Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Bush has an exit strategy after all, and it's Murtha's

host · 11-24-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

No one is against the basic premise of Murtha's plan. We ALL want to leave. What the huge reaction was that he called for an immidiate withdrawl.

You are misinformed, Seaver. The republican spin is what you are posting here,
not the more reliable details that would lead to a more accurate conclusion.

If Murtha's resolution and statements are as you posted, why was it necessary for the republican ruled house of rep. to rush a vote on a substitute reolution that was written by republican Duncan Hunter?

If Media Matters is in error in the details of the following report, or if the LA Times misreported, or if the NY Times transcript or the house of rep. citations of the language in Murtha's and in Hunter's resolutions are flawed, please cite examples. We won't make progress here if you fall silent, as I experienced in my latest exchanges with powerclown on the "Bitch" thread.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511220010
Fox's Gibson and Hannity, NY Post falsely claimed that House voted on Murtha's resolution

On November 21, Fox News host John Gibson falsely claimed that the House of Representatives voted down a measure offered by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) calling for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq; the New York Post made the same claim in a November 22 editorial. In fact, the House voted on a counter-resolution sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) in response to Murtha's that bore little resemblance to the original. Murtha's resolution asked that U.S. forces be redeployed "at the earliest practicable date," while Hunter's resolution asked that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." Fox News host Sean Hannity also repeated the claim during the November 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, the third time he has done so.

Hannity made the claim twice on November 18 -- once during his radio show and once on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. He was joined by Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto, who made the same claim in his November 21 "Best of the Web" column, as Media Matters for America previously noted.

On the November 21 broadcast of The Big Story with John Gibson, Gibson interviewed New York Post columnist and retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, author of New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy (Sentinel, August 2005), and asked, "Why, then, do you think Murtha's suggestion last week, voted down by the House, is causing so much trouble?" Peters responded that by "calling for an immediate withdrawal," Murtha was encouraging terrorists "to think their strategy is working."

But the House never voted on Murtha's suggestion (House Joint Resolution 73), which he announced in a press conference on November 17. Instead, the House voted on a substitute (House Resolution 571) that was introduced the following day by Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The vote occurred after a contentious floor debate, during which Murtha described the resolution as "not what I envisioned, not what I introduced."

Murtha's resolution, which cited polling data, the cost of the war, and the rising American death toll, called for the redeployment of U.S. forces "at the earliest practicable date," the maintaining of strategic military presence in the region, and continued diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Hunter's resolution contained a single line: "Resolved, [t]hat it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

In a November 22 editorial, the New York Post editorial board wrote, "Murtha's service doesn't automatically make him right on military strategy. House Republicans made that plain Friday, forcing a vote to show just how little on-the-record support exists, even among Dems, for his idea." On the November 21 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity said that Murtha "didn't vote for his own pullout plan."

But as the Los Angeles Times reported, Republicans forced a vote not on Murtha's idea but, rather, on a different proposal "intended to fail and aimed at embarrassing war critics." The Washington Post also reported that "[r]ecognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no."....

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...itics-national November 19, 2005
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
House Erupts in War Debate
# Lawmakers launch personal attacks as Republicans force a vote on whether to pull out of Iraq immediately. The measure is rejected.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — House Republicans forced a vote Friday over a proposal to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, sparking a raw and raucous debate during which lawmakers hurled insults and jeered each other.

The GOP-sponsored proposal, intended to fail and aimed at embarrassing war critics, was overwhelmingly defeated shortly before midnight, 403 to 3.

....Murtha's resolution Thursday called for a rapid "reaction force" to remain in the region and for diplomacy to be accelerated to achieve stability in Iraq. He also said the withdrawal should begin only when it could be accomplished safely.

The measure Hunter introduced said simply that "the sense of the House" was that troop deployment in Iraq should be "terminated immediately."

Murtha was among the vast majority of Democrats joining Republicans in voting against the resolution.

"This resolution is not what I envisioned, not what I introduced," he said.....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...pagewanted=all
Transcript

Published: November 17, 2005
The following is the transcript of the news conference Thursday by Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, as provided by Federal News Service.

I believe that and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent.

I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you're not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation -- a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they -- or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they're worried about their families.

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.........

.........Let me tell you something. We're charged -- Congress is charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and it's our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them. That's why I'm speaking out.

Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily; it's time to bring the troops home.

Yes, sir?

Q Mr. Murtha, you say -- your first point about bringing them home consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters; what is your sense as to how long that would be?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I think they can get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you know, you have to do it in a very consistent way. But I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.

........Q My other question. What do you mean exactly by a Quick Reaction Force in the region?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- you remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in. It only took us a couple of days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army. What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we could go back in. But not a civil war or something like that, I mean, you know, that's up to the Iraqis to settle that. So I think the Marine force could be in there momentarily, within a couple of days, within 48 hours they could be in there. And if the Kuwaitis would agree and they wanted to put a force in Kuwait, that would be a good place to have them. They could go right down the road.

........Q Sir, so you're effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible, and that all these troops can be brought home within six months. So that's your hope.

REP. MURTHA: It's what -- I say they could be brought back. I'm saying within the safety of the troops -- but I project it could be six months.

Q Six months to start or six months to have them all back?

REP. MURTHA: I think in six months you could have them all back.

......Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

Murtha's resolution:

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.73:
..Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, 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.

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Hunter's Resolution (There was no language in the resolution. A vote was made on the title.):

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:h.res.00571:
H.RES.571
Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

And....for some reason...when you try to retrieve the text of the resolution actually voted on...you get:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.571:

The text of H.RES.571 has not yet been received from GPO
Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.