dude behind Murtha chewing gum? What is that Orbitz? I’m more a Big Red man myself.
Krista
The stuff you miss when you go to the pub…
Andrei
Wow… I just watched the Schmidt speech. Holy fuck that was seriously offensive. I mean… that was more offensive than any remark I have ever made on this blog, and we all know *that’s* pretty fucking offensive.
I find it remarkable the GOP seems to be *begging* for fights more and more these days. Trust me guys… given the recent past and the temperature in the polls, that seems like an incredibly dumb political strategy. All them moonbat peacenik liberal pussies will only take so much punishment before they retaliate and kick you in the balls.
This weekend will be must-see political theater with that offensive gaffe from Schmidt. ppGaz! Pass the popcorn my man!
Sine.Qua.Non
I hope to hell all the Democrats leave or just show as No Vote on this.
Andrew
The Democrats should offer a resolution stating:
“Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, will be continued for 10 years or until the mission is accomplished.”
Make the Republicans put their name on another decade in Iraq.
Perry Como
I doubt it. The national debate is going to involve alot of “WTF”, “OMG”, and “WTFOMGBBQ!!1one”. I fear the moment they pull out the “ROFLCOPTER” and “LOLLERSKATES”.
JWeidner
John,
Have you actually read though Murtha’s statement in its entirety? Instead of some frenzied call for retreat, I find it to be a well-reasoned statement that clearly defines why Murtha thinks that things have gone wrong. Taken in context, his resolution clearly has a different meaning than what the Republicans are bringing up for a vote.
I don’t know…it’s all just a Game anyway. IMO, both sides play it to their advantage – to think any differently is to delude oneself about the nature of politics.
JWeidner
Edit to my earlier post…
I saw that your original story linked to the NY Times transcript…so I have to assume you read the entire thing…I just have to think that you’ll always see one side, and I’ll see another…
The Disenfranchised Voter
LOL. Once the speaker said “That is debatable” about the resolution I knew all hell broke lose. I knew the Democrats were gonna get pissed at that one. Hahaha.
ZTN
John Cole has spun and broad brushed Murtha’s and Kos’s words on this matter. It’s expeditious and dishonest.
God help us when can’t appreciate and consider a valid option in an appropriate discussion.
Sojourner
Uh no. Why don’t you ask your mom to show you how to use google.
jaime
They keep saying finish the job. When? How?
I say no vote on Hunter’s resolution.
ZTN
Who’s that dude behind Murtha chewing gum? What is that Orbitz? I’m more a Big Red man myself.
That’s Paul Kanjorski. He’s the rep from my neighboring district in PA. he represents the Scranton-Wikes Barre area.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Same here. My jaw dropped.
Welcome to “Great Moments in Congress!”
Jason
I’ve never been so perplexed in my life. Does the left really have no spine at all? If you good “liberals” really think that we should immediately withdraw our forces (as you constantly scream whenever possible) then why are you cursing the GOP for having the temerity to force a vote on this matter…INSTEAD OF CALLING YOUR REP AND DEMANDING THEY VOTE YES!?!?!?
I’m sorry, but you have completely lost any semblance of credibility.
Armando
For the record Mr. Cole,
I do not go on fool’s errands and thus have NEVER called for withdrawal from Iraq.
George Bush doesn’t listen to me.
Do I favor immediate withdrawal? I don’t know. I wish the President had an idea what to do and could explain it and then I could make a judgment.
Since he doesn’t, and I can’t, I make no such call.
Sine.Qua.Non
I was pissed….the speaker isn’t supposed to do that. Horse’s ass.
Sine.Qua.Non
Can these guys only mimic Bush? “Stay the Course!” Get a new line for crying out loud.
Sine.Qua.Non
Sheesh they just gave Sam Johnson more time…..where’s Murtha’s extra time?
Sine.Qua.Non
it looks like the democrats aren’t answering the vote
Sine.Qua.Non
I’m wrong…..it just sounded like half the room was silent.
Sojourner
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe because that’s not the Dems’ position.
Sine.Qua.Non
Wow, 2 dems and 1 repub have voted yes, huh….it’s over, theres already 304 nays in the majority
ppGaz
Chuckle. Don’t worry, in the fullness of time, the reality of what happened today will sink in for these spuds and they’ll be standing there looking like Wile E. Coyote, with charred fur and the stub of a blown-up shotgun in their hands …..
jaime
3 votes yea 0 votes nay on the non binding resolution to stick Jean Schmidt in a wall trunk with a ravenous raccoon. The resolution is passed.
Ain’t democracy grand?
PAN pan (Anon...)
My opinion of Mr. Murtha shot through the roof. My opinion on the U.S. House of Representatives dropped lower than the grimiest plumbing in the bowels of the dungeons of hell.
RTO Trainer
I dunno.
Speaking as a Soldier, if it were going to pass, I perfer the Republican Democrat bill over the Democrat Democrat bill. The R-D bill leaves the withdrawl up to us. The D-D bill puts conditions on it.
Sorry, but tactics and strategy are not the perview of Congress, Republican controlled or Democrat controlled.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm Odd that the Republican votes on Yea went from 3 to 2 to 0 at the very lasy second.
Apparently Tom Delay’s corrupt spirit has an influence on that.
Honestly how could Rep. Walter Jones (r-NC) come out in favor of Murtha and also the Republican resolution, vote yes, and then vote no or “present”?
I’d like to see someone look my straight in the eye and tell me they think he did that on his own accord.
You can damn well bet his ass was whipped into the party line.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Who do you mean by “us”?
ppGaz
Well you have to figure that at least a few of those guys were drunk by the time the voting was under way.
Five hundred sober politicians at eleven on a Friday night?
Mmmm. Call me skeptical.
Jon H
RTO Trainer writes: “Sorry, but tactics and strategy are not the perview of Congress, Republican controlled or Democrat controlled.”
Those tactics and strategy won’t get you very far without money to pay for them.
RTO Trainer
The military. You missed the handle?
The Disenfranchised Voter
The interesting issue here is that this occured on a friday. Does this all really come down to who does the best job at planning their talking points and getting them out, or do you think one side has a clear advantage going into the weekend?
RTO Trainer
I see. So you don’t support withdrawl, you do support pulling funding and letting us rot?
“Millions for Wellfare! Not one dime for Transport!”
Dave Ruddell
Okay, here’s a question: Does anyone here think that the troops should be withdrawn as soon as practicable? For the sake of argument, assume that will take about 6 months to complete fully.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ok, that is what I thought you were saying. I just wanted to make sure before I started questioning you.
You say the “R-D bill leaves the withdrawl up to [the military]” (though I should remind you that it is a R bill, not an R-D bill but anyways I digress)
How exactly does the R bill leave the withdrawal up to you? It specifically says to withdrawal immediately.
Is not then Congress deciding when the military leaves…that the military leaves immediately?
TallDave
Thanks for the post John. Really, that was quite possibly the most entertaining thing I’ve read all year. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the “run like hell” part.
Great stuff.
Next, let’s vote on whether our troops committed war crimes by using white phosphorus shells. Let’s see how many Dems want to stand behind that little gem of troop-bashing nonsense.
ch2
John Cole, a cretin must have replaced you. I sincerely hope you did not post this complete BS.
The Disenfranchised Voter
All I have to say is thankfully you came late to this thread talldave. I don’t think I could have taken the posting of another idiot–my head would have exploded.
Darrell and Stormy did a fine job of handling that department.
TallDave
TDV,
It must kill you to read your own posts, then. How sad for you.
RTO Trainer
Ever read an OPORD?
As much as possible there are specific time hacks given for events to occur.
Everyone knows they are based on a plan that will be switfly overtaken by events.
Of these is any condition that makes performing that task, follwing that order, too great a risk.
We follow orders. But we aren’t stupid.
An important part of the OPORD is Paragraph 3 which covers Execution. It breaks down all the specifics, who does what and when. But the most important part of Para 3 is the first sentence. This is the Commander’s Intent. It’s a description of what the endstate of the mission is to be.
We don’t have time for staring at an execution matrix that bears no resemblance to reality. We take the situation as we know it and apply judgement to the Commander’s Intent. In this way we can continue to function and still meet overall objectives.
Now, please tell me why executing an “immediate withdrawl” would be any different than how we normally operate?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Heh, touche!
I suggest you read all the posts. The thread is quite entertaining to say the least.
And hey, who knows, maybe you’ll learn a thing or two (for once)
:)
ppGaz
TallDave writes their copy.
RTO Trainer
Entertaining: The idea that an “immediate withdrawl” would mean abandoning all sense and training.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well, what you seem to be saying is that even if the Congress decided to force an immediate withdrawal the military wouldn’t withdrawal until they thought the mission was complete? I am quite skeptical of that claim since the Republican resolution says absolutely nothing about immediately withdrawing once the mission is complete.
The terms immediate withdrawal are pretty clear, and the Congress made those terms pretty clear. Immediate withdraw = cut and run. Now, if what you are saying is correct why were so many Republicans in Congress extremely dishonest about what the term immediate withdraw means? Or could you possibly be mistaken and the term immediate withdrawal mean to immediately withdraw?
RTO Trainer
In actuality it would mena abandoning the Iraqi people….
And writing off all our effort as well as over 2000 lives just like so much bad debt.
Dave Ruddell
This is why I asked the question, what is the difference (in time) between an immediate withdrawal and a withdrawal as soon as practicable? Is there any practical difference between these two things?
I do, of course, realize that the semantics are politically important (duh). I’m more interested in the actual application.
Bob Munck
OPORD, time hacks, endstate of the mission. Golly willikers, real grown-up military jargon. I’m tremendously impressed.
In my experience, it’s used to cover up fuzzy thinking. Terms like “dense information fusion for the War-Fighter” used to drive me crazy.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ok, so then will you admit that you were wrong to make the claim the the Republican version of the bill was better than the Democratic version?
RTO Trainer
Huh?
How on Earth do you find that?
What I said was that the order to withdraw would be accomplished, but judgement would be applied to the actuall meaning of “immediate.”
Clearly if a C-130 only holds 60 troops and their gear, we aren’t going to stuff 90 onboard in order to satisfy an “immediate” requirement.
The permutations of possibilities, capacities, logistical considerations, safety, security, and fiduciary considerations are all but infinite. Not a one of them will be sacrificed to some politician’s definition of “immediate.”
RTO Trainer
No practical difference.
RTO Trainer
That’s J level stuff. I’m happy down at the S level.
Most of those guys might as well be politicians.
RTO Trainer
Ok, so then will you admit that you were wrong to make the claim the the Republican version of the bill was better than the Democratic version?
You do this on purpose or do you just have a gift for misreading?
Any withdrawl will have the effect I described. In that regard both bills are crap.
I only suggested that the Republican Democrat bill would be more palatable militarily.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Did you not say this about the Republican version of the bill…
“In actuality it would mena abandoning the Iraqi people….
And writing off all our effort as well as over 2000 lives just like so much bad debt.”
I agree that this is what the Republican version was asking for. However, the Democratic version says we should phase out troops and keep an emergency force “on the horizon” to make sure things don’t get out of hand.
Now you may say both these bills are the wrong course, but I really do fail to see how you can possibly say the Republican version is better for the military after saying it amounts to abandoning the mission completely…
RTO Trainer
Well. There he goes again…
Did you stop after the first sentence? Did you miss the rest?
Here is is again, just for you:
“Any withdrawl will have the effect I described. In that regard both bills are crap. I only suggested that the Republican Democrat bill would be more palatable militarily.”
Just in case:
The Democrat Democrat bill would be absolutely identical in this respect.
I try to learn from history. We were supposed to remain committed to helping South Vietnam after 1973, too. Do you recollect what happened in 1975? Are you expecting me to beleive that you or the House Democrats would be willing to go back to Bagdad after withdrawing? Under what conditions? And just imagine; three invasions of the same country when we could keep it at two.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I can’t speak for the Democrats as I am not one, and to be honest I don’t favor Murtha’s version or the Republican version. I think we have to wait until a stable government is in place and then begin to withdraw troops.
However, I still fail to see how you could possibly say the Republican version to “cut and run” was better for the military than the Democrat version of “phasing out”. I just don’t see how you can possibly think that.
RTO Trainer
Drop immediate from the equation for a moment; at this date withdrawl = cut and run. Any with drawil, immediate, staggared, with all deliberate speed, or whenever you feel like it, without having achieved the aims for which we began is to cut and run.
The only practical difference between the Republican Democrat bill and the Democrat Democrat bill is that no one wants the Republican Democrat bill to pass, while at least Rep. Murtha would have wanted the Democrat Democrat bill to pass.
You want someone to admit it was a stunt? Sure it was a stunt. It was an effective stunt though–just look at the vote tallies: 403-3–and that’s what has you, the Kossacks and the House Democrats hacked off. The moresobecause teh Senate Democrats stunt last week never gained any traction. (Despite Senate Republicans ardent and inexplicable efforts to give it some.)
RTO Trainer
As i said, it places no conditions on the military. The Democrat Democrat bill tries to put lipstick on the pig with “over the horizon” and “rapid reaction” garbage. You can’t polish a turd, but Rep. Murtha sure gave it the old college try.
Why leave 10,000 troops to bake in Kuwait? No matter what happens in Iraq, once out they’d never be allowed to cross the LD going back.
FWIW, I am a Democrat.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Actually what has me ticked off more than anything is the fact that the Republicans tried to pass off their gutted version of the bill as Murtha’s version. It was disingenious and a low-blow to Murtha. BTW, for future reference, I’m a registered independent who is mostly libertarian.
Heh, I’d have to disagree strongly there. While it was a stunt, the stunt worked out fairly well for the Democrats.
At least the Democratic stunt actually had a geniune purpose, other than to demonize the opposition. I most certainly do want the lead up to the Iraq war investigated. Congressional oversight anyone?
RTO Trainer
Show me.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You had to be watching the debate RTO Trainer. I really couldn’t prove it to you unless I had a transcript or a video.
I think even John would vouch for me on this one.
Trust me, I’m not misleding you. The Republicans were trying to make it seem as if they were debating Murtha’s version, and not their own gutted version.
That is what most of us took offense too. If they really wanted to have a vote on Murtha’s version, why not just vote on it.
Dan Kauffman
“Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.”
Withdraw from THE most strategic location in the Region and redeploy an over-the-horizon presence, WHERE exactly?
That is like saying withdraw from the high ground and redeploy somewhere in the valley under the guns of the enemy and if they start shooting at you, then retake the high ground?????????
Perry Como
Can anyone tell me what the end goal is? At what point do we say “Hey, things are good! Let’s leave now!”
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’d like to know the answer to that too. And I’m also posting b/c I want to see this thread break 500, heh.
Dan Kauffman
Bring the Troops HOME!
From Germany
I mean VE Day was the 8th of May l945.
Isn’t 60 years enough time to have finished the job
How about Bosnia? Ten years so far, how long
will we continue that quagmire?
Let the Federal Government address these issues before they bother their pointy little heads with Iraq. I mean what is the rush by the Democratic Party to have a time table for withdrawl from Iraq when we still have troops in Germnay and Bosnia.
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?from=20051116
Gray
Yup, Dan! And don’t forget all those other places loke Okinawa and Guantanamo. US troops stressed the hospitality of those countries, too!
[hey, I guess we’ll be able to break the 500 barrier with this thread. Keep on posting! :)]
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well I’d have to say I agree with Dan. I think all of our troops should be brought home soon. I definitely see no reason why we still have troops in Japan, Germany, etc. etc.
When it comes to our military I am just about totally isolationist. I mean, afterall, the job of an American soldier is to defend America and the Constitution–not police the world or spread democracy.
I was searching for a quote by adams or madison that talks against the idea of spreading democracy through military might. It was something along the lines of, Regardless of its purposes both sides in a war are still participants in that war and that will reflect negatively on both. It is not advisable to spread democracy through war, as America should set an example to the rest of the world, not force it upon them.
Anyways I am bringing this up because I stumble upon this quote:
Now tell me that isn’t prophetic. Smart guys those found fathers were.
owlbear1
Col. Murtha:”Sir, the intel was wrong. This hill is surrounded by 20 times the forces we were told. The position is untenable. I do have a plan that will save a lot of lives.”
Gen. Republican: “Are you SURRENDERING? You can’t SURRENDER!! If you leave that hill WE LOSE!!”
Col Murtha:”Sir, who says we will lose the war because we can’t hold this hill?”
Gen. Republican: “Our Great and Exalted President has DECLARED that hill the WHOLE POINT of the War. Without that hill there is no point to the war therefore we must HOLD that hill!”
Col. Murtha: “Sir, We will not be able to hold this hill. Losing this hill will not cost us the war. The HILL is not the point of the WAR.”
Gen. Republican:”Disagreeing with our Great and Exalted President is Treasonous and Cowardly Colonel!”
Col. Murtha:”Sir, STICKING to the Same plan after finding out EVERY piecce intelligence you had was DEAD WRONG is Criminally Incompentent! Sir.”
dano347
“I mean what is the rush by the Democratic Party to have a time table for withdrawl from Iraq when we still have troops in Germnay and Bosnia”
And how many American soldiers died in “Germnay” and Bosnia yesterday, Sgt. York?
“That is like saying withdraw from the high ground and redeploy somewhere in the valley under the guns of the enemy and if they start shooting at you, then retake the high ground?????????”
To the less intelligent, perhaps. So the Green Zone is the “high ground”? Where exactly is this secure, defendable high ground located?
Purple Fury
What those of you arguing for the Dem side of the thing fail to see is that this was a non-binding “Sense of the House” resolution — it wasn’t legislation. It was a statement of, well, the sense of the House. It didn’t preclude later consideration or debate of Murtha’s proposal in the slightest bit. This was a simple statement of the political climate in House at a certain time.
There is no way that Murtha’s proposal could be debated seriously and brought to a vote in 24 hours. I think what the GOP did was an accurate distillation of where the Dems want to go with this, and they were right to bring it forward. It may backfire on them politically, but there is nothing disingenous about it.
It was simply a way to communicate to the world the feeling in the House that it was time to withdraw. Now, given what the anti-war left and the Democrats who pander to them have been saying since 2003, and since it didn’t preclude later consideration and debate and refinement of Murtha’s proposal, why in the hell didn’t they vote for it?
Murtha’s resolution calls for the immediate termination of American military involvement in Iraq, and a withdrawal to rearward bases. Now, you can talk about QRFs and all of that, but the fact is Murtha and his Dem allies want us OUT. NOW. Yesterday if not sooner.
The GOP was right to call them on it.
OCSteve
I have to say this was sweet. The Dems are finally called on their BS and they look like a deer frozen in the headlights.
All you folks parsing the wording and claiming it wasn’t the same resolution are just wrong. The Dems have been preaching cut-n-run for months and it has been building to a crescendo. You got called on it.
I’m psyched the GOP finally found some balls. My only complaint is that the Senate didn’t do the same exact thing.
smijer
Oh yeah… The High Ground has always meant “behind enemy lines” getting blown up by IEDs.” it isn’t funny any more.
Sojourner
Because it’s not the Dems’ position. Why should they vote for something they don’t support?
Duh.
Darrell
The only thing ‘deeply dishonest’ is your characterization. Given the logistics involved, removal of our troops out of Iraq within 6 months IS IMMEDIATE you idiot. No honest doubt about it. How about this – Why don’t you Dems propose a resolution stating, as Rep. Murtha has clarified, that our troops must be out of Iraq within 6 months? Let’s take it at face value and vote up or down. What say you Dems?
aop
Just wanted to see “500 comments.” Did we get everything worked out?
Steve Smith
Murtha stated he wants immediate withdrawal of the troops. His bill asked for deployment to be ‘hereby terminated.’ The GOP bill removes all the bullshit, and states that a vote of ‘aye’ means that you favor exactly what Murtha said yesterday and proposed in his bill.
Why is it up to the GOP to determine what “all the bullshit” is in a sitting Congressman’s resolution? I now see the mentality behind Bush’s claim that “we don’t do torture”. All the President has done is taken the Geneva Conventions and basic standards of human decency, and “removed all the bullshit” about what is the appropriate way to treat enemy combatants, etc.
Purple Fury
But of course it is. In as much as they support Murtha’s proposal, it is PRECISELY their position (I view as largely irrelevant this “over the horizon” nonsense about a Quick Reaction Force [based where, btw?], and view this diddling over the semantics of “as soon as practicable” as trivial — clearly Murtha wants them home yesterday).
If the GOP resolution WASN’T their position, why did Cynthia McKinney vote for it? I think she’s wrong but at least she’s got some integrity — that proposal is EXACTLY what the anti-war left and the Dems who pander to them have been bitching about for two fucking years.
The simple fact is the rest of the Dems just don’t want to be held accountable for a vote in favor of surrendering to the insurgency, without the GOP providing political cover for them.
Sojourner
Huh? This statement conclusively demonstrates just how desperate the Bush supporters are. If the only way you can support your position is to claim that McKinney represents the position of the Democratic party, you really are toast.
The Dems don’t need the GOP’s cover. They have the majority support of the American public. It’s only a matter of time before the GOP rank and file join with the Dems. The American people believe they were lied to and they see no end in sight for this war.
Make all the stupid, snarky comments you want but the GOP Bush supporters are running scared. That’s why they have to lie about the Dems’ position.
It would be really pitiful if it weren’t for the fact that young men and women are dying for their lies and lack of courage.
RTO Trainer
TDV,
Forward Deployment of our military is the guarantor of Globalism. I think you know that. I think you also think Globalism is a Bad Thing ™.
What opponents of Globalism universally fail to see is that the opposite of Globalism is a sort of civilizational apartheid. The violent antiglobalists, which includes bin Laden, not only prefer segregation they will kill to achieve it.
There are two non-violent isolationist camps. The radical isolationists, like yourself, want to pull all our troops home and station them around the perimeter (if not disband the military altogether).
The other, what I would call liberal isolationists, want to identify the world’s “quagmires” and position our troops around them or fence them in somehow. This is usually accompanied by fevered cries to end foreign dependence on all commodities, “Buy American” and then sit back and enjoy the good life.
Both camps miss the big picture; when we let everyone or everyone rot in a Hobbsian existence we are culpable for what happens to them. It reduces the potential for global progress. That’s just the moral and financial arguments. The practical argument is perhaps more compelling; no nation has, within its borders the commodities and resources to meet all its needs, and certainly not indefinitely.
Oil is only the commodity of the era. In the past it was gold. At other times it’s been land, food, and even intangibles like liberty.
The anti-globalists portray themselves as having the moral high-ground, which isn’t surprising, it’s the only rely effective recruiting method and no one want’s to be a part of something that is immoral. I’ve no doubt their motives are pure, but their visions are short. Without doubt there are abuses in Globalization, terrible ones. The better use of the time and resources of these people is to work to reform the abuses while watchdoging a good and necessary process.
When we pursue a policy of America First, or worse, America Only, and to hell with the rest of the world, this will create a hell across much of the rest of the world. A world we cannot exist without. The piper must be paid, the questions is whether to pay now or later.
We’ve already done this once with globalization when the US turned its back on the world after WWI. That round of globalization totally collapsed in the 1930’s, not because of anything inherently flawed in globalizing, but because of the lack of a significant portion of the world’s resources and interest. Had we not withdrawn in 1918, the depression might have been averted and WWII, would either not have happened or had been radically different.
To pull this back around to the present subject, we’ve played this hand out on a smaller scale before as well. We decided in 1991, for all the best reasons to pay the Iraqi piper later. The bill has been past due. Now we are paying and it’s perhaps a lower cost now and perhaps not that it would have been 14 years ago. We can’t know for sure and I can think of compelling arguments on both sides of that equation. If we’d waited longer? Again no way to know for certain, but I don’t like the odds on it. If you add them up differently, that much is at least an honest opinion and not one masquerading as established fact.
RTO Trainer
You ought to read the relevant conventions.
Darrell
It’s not just the GOP, Murtha himself has clarified that he wants “immediate” withdrawal, with all troops out of Iraq within 6 months. But his resolution didn’t say that. It called for removal of troops when “practicable”. That allows the dishonest-as-hell Dems to make their calls for immediate withdrawal while attacking Bush, without presenting a resolution which actually calls for immediate withdrawal with troops out of the country within 6 months. I’d say that qualifies as ‘bullshit’ in anyone’s book
Sojourner
Nonsense. There was no Iraqi piper to pay. That’s the problem. This whole argument and war is based on a lie. Iraq was not a threat and it diverted US resources and prevented world good will from addressing the real threat.
The terrorists are winning because W chose the wrong fight.
RTO Trainer
As I said, if you add up the odds differently than I do that’s an honest opinion. Just don’t expect me to accept your opinion as unalterable fact.
How are you measuring this? For myself, I’ve BTDT, and I know many many others who have as well. On that basis, I can’t agree. What I wonder is what sources you rely on to be able to make such a statement with such certainty.
Sojourner
The stats on the number of terrorist attacks. Which have continued to go up dramatically over the past few years.
ppGaz
The GOP goal was to craft a measure that nobody would vote for, as a way of making a statement (aka The Stunt).
“The bullshit” was the parts that would have made it possible for anyone to vote for it. It’s that simple.
The Stunt backfired. What the people saw was a bunch of congressmen acting like damned fools while a war is going on. Since the GOP controls the House, and the stunt … they lose. It was an amazingly stupid move.
RTO Trainer
Why do you find that persuasive? Is there an historical anlog you compare this to to find it a pattern of some kind? I can think of a several that would show otherwise.
Sojourner
Because the Bush administration promised that the Iraq war would attract the terrorists to Iraq where they would be contained and killed.
Clearly the strategy is not working. So what is the point of the war?
RTO Trainer
I agree that the parts about “over the horizon” and “rapid reaction” were designed to make the measure more palatable to the Republicans and those of us who support the war.
Trouble is it was also bullshit. Totally meaningless. As a parctical matter they would have had no effect, so why include them?
RTO Trainer
I don’t recall Presidnet Bush making such a promise. Even so, I don’t see how your conclusion follws from your premises.
Let’s accept that what you claim is actually teh stated and intended strategy; increased attacks can’t be an indication of attracting terrorists to Iraq? Why not?
There is far more to his war than just what goes on on the battlefields ain in th streets of Iraq and Afghanistan. You may or may not be aware that we are also fighting in Indonesia, the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, but enve that is nto all there is.
Just as the terrorist do not expect to defeat us militarilly, neither do we.
How do you fight a non-state, amorphous entity like al-Qaeda, or Hamas? You determine what resources they must have and you deny them to them.
We’ve made huge gains in preventing money flow to the terrorists. It’s probably impossible to turn it completely off though. By continuing to attrit the terrorits in the palces we fight them we force them to continue ot recruit replacements, and by not backing down we fore tehm to have to become bolder and make bigger efforts in order to attract new members. These bigger efforts both make it easier to attrit them and the restriction of money makes it hard to do the next bigger attack. So they have to go for body count, which requires softer targets and the resort to the pure terrorism–attacking civilians. In Iraq and Afghanistan, that means attacking the same population from whom they would most like to recruit.
We are only 3 years into this in Iraq. An insurgency typically lasts 9 to 12 years. It’ll take 20 more after that to help the new government there stick.
There is no magic bullet. It’s a long hard fight. We will win ,in fact in essence we already have, all the strategic dominos have fallen save the last one which is falling. All it takes on our part now is the committment. That last domino will be arrrested mid-fall if we withdraw and our enemies will escape to regroup and try again sometime down the road.
ppGaz
All those words and shapely paragraphs you write, all saying and signifying nothing. That last blurb there gives it away.
Our enemies will “escape”? From what? They are all over the world.
Without a doubt the most absurd description of this reality I have seen, and I’ve seen a few.
Al Qaeda, if that’s your enemy, wasn’t operating Iraq as a subsidiary until we created the opportunity for them. We put out the food, and the ants came. Now if we withdraw the food, they “escape?”
Jesus, yet another fantasy based on yet another web of magical thinking.
RTO Trainer
Are you unaware of how a Roach Motel works?
al-Qaeda isn’t the sole enemy. The enemy are terrorists in general. al-Qaeda is just the biggest org on the block at the moment. By its own charter, its not unfair to simply refer to al-Qaeda and mean all terrorists, just overly simple.
Try here for an illustration of connections between Saddam and terror in general.
Now, if all that fails to persuade at all and you remain convinced that your view of reality is so much more correct, how about enlightening the rest of us?
ppGaz
Duh.
And they are ubiquitous. They aren’t going to ‘escape’ from anywhere because they aren’t trapped anywhere.
Your entire rant was bullshit. Like I said. Like any eigth-grader could figure out.
RTO Trainer
Why is an all or nothing proposition?
The subset of terrorists we have enagaged are the ones who will escape if we let up.
Just because a greater population of enemies exist, does that mean we have filed or will fail if we don’t engage all of them simultaneously?
Mike
If the House Republicans really wanted to put the Dems on the spot and find out who was for cut-and-run, and who was not – why didn’t they just use the real Murtha resolution? It was cut and dried. If your a House Republican who disagrees with Murtha, then just vote no. Just vote no. There’s no reason to make a ‘fake’ Murtha bill about what you ‘think’ the other side wants. Or better yet, the Republicans could have crafted their own resolution that says the sense of the house is that we should stay the course. Either way, you don’t create a resolution just so you can knock it down. That’s making a political game out of a life and death debate. Considering that we’re losing lives at the pace of several a day, making a political point or game out of the debate was the most disrepectful thing I’ve ever seen done to the troops. If House Republicans had any balls whatsover, they would have taken that vote straight up with no games. Then we would have seen who was for cut-and-run, and who wasn’t.
Bob Munck
Any debating, parsing of words, and redefining of terms that we do here won’t matter a wit; what matters is how the public sees last night’s activities in the House. I think that it could have gone either way, but John Murtha’s very believable statement and speech turned the corner and Jean Schmidt really sewed it up for the Democrats. (Want to bet the Republicans lock her in a closet for the rest of her term?) Gen. George Casey also showed great timing with his withdrawal plan.
Argue all you want about the meaning of “immediate;” we’ve taken another step toward getting our guys out of danger sooner rather than later.
ppGaz
Sure, of course. It hadn’t ocurred to me that you would dig that hole deeper, but …. you did.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Try not to put words in my mouth and condescend to me next time and I might actually read your whole post and then respond. I will just say this. When I say isolationist I am specifically talking about in terms of the military–Not diplomacy.
If you want to can answer me this RTO…Is not the military suppose to defend America and the Constitution? Or is it their job to police the world?
You don’t really need to answer the question as I already am fairly certain what your answer will be.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Pfffffff. Using 1 vote (and 3 total) out of 150 or so to justify your delusional belief that the Dems want to “cut and run”.
You guys are pathetic.
TM Lutas
517 clueless responses, left and right. Wow
Nobody, with the partial exception of jg here:
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=6108#comment-100618
got the point of this vote. It’s just amazing. The vote isn’t important about the domestic effects. The vote is important because it sends a clear message that there are 4 votes for pullout and 400 votes against when push comes to shove.
The Senate voted for regular reports and shifting the burden over to Iraqis in 2006. Lots of people called that stupid because it sends a message that we’re going to leave people high and dry.
Murtha provided a nice excuse to the House leadership to create a counter-message. The resolution was stripped down to such a short length that there’s no excuse not to read it out on Al Jazeera in full as well as print it in full in every muslim newspaper along with the vote total, 400-4 against. This is a shot in the arm for any waverers who started getting nervous when they get the (inevitably garbled) message of the Senate vote.
Short, clear, simple, unspinnable by Al Queda and its mouthpieces. That was the goal of the resolution put up to vote and it accomplished its task. The domestic theater is just a sideshow. The foreign message is the main event.
ppGaz
Ah, the “Everybody is wrong but me” strategy.
Well played.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The goal of the resolution was to make Democrats look bad by voting against “Murthas resolution”. Or do you want me to believe that all the Republican comments about this being Murtha’s resolution and a “Democratic reoslution” not a Republican one, and that “it is debatable” which resolution was on the floor were all honest mistakes?
Oh, Brother.
Bob Munck
If the Republicans DON’T think that Jack Murtha is a coward, why did Jean Schmidt say he is?
RTO Trainer
As one of those troops, let me say; I don’t mind.
I know of one or two who might, but that’s all.
RTO Trainer
Why have a military? Going into danger is part of the job description. At least that’s what they told me when I signed up.
RTO Trainer
You think I’ve dug a hole? Okay….
RTO Trainer
I’m responsible for reading your mind? One of the ways we communicate is by trying to resate the position ofthe other guy to be sure it understood. Thanks for the clarification, but please note that there was no way for me to know that you made such a disntinction before.
Will you think me dense if I ask why you assume that these things have to be mutually exclusive? Perhaps if you read the rest of what I’d posted….
ppGaz
To obey the orders of its civilian command.
To see where that’s headed, check the polls. Support for the war is essentially gone and it is not coming back. The political process takes over from here. Republicans in Congress will face a simple choice: Distance themselves from the war, or lose. It’s already happening. They’ll posture about supporting troops, of course (right up until they have to vote for money for resources or veteran’s benefits) but the war itself is already over. Just the details need to be worked out.
Sorry you won’t like that, but that’s the way it is.
RTO Trainer
Clever, trying to make out that I have some problem with civilian control of the military.
Good dodge of the question as well.
The Disenfranchised Voter
No, but you are responsible for acting like a ass…
Well, they you should have done it in a better way. I was more than cordial with you in this thread before the post of your I took issue with. You should be lucky, I’m not very friendly to newcomers who obviously support Bush. I’ll try to help you out by showing you what pissed me off.
Specifically the TM. Don’t try to caricature me as if I fall into some “group-think trend” bullshit.
And for that one you get an “eat shit”.
Next time, don’t be such an ass and I might actually explain my views better.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*an ass
* of yours that I
RTO Trainer
Isn’t it nice when the opposition self-identifies?
Come on. You take offence way too easily. Either I hit a nerve by being too accurate, or getting hacked off is just easier than addressing the issues presented.
Bruce Moomaw
Murtha himself called the GOP version “ridiculous” during his interview with Chris Matthews before the vote. Shucks, John, that just might somewhat undercut your argument that this was REALLY a vote on his version of the resolution. (Murtha also talked a lot more about his actual strategic reasons for backing a pullout, as opposed to just defocused concern about the number of US casualties).
As Andrew Sullivan realized almost as soon as the GOP version was presented, the leadership there was terrified of allowing a vote on Murtha’s actual resolution because of the likely level of Congressional support it would reveal — and not just among Democrats. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) — the man who invented “freedom fries”, but who is now sponsoring the House resolution for a withdrawal timetable — said that Murtha’s proposal “gives a lot of weight to this debate”, and that it will make “some Republicans think about their responsibility as relates to the war in Iraq”.
Personally, I think John’s opposition to withdrawal makes about as much sense as insisting that Churchill believed in “cutting and running” because he evacuated the troops to Dunkirk instead of demanding that they stay in France and fight to the last man. But then, my biggest reason for supporting an Iraq pullout is the same reason I’m enraged at Bush rigging the evidence to gain support for putting the military there in the first place: we’re going to need it much more elsewhere for other jobs — and very soon. Such as, say, trying to keep Iran from acquiring the Bomb — if it isn’t already too late — and coping with any miliary crises produced by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it. In that respect, I agree with that notorious snivelling dove Graham Allison.
(My other reason for favoring withdrawal is the one I share with George Will and Kevin Drum: at this point there is no workable way to put in enough troops to win the damn war, even if we re-instituted the draft. And by “winning” the war, I mean preventing an Iraqi civil war, and preventing Sunni and Shiite anti-democrats from taking over their respective parts of the country. Of course, as Will points out, the latter goal was almost certainly impossible from the start.)
ppGaz
Then you have no problem with the fact that, politically speaking, the war is already over. Support in the US is not coming back. This action is going to be terminated, and in the near term.
In light of that, I don’t know what you are doing here. Trying to talk the civilian authority into staying?
Talk to the hand. In fact, talk to about 50-75 million hands, depending on how you extrapolate the numbers.
RTO Trainer
As a Soldier: It ain’t over ’til it’s over. When I get a notice that I will not be deploying again in a few months, then I’ll stay home instead.
As an individual: Please explain to me why it is that you expect me to change my support for the war based on the popularity that support may or may not enjoy? Or are are you suggesting that because I’m a Soldier I should keep my mouth shut?
ppGaz
Har, now THAT’s grasping at strawmen.
None of the above.
I’m telling you that the answer to your question is that the military exists to carry out the wishes of the civilian authority. Period. And in this case, the civilian authority is going to be moved by the public will, which no longer supports the war.
Your opinion of all that, notwithstanding. It doesn’t matter what the military thinks of this. What matter is what the majority of the American people think. And over the next year, you will have an opportunity to see how that works.
RTO Trainer
Say you’re right. What’s that to do with me?
For that matter, how does it answer my question? “Why have a military?”
Purple Fury
That’s the most disingenouous thing I’ve read on this thread. McKinney has been screaming BUSH LIED! and BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! for years. She’s been a completely reliable, completely typical anti-war leftie Dem. Does she represent the entire party? Of course not. But she represents the BUSH LIED-WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS WE JUST DON’T SUPPORT THE MISSION crowd as much as anyone. At least she had the integrity to vote for what she’s been agitating for, which is more than I can say for the rest of the Dems, who just don’t want to pay the political price for advocating surrender to the insurgents, and instead want to hide behind a bunch of bullshit language about “over the horizon forces” and “as soon as practicable”. Puh-lease. Admit it. Murtha wants the troops home yesterday, and his proposal says as much. It’s surrender, capitulation, game over. I don’t care what euphemism you want to use. If it’s anything short of a full court press to crush the insurgents and remain in-country until the Iraqi government is able to provide security, it’s a defeatist policy.
If that’s true, it’s only because your crowd has, with the support of the major media outlets, been screaming this bullshit pack of lies that we were “misled” into war so loudly, for so long, that enough people have been fooled into thinking it’s the truth. It may be the case that public support has been lost, but I fail to see how that’s good for the country or good for Iraq. It’s sure good for the Democratic party, though, isn’t it?
They’re not lying about the Dems position. They’re calling it what it is. It was a “Sense of the House” resolution — it was a completely non-binding statement that did not preclude later consideration and debate of Murtha’s proposal in the slightest. It was a way to put on the record what everyone in your camp has been bitching and moaning for for two years, and when the time came to put up or shut up, all the Dems could do was whine.
Too bad it’s even worse that because of views like yours, if you get your way, the sacrifices of the 2000+ who’ve already lost their lives will be in vain.
I hope you’re happy.
Brian
“If that’s true, it’s only because your crowd has, with the support of the major media outlets, been screaming this bullshit pack of lies that we were “misled” into war so loudly, for so long, that enough people have been fooled into thinking it’s the truth.”
And that, ladies and gentleman, is the typical answer from the crying neocons about abysmal poll numbers. “Why, it’s the gullible population so easily led astray”. Or “the big, evil media has brainwashed them”. Jesus Christ already, give it a rest. All I hear is how huge and popular fox “news” is. The number one news source in America, they crow. So are they complicit for this sorry state of affairs the gop’s gotten themselves into? And the election, the one where little bushie had sooo much political capital? Did that slim 51% suddenly fall under the spell of Air America?
If people are starting to realize that the crew of incompitents running the Union are out of touch, then it’s the administrations fault. If Iraq is a fucked up mess it’s the administrations fault. And if you can’t understand why more people aren’t falling for the bullshit put forth by the likes of three times divorced, junkie, I-got-a-boil-on-my ass-that-kept-me-out-of-Nam Limbaugh or the roster of never served in the military types like Bill O’rielly, Sean Hannitty, or Mike Medved, then it’s because nobody’s buying that partuicular brand of grade “A” bullshit anymore.
The current implosion of the right reminds me of a twilight zone episode where a castro-like character sees his enemies in a magic mirror. He kills them off of course until he’s left alone, paranoid and vulerable. He’s shot his inner circle. That’s what’s going on right now. Who’s the enemy cheny? A decorated war vet? The mother of a dead soldier? 60% of the country, regular people who pay bills, freak out about heating their homes or are displaced by a hurricane? According to the gop they’re cowards and traitors all.
Face it stupid, the curtin has been pulled back, the emperor has no clothes and there’s nothing all the kings horses and all the kings men can do to put it back together again.