This is rediculous

[tecoyah]

...I dont even kno what to say....the most blatant piece of CRAP I have ever seen in this country.......Im gonna go puke now

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DV51A80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California had no immediate reaction to the idea of a quick vote before Congress leaves Washington for two weeks.

GOP leaders decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops.

[tecoyah]

OK....I am slightly calm now.....


Rather than actually address the question....we knee jerk in a blatant attempt to get the people to make rash descisions. I honestly hope this bites 'em in the ass...even though it would be a terrible Idea to pull out.

[pan6467]

So much for debate or giving the other side a chance to be heard.

[Elphaba]

This is a quick copy/paste from the Murtha topic. His thinking is not illogical in my mind, IF someone would actually ask him to spell out his plan. I can only guess at what a seasoned Marine, known to be the biggest Dem Hawk is thinking. But this is my guess.

I would like to take a best guess at what his plan means and I certainly wouldn't expect him to spell it out in a speech.

To immediately redeploy US troops consistent with the safety of US forces.

"Consistent with the safety of US forces" appears to be his key point. I don't think he is advocating "cut and run" which conceivably would embolden those that are attacking our troups.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

That would be our special forces personnel from all branches of the military, in my opinion. Let's bring our national guard members home to serve in our national defense. Kuwait is the obvious "region" to stage this force.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

"Over-the-horizon" is close by, but out of sight. Many others have stated that our "occupation" is the source of much of the insurgency. I mean no disrespect to any other branch of the military, but the Marines never allowed themselves to be undermined by social experiments. They are the best of the best.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

This is not a new idea, as there has been much criticism that no diplomatic component existed or was planned for after the fall of Bagdad. Murtha was eloquent in stating that our military forces have met all of their obligations in Iraq. He also stated that their continued presence makes them targets of the insurgency, bringing more death.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Iraq must provide for their own security. I strongly question why they are no further along than they are, and why our young men and women must remain targets of the insurgency. It strikes me as a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" type of dilemma. Murtha's been there before, and I respect his opinion.

The political posturing that is underway is beyond inexcusable. The deep divisions that already exist will be exacerbated and the extremes on either side of the political divide further entrenched. This is not leadership.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Rather than actually address the question....we knee jerk in a blatant attempt to get the people to make rash descisions. I honestly hope this bites 'em in the ass...even though it would be a terrible Idea to pull out.

It looks to me as though they are taking his recommendations very seriously rather than just discard them. He is certainly not being ignored. Why should we assume that our educated intelligent representatives will make a rash decision. Many of them have probably been thinking along similar lines for some time now and would welcome the opportunity to support him.

[maximusveritas]

Actually, what they did was put forward a bastardized version of Murtha's plan that basically advocated cutting and running immediately. They did this to force the Democrats to vote against it and therefore paint Murtha as a lone nut.
To make matters worse, they took to the floor to bash Murtha with Congresswomen Schmidt calling Murtha "a coward" for wanting to "cut and run". Needless to say, this didn't go over well with the Democrats and Schmidt was forced to withdraw her comments. But the damage was done.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by flstf

It looks to me as though they are taking his recommendations very seriously rather than just discard them. He is certainly not being ignored. Why should we assume that our educated intelligent representatives will make a rash decision. Many of them have probably been thinking along similar lines for some time now and would welcome the opportunity to support him.

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you are sincere in this comment or doing subtle sarcasm.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by flstf

It looks to me as though they are taking his recommendations very seriously rather than just discard them. He is certainly not being ignored. Why should we assume that our educated intelligent representatives will make a rash decision. Many of them have probably been thinking along similar lines for some time now and would welcome the opportunity to support him.

Had "They" actually been taking this seriously, "They" would have set up a series of discussions on the issue....rather than forced a vote in the public eye. It is to me, Obvious, that the intent is to force either a yes or No on this....and as quickly as possible with the wording (and this is the key) that they want in the resolution. By placing this in session they have essentaially shut up any further discussion for some time.
It was refreshing to see some form of limited backbone protrude from the flimsy spine of the Dems......and once again I must watch the GOP rip out what spine there is....thru the skill of politics.

Fucking Disgusting

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Had "They" actually been taking this seriously, "They" would have set up a series of discussions on the issue....rather than forced a vote in the public eye. It is to me, Obvious, that the intent is to force either a yes or No on this....and as quickly as possible with the wording (and this is the key) that they want in the resolution. By placing this in session they have essentaially shut up any further discussion for some time.
It was refreshing to see some form of limited backbone protrude from the flimsy spine of the Dems......and once again I must watch the GOP rip out what spine there is....thru the skill of politics.

Fucking Disgusting

What do you expect from the GOP. They know if they debate people might see it and realize what's going on. This way they can brag how they had the vote and won.

[Elphaba]

Pan, I love you dearly, but you paint the GOP with too broad of a brush. There are moderate Republicans that I admire and would vote for president. Please don't confuse the neocon's and their far right christian evangelican stooges with the moderate Republican party.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you are sincere in this comment or doing subtle sarcasm.

I was actually thinking that they might be showing great respect for him and taking his recommendations very seriously because he is so respected on military matters. Also they wanted to get this vote done as soon as possible to give the message that we are going to stay the course in Iraq. I assume they know that they have the votes now.

[powerclown]

tecoyah, what's wrong with asking the Democrats to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak? Like you say, its a yes or no question. Do they really need a month to develop a "nuanced", poll-friendly response?

As far as public opinion goes, I for one would be curious to know whether Murtha speaks for the entire Democratic Party, or not.

[Elphaba]

Had that been true, they would not have demanded an immediate vote. There would have been something other than that to allow him to express the details of his plan.

[Elphaba]

As far as public opinion goes, I for one would be curious to know whether Murtha speaks for the entire Democratic Party, or not.

Sheesh, I already answered Ustwo on this one. I will only suggest that you read the current news and you will learn that the Democratic party have distanced themselves from Murtha. This is clearly a political move on the part of some Republicans.

Tec, am I allowed to say "fucking disgusting" too?

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Had "They" actually been taking this seriously, "They" would have set up a series of discussions on the issue....rather than forced a vote in the public eye. It is to me, Obvious, that the intent is to force either a yes or No on this....and as quickly as possible with the wording (and this is the key) that they want in the resolution. By placing this in session they have essentaially shut up any further discussion for some time.
It was refreshing to see some form of limited backbone protrude from the flimsy spine of the Dems......and once again I must watch the GOP rip out what spine there is....thru the skill of politics.

Fucking Disgusting

It's surprising to me that this would affect you so much. Politics have been played in regard to wars at least since LBJ and Vietnam.

When I remember prior presidents (of both parties) who were willing to send soldiers to their deaths for the sole purpose of getting themselves re-elected, calling for a rapid vote is a big yawn by comparison.

[Elphaba]

Let me get this straight. Previous presidents have wasted the lives of our military for mere political reasons, so it is acceptable to you that presidents continue to do that?

Really, you believe that?

[Ustwo]

When someone throws a live grenade into the room, you don't discuss the nature of the grenade, debate its damage, decide if it is indeed live, and then act.

Murtha tossed a live grenade into the Iraq debate, one I found ridiculous and a blatant piece of crap.

The idea of a put up or shut up vote is the best idea in quite a while. It is reprehensible to have a mixed message on our fortitude in Iraq when we have men on the ground, and a government trying to form. What sort of message does it give the people dying?!?

You think this is crap? Think what an Iraqi who was told the US would help his country be free and instead hears crap like Murtha's bullshit must be feeling? I'd be fucking terrified.

We have a moral responsibility in Iraq now, the validity of the war has no baring on this obligation. Even if it turns out the not only did Bush lie, but he personally forged the intelligence report that moral responsibility does not change. To turn back on this moral responsibility, to even suggest it, is unthinkable.

[maximusveritas]

You guys are missing the point. The Republicans did not bring Murtha's plan to a vote, they put their own bastardized version of it in its place. It was a political stunt and it looks like it backfired badly.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

You guys are missing the point. The Republicans did not bring Murtha's plan to a vote, they put their own bastardized version of it in its place. It was a political stunt and it looks like it backfired badly.

He didn't HAVE a plan.

Thats pretty key

[maximusveritas]

He didn't have one completely laid out yet, but he did spell out the beginnings of one. If the Republicans were really interested in putting his plan to the test, they would have consulted with him in order to produce a bill that was faithful to it.
They weren't interested in that, they just wanted to do this little stunt.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

He didn't HAVE a plan.

Thats pretty key

Wait wait wait. Does bush have a plan?
Perhaps its not "pretty key".

[powerclown]

I agree with Ustwo's characterization.

This guy fires a political bombshell into the public arena - as a representative of the Democratic Party - and he and his party have no right to be asked to officially back it up? The "fair" response would be to give Murtha time to explain exactly what he meant when he said Immediate Withdrawal? But why?

What is there to explain? He didn't say "gradual" withdrawal, or "phased" withdrawal, or "extended" withdrawal, he said Immediate Withdrawal. Pull the troops out NOW. I say call an IMMEDIATE VOTE regarding the IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL proposal, and show to the world whether the Dems as a party share Murtha's opinion.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When someone throws a live grenade into the room, you don't discuss the nature of the grenade, debate its damage, decide if it is indeed live, and then act.

Murtha tossed a live grenade into the Iraq debate, one I found ridiculous and a blatant piece of crap.

If you find it so ridiculous, why use the preposterous "live grenade" attribution to a mere speech?

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The idea of a put up or shut up vote is the best idea in quite a while. It is reprehensible to have a mixed message on our fortitude in Iraq when we have men on the ground, and a government trying to form. What sort of message does it give the people dying?!?

Emotional rhetoric, from you? The people dying don't give a flippen shit about it, but their survivors surely so, both here and in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You think this is crap? Think what an Iraqi who was told the US would help his country be free and instead hears crap like Murtha's bullshit must be feeling? I'd be fucking terrified.

Just like Bush the first? Rise up, and we'll have your back?

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We have a moral responsibility in Iraq now, the validity of the war has no baring on this obligation. Even if it turns out the not only did Bush lie, but he personally forged the intelligence report that moral responsibility does not change. To turn back on this moral responsibility, to even suggest it, is unthinkable.

For once, I agree with you that we have a moral responsibility to Iraq. Our military presence is now a big part of the insurgency problem. Your solution is what, more of the same and "stay the course?" What friggin course did the Bush administration enter this war with, pray tell?

[politicophile]

Decisions about when troops leave Iraq should NEVER be made by Congress. This type of strategic decision should be made only by the generals who are most familiar with the strategic consequences of any particular plan of action. Removing troops because "the people want us to" or because of any sort of political expedience is wrong. Period.

Politicians should stick to politics: let the generals win this war for us.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by powerclown

What is there to explain? He didn't say "gradual" withdrawal, or "phased" withdrawal, or "extended" withdrawal, he said Immediate Withdrawal. Pull the troops out NOW. I say call an IMMEDIATE VOTE regarding the IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL proposal, and show to the world whether the Dems as a party share Murtha's opinion.

He said nothing of the kind. Put your money where your big mouth is and quote his actual statements, if you think he actually said anything of what you claim.

It is useless to have any civilized discussion with ThoseTwo, and asking them to rise to an acceptable level of mutual discourse doesn't appear to have any backing in this forum. My nails need trimming which has more value than continuing to participate in this farce.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by politicophile

Decisions about when troops leave Iraq should NEVER be made by Congress. This type of strategic decision should be made only by the generals who are most familiar with the strategic consequences of any particular plan of action. Removing troops because "the people want us to" or because of any sort of political expedience is wrong. Period.

Politicians should stick to politics: let the generals win this war for us.

Bullshit. Generals are not elected to serve the people. If the PEOPLE decide we're through with this war then that's it. End of story. The country belongs to the people, not the other way around.

Basically the House GOPs are trolling here. Their resolution is a textbook strawman solely designed to make Murtha and the other Dems look bad.

[host]

Here's a new tidbit....

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/b...s/11329-1.html
GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha
By John Bresnahan
Roll Call Staff
Friday, Nov. 18

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

There must be a real threat to the integrity of the congress for the leaders to dust off the "ethics" committee that Delay destroyed so that it could not censure him for a fourth time.

Murtha has an "in", though. The hypocrit who is chairman of the house rules committee, closeted congressman David Dreier is the son of a "Marine drill instructor". He'll watch Murtha's back, you can be sure !

One day soon, these fucks in the congressional majority will bit off more than they can chew. Elections are another matter...."my republican congressman isn't one of those bad ones!" (Sorry Elphaba. I can't tell any of them apart.)

[StanT]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It is reprehensible to have a mixed message on our fortitude in Iraq when we have men on the ground, and a government trying to form.

Bush has been using the same logic in recent speeches. The last time I heard a president use the "agree with me or you are undermining the troops" reasoning was Nixon in the early 70's, under much the same circumstances. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

[host]

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Actually, what they did was put forward a bastardized version of Murtha's plan that basically advocated cutting and running immediately. They did this to force the Democrats to vote against it and therefore paint Murtha as a lone nut.
To make matters worse, they took to the floor to bash Murtha with Congresswomen Schmidt calling Murtha "a coward" for wanting to "cut and run". Needless to say, this didn't go over well with the Democrats and Schmidt was forced to withdraw her comments. But the damage was done.

Here are link to video of Schmidt's remarks and a link to the c-span video coverage of Murtha's "lynching".....

(Schmidt has been in the congress only since a special election against an army officer who had served in Iraq. She shows quite a "mandate" for someone who barely carried her heavily republican, Ohio district....)

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/18/schmidt-shame/
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) today on the House floor, speaking about Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a decorated former Marine:

Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

[powerclown]

Lawmakers Reject Zarqawi as Future Leader of Iraq by a count of 403-3.

No word yet on whether House Democrats were duped into their vote.

[host]

Originally Posted by powerclown

Lawmakers Reject Zarqawi as Future Leader of Iraq by a count of 403-3.

No word yet on whether House Democrats were duped into their vote.

That is almost as amusing as this......

http://www.almendhar.com/english_7686/news.aspx
Iraqi Chalabi meets Cheney, Rumsfeld
15/11/2005

Iraqi Chalabi meets Cheney, Rumsfeld WASHINGTON - Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, once embraced and then shunned by the Bush administration, held talks with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday but the Pentagon did not allow television cameras to record the event.
Ahmad Chalabi
He also held a private meeting at the White House with Vice President Dick Cheney after his 45 minutes of talks with Rumsfeld, but Cheney's office would not provide details.

Chalabi's trip to Washington has angered Iraq war critics who have denounced the visit of the man most associated with discredited prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Democratic lawmakers have demanded to know why Chalabi was meeting top U.S. officials after allegations he had passed American secrets to Iran and they urged congressional committees to subpoena him for testimony.

Last week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Chalabi but did not appear publicly with him, underscoring the political sensitivity of the meeting.

A senior U.S. defense official said Rumsfeld and Chalabi discussed the importance of protecting Iraq's oil and electric power grids from insurgent attacks and improving intelligence-gathering by U.S.-led military forces in Iraq.

The Pentagon did not allow television cameras to record Chalabi's arrival.

<b>What a difference a year makes....</b>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html
Friday, May 21, 2004

Chalabi's Home Raided

HQ of Iraqi Politician Ahmad Chalabi Raided
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. officials believe they have "rock solid" evidence that Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi (search), once a darling of the American government, passed secrets to Iran, Fox News has learned.

<b>"There is no need for an investigation because we're quite certain he did it," one senior Bush administration official said.</b>

The official first described the evidence against Chalabi as "pretty solid" and then characterized it as "rock solid.".....

The funniest part is....I must have missed the investigation and clearing of the charges that Chalabi betrayed U.S. interests and that he spied for Iran. Oh well....if Uncle Dick and Uncle Rummy say he's okay...then he's okay !

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by StanT

Bush has been using the same logic in recent speeches. The last time I heard a president use the "agree with me or you are undermining the troops" reasoning was Nixon in the early 70's, under much the same circumstances. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

You might recall we did undermine the troops in vietnam then.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You might recall we did undermine the troops in vietnam then.

Yup...we sure did! If we had remained silent sheep, with the privileged kids like Bush skipping the waiting list to get into the "champagne unit" of the TANG. and Cheney sporting his 12 draft deferments and his BS crack about "having other priorities". we could have placed another 10000 or 20000 names of lower class black and white draftees, without college draft deferments, on the walls of the Vietnam memorial on the mall in Washington.

You should consider what I am thinking that you might do with your "undermine the troops" BS comment on this board. You have been exposed to too many years of higher education to be talking the way you do. You're too willing to spill the blood of other people's family members in pursuit of unwinnable objectives under unjust circumstances. You weren't faced with living as a draft age male in those times, and you don't have a sense of what it was like. You've had the luxury of "electing" not to serve at this time, and by your own admission, you never ended up doing it. The boys whose names are on the black granite wall did not have the options that you've enjoyed. The swift boating "Op" last summer must have made a strong and misleading impression on you.

The way David Dreier acts can be compared to the way Bush and Cheney acted during the Vietnam war. None of the three of them wanted to wear the stigma of the consequences of their beliefs. Dreier does not want to live openly as the gay man that he is, and Bush and Cheney did not want to live openly as young men who had not intention of serving in Vietnam.

Thank goodness for you, that, unlike me, Bush and Cheney have no personal qualms about sending other people to fight illegal and unjust war. If they did, you would not have Murtha as a target for your accusations of "undermining the troops". Tell me again how unquestioning advocacy of a failed political policy that keeps the troops indefinitely in the field in harms way; some of them for three full tours....is supporting the troops. Murtha is saying that it is not. How do you come to know better than he does?

Stop insulting those of us who attempted to stop the stream of body bags of American troops out of Vietnam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...gewanted=print
.......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. ...........

.......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. <b>But I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there. .......</b> - Congressman Murtha Nov. 17, 2005

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by host

Here's a new tidbit....

There must be a real threat to the integrity of the congress for the leaders to dust off the "ethics" committee that Delay destroyed so that it could not censure him for a fourth time.

Murtha has an "in", though. The hypocrit who is chairman of the house rules committee, closeted congressman David Dreier is the son of a "Marine drill instructor". He'll watch Murtha's back, you can be sure !

One day soon, these fucks in the congressional majority will bit off more than they can chew. Elections are another matter...."my republican congressman isn't one of those bad ones!" (Sorry Elphaba. I can't tell any of them apart.)

First, this shows the "political" blackmail and the nasty tactics of the GOP. I hope the Dems. stand strongly and yell as loud as possible about this.

Secondly, it is the right of the minority to be heard on Congress' floor. The GOP I guess seem to forget that. Again, I hope the Dems. fucking shove it down their throats and scream bloody murder.

Third, I can't bite my tongue on this one, to compare the rights of the minority in Congress to speak to that of a grenade in a time of war, even as a joke is fucking ignorant, tasteless, classless and shows no caring towards those with friends and loved ones in Iraq. I guess that is typical, you don't like what the other side says you compare it to a terrorist attack.

And the ironic thing is the right to post such harmful idiocy was allowed and rightfully so, however, it's "purpose" was to show how the left had no right to be heard.

Finally, this shows how desperate the GOP is becoming, and Elphaba, I thought there were some good GOP, but obviously not because some of them could have stood up and demanded that the right to be heard be kept intact.

The GOP truly sicken me and they continue to show their contempt for the people and anything that opposes them by hiding and running rather than giving true debate.

[Seaver]

The GOP truly sicken me and they continue to show their contempt for the people and anything that opposes them by hiding and running rather than giving true debate.

You'd be saying the EXACT same thing if there was no vote. How they ran from it instead of debating.

The fact of the matter is 1.5 out of 10 Americans want to pull out of Iraq. The fact of the matter is Iraq will be an incubator for worldwide terrorism (instead of a battlefield it is now) if we pull out. The fact of the matter is there is no possible way of an immediate pull out without us stabbing ourselves in the back and twisting the knife.

If this was about the Senate demanding Bush to give status reports, I'd back you 100%. However you picked the wrong man to back. I respect what he's done but to pull out now would be unleashing hungry wolves in a pediatrician's office. They swiftly answered his call to pull out, it's not going to happen, he got what he wanted.

If he wanted to come out with a plan I'd love to hear it, but calling for the immediate withdrawl sounds like a plan to me. Simply cut and run, god knows I pray it doesnt happen.

[host]

Originally Posted by Seaver

You'd be saying the EXACT same thing if there was no vote. How they ran from it instead of debating.

The fact of the matter is 1.5 out of 10 Americans want to pull out of Iraq. The fact of the matter is Iraq will be an incubator for worldwide terrorism (instead of a battlefield it is now) if we pull out. The fact of the matter is there is no possible way of an immediate pull out without us stabbing ourselves in the back and twisting the knife......

So you are saying that no politician, even one with the combat experience to assess what he has learned in his own fact finding tour of the war area, and in discussions with troop commanders in the war area, should call for an end to the participation of combat troops, until the polls of the public decidedly favor such a call.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/murtha.iraq/
White House: Murtha's call is 'surrender'
Democratic hawk: U.S. must leave Iraq

Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 12:27 p.m. EST (17:27 GMT)

.......He also took a swipe at Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush, who have accused Democratic critics of playing politics during a war.

"I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done."

Cheney avoided military service during the 1960's Vietnam era with a series of draft deferments, and Bush served stateside in the National Guard during Vietnam.

Murtha was wounded twice in Vietnam..........

....Divide over the war

Public support for the conflict has dropped sharply over the last few months. Only 35 percent of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll published Monday supported the Bush administration's handling of the conflict, and 54 percent said the invasion was a mistake.

The poll also found that 19 percent of Americans want to see the troops come home now, and 33 percent said they wanted them home within a year. Only 38 percent said they should remain "as long as needed."

Murtha's call was motivated by his personal concern and support of our troops. He viewed them in Iraq in person, and he saw and heard from their commanders that they are positioned like sitting ducks...as targets.....positioned by civilian leadership in the U.S. improperly, used and abused in a way not befitting their training, tactics, or equipment. They are combat troops and they are being held indefinitely past their CIC's own, "Mission Accomplished" declaration. Murtha observed the state of things for these troops in Iraq, and he called out the political leadership on the issue of the misuse of the troops.

Talking points, parroted in unison won't change what has happened to Murtha as a consequence of his vocal support for our troops.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Seaver

You'd be saying the EXACT same thing if there was no vote. How they ran from it instead of debating.

The fact of the matter is 1.5 out of 10 Americans want to pull out of Iraq. The fact of the matter is Iraq will be an incubator for worldwide terrorism (instead of a battlefield it is now) if we pull out. The fact of the matter is there is no possible way of an immediate pull out without us stabbing ourselves in the back and twisting the knife.

If this was about the Senate demanding Bush to give status reports, I'd back you 100%. However you picked the wrong man to back. I respect what he's done but to pull out now would be unleashing hungry wolves in a pediatrician's office. They swiftly answered his call to pull out, it's not going to happen, he got what he wanted.

If he wanted to come out with a plan I'd love to hear it, but calling for the immediate withdrawl sounds like a plan to me. Simply cut and run, god knows I pray it doesnt happen.

There's no harm in debate and at least giving the opposition the chance to be heard.

If it's true that only 1.5 out of 10 Americans want us to pull out (as you state) then the Dems. would have sounded like idiots to debate such a move.

But to not even let them be heard...... come on, that's bullshit, that is running in fear of what they have to say.

What was the harm in opening the floor allowing them time to say what they had to say and then hold the vote???????

Instead it's put words into their mouth, run an Ethics committee investigation on someone who speaks out and hold a vote without debate.

I'm sorry that sounds like desperation, blackmail and contempt for everything this country supposedly stands for.

BTW, when you refuse to allow the other side to be heard and vote down party lines....it is the exact same thing as no vote. Only now the GOP can proudly say they had a vote and the Dems lost.... what the fucking assholes who blackmail and show contempt for the people won't say or admit to is that they refused to allow any debate.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Seaver

You'd be saying the EXACT same thing if there was no vote. How they ran from it instead of debating.

The fact of the matter is 1.5 out of 10 Americans want to pull out of Iraq. The fact of the matter is Iraq will be an incubator for worldwide terrorism (instead of a battlefield it is now) if we pull out. The fact of the matter is there is no possible way of an immediate pull out without us stabbing ourselves in the back and twisting the knife.

If this was about the Senate demanding Bush to give status reports, I'd back you 100%. However you picked the wrong man to back. I respect what he's done but to pull out now would be unleashing hungry wolves in a pediatrician's office. They swiftly answered his call to pull out, it's not going to happen, he got what he wanted.

If he wanted to come out with a plan I'd love to hear it, but calling for the immediate withdrawl sounds like a plan to me. Simply cut and run, god knows I pray it doesnt happen.

I do agree pulling everything out now could be a mistake. However, this is becoming a money pit with no signs of letting up. And I have a feeling if and when the time does come for us to leave we will have lost far far too much, there comes a time when losses need to be cut, whether we leave today or 10 years from now, the instability of the region will still lead to a civil war there. You have too many kings and power hungry men to allow any freedom to be in Iraq. It would not be in their (Saudi, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc) best interest, in fact it would threaten their hold on their people.

The President shows no plan to get out, no timetable and offers no debate.

I would have at least liked to hear what the Dems. had to say, not just a press release.

Personally, I believe our only hope of getting out of Iraq any time soon lays with getting the UN and allies to help us.

[roachboy]

for what it's worth, i did not see in murtha's words anything like a plan--but then there is no plan with the bushpeople either--however the latter are in the curious position of being able to not have a plan, and to use not having a plan to jusitfy the continued involvement of american troops in iraq and then move to attempt to erase questions about the legitimacy of the war itself.
like ustwo tries above, ever the bellweather of conservative "opinion management sugestions"...

i think that the way out would have to be for the americans to involve other countries in the reconstruction effort, such as it is, and to roll out of iraq. i do think that bushwar has created the potential for real chaos in iraq, and that it continues to do so--for example, some representatives of the iraqi sunni community have been arguing that they see the united states as acting in the factional interests of the iraqi shi'a community by continuing to conduct raids in sunni-dominated areas...if anything like that is true, then it seems clear that the americans are finding themselves actors within what could be the preliminary actions in a civil war, and this quite easily. what the americans do not seem to be in a position to do is act according to a logic that would stabilize much of anything--that is they are not outside the logic of faction, they are instead being either used or understood as (or both) an extension of faction.

but this whole argument supposes that the problem someone like murtha would have been reacting to is tactical or strategic even on the ground now--i am not sure that this is accurate----the real problem for the bushpeople is that they cannot contain the damage being caused them and their illegitimate war by the problems the administration created for itself by virtue of its shabby and false case for war.

it is pretty simple: if the "evidence" upon which congress acquiesced/decided (your choice) to follow the administration into fulfilling the dreams of the project for a new american century in rewinding the first gulf war etc. was--o let's put this in a neutral-ish manner--manipulated, then it follows that the decisions made on the basis of that information are or should be nullified, yes? is congress in a position to recind its authorization of the war? is this what the bushpeople are really afraid of? if that is what they are trying to avoid, then theatrics like this vote at least make sense....

but the implications of this scenario continue: if the above is true, then it also follows that the americans , thanks to the actions of the administration itself, find themselves in a highly problematic military engagement which has resulted in 28-30,000 civilian casualties, an action which, BECAUSE OF THE FRADULENT CHARACTER OF THE INTEL UPON WHICH ITS JUSTIFICATIONS WERE BUILT now cannot be distinguished from a sustained act of state terrorism. because what is terrorism? the use of military tactics--which include a problematic definition of the notion of combattants---in an---um---"extralegal" context.
that is the position this administration now finds itself in--and it has nobody to blame but itself. that is why it finds itself now twisting in the wind, as a function of its own actions, its own choices, its own arrogance, its own abuse of power.

while the right scrambles to figure out mechanisms of damage control (trying to reframe the problems the adminsitration made ofr itself over the case for war by narrowing the operative questions to an absurd degree, for example--see the "dichotomy" thread for a nice little example) and also to argue, more or less as ustwo does above, that the situation created by the american military now operates as a justificiation for continuing regardless (and then following with a rehearsal of the right's favorite canard about vietnam, the famous "protestors stabbed the military in the back" line, which curiously echoes the line of the brownshirts in the 1920s about world war 1--look it up)---the fact is that the right cannot manage this situation which their boy bush and his band of incompetents have created for themselves and for all of us. they cannot control the debate, they cannot shape the terms, etc.

the chickens are coming home to roost.

i dont see this as a good thing, mostly because i can easily imagine that the administration now finds itself in a position that would appear to legitimate a refusal to even consider a coherent exit strategy on political grounds. because it does not like the way in which it own actions are coming back to haunt it, the administration will dig in here and make political trench war out of this in order to save its own political hide. meanwhile, more and more people will die.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by politicophile

Decisions about when troops leave Iraq should NEVER be made by Congress. This type of strategic decision should be made only by the generals who are most familiar with the strategic consequences of any particular plan of action. Removing troops because "the people want us to" or because of any sort of political expedience is wrong. Period.

Politicians should stick to politics: let the generals win this war for us.

Well it turns out that the constitution explicitly gives congress the right to declare war. But had you actually bothered to read Murtha's statement you'd find he's in agreement with you here (how/why you feel you can debate something at such lenght without actually reading it is beyond me).

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”