This is rediculous - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Marvelous Marv · 11-19-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Nice deliberate misinterpretation.

This was political posturing, not a military directive.

Marvelous Marv · 11-19-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Any word on who the three were? Was Murtha one of the three, or did he vote against his own proposal?

raveneye · 11-19-2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Was Murtha one of the three, or did he vote against his own proposal?

It was not Murtha's proposal, which is why he voted against it.

Rekna · 11-19-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Any word on who the three were? Was Murtha one of the three, or did he vote against his own proposal?

attributing this proposal to Murtha is a complete missrepresentation of the facts. In fact this was a GOP proposal....

kutulu · 11-19-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

attributing this proposal to Murtha is a complete missrepresentation of the facts. In fact this was a GOP proposal....

That's all we get from those scum these days anyways.

Ustwo · 11-19-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Three Democrats, Jose Serrano of New York, Robert Wexler of Florida and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, voted for withdrawal. Six voted present: Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington; Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey and Major Owens of New York; Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and William Lacy Clay of Missouri.

Now those are shocking votes

Now I'm waiting for the Murtha presidential campaign to start.

roachboy · 11-19-2005, 11:05 AM

perhaps posting a fact-reminder will check the predictable slippage of this thread into yet another conservative funhouse, in which distortions reflect distortions and the world that other people know about gets left behind:

Quote:

House Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote
Democrats Enraged By Personal Attack

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 19, 2005; A01

Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber's newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war.

GOP leaders hastily scheduled a vote on a measure to require the Bush administration to bring the troops home now, an idea proposed Thursday by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). The Republican-proposed measure was rejected 403 to 3, a result that surprised no one.

The idea was to force Democrats to go on the record on a proposal that the administration says would be equivalent to surrender. Recognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no.

But the maneuvering exposed the chamber's raw partisan divisions and prompted a tumultuous scene, which Capitol Hill veterans called among the wildest and most emotional they had ever witnessed.

Though even many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Bush administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.

Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent. Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "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."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

As the House temporarily moved to other matters, a calm Ford said in an interview that he confronted the Republicans because he was angry that they were using a ploy to avoid "a real debate" about the war. "I said, 'If you believe it's about Murtha, then talk about Murtha, don't hide behind a resolution,' " Ford said.

It was past 10 p.m. when Murtha addressed a relatively subdued House. Hunter's resolution "is not what I envisioned" because it avoids a broader debate of the war, which "is not going as advertised," Murtha said. "The American people are way ahead of us" in wanting a strategy to bring the troops home, he added. "It's easy to sit in your air-conditioned offices and send them into battle."

But Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), who spent seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said U.S. forces in Iraq "need our full support." He added: "They need to have full faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry."

Those voting yes on the resolution were Democrats Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). Six other Democrats -- none of them from Maryland or Virginia -- voted "present."

Top Democrats attacked the GOP tactic. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Republicans "engaged in an act of deception that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress." She called Hunter's resolution "a political stunt" and "a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform."

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the GOP resolution was meant to prevent a serious debate on the war's prosecution, and that he lacked the words "to express the magnitude of my contempt with which I view this shabby, petty political maneuver."

Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111802896.html

this should be clear enough to push reset, yes?

docbungle · 11-19-2005, 11:11 AM

I don't understand why all of you are arguing so vehemently about this. It's as if you can't see past the surface of this thing. For all of you Iraq-war supporters, do you sicerely believe that trying to plan an exit strategy is a bad thing? I find that hard to believe. Are we so caught up in semantics that we can't discuss this simple issue of making a plan without looking over our shoulders to ensure that we aren't in agreement with our fellow american democrats? And for critics of the Iraq-war, do you really believe that it is possible to just pull the troops out at this point? Do you not see how the repercussions of doing that would be, to put it mildly, bad on a huge scale? Even if you don't care what would happen to Iraq, just imagine what would happen to us, democrats and republicans alike, if we simply up and left, after doing what we have done there, and then just hanging them out to dry. We would never recover, especially with the whole world watching our every move.

Whether you agree with the war or not is moot now; the war is there, it is hapening. It cannot be erased. Planning on it's conclusion is what needs to be done now. How can we argue that is a bad thing?

Murtha's message isn't anything we haven't heard before, nor is the white house's reaction to it. But a lot of the reactions here imply that we have never seen this type of thing before, and don't know how to discuss it without polarizing ourselves from the very people we wish to discuss it with.

Locobot · 11-19-2005, 01:20 PM

The idea that we should pull all troops out of Iraq immediately exists only in strawman characterizations from Republicans. There won't be a serious discussion of U.S. withdrawl until either 1) A stable U.S.-friendly government is formed (unlikely anytime soon) or 2) Iraqi oil reserves are depleted (somewhere around 2015-2020 if fullscale production can be maintained).

Avatar Changed ....we dont do Scat here

samcol · 11-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Is that avatar neccessary?

StanT · 11-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

You might recall the character of the president making the comment.

Elphaba · 11-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

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.

You might want to check your link title.

host · 11-19-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Is that avatar neccessary?

This is policy here......

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...80&postcount=4

Everyone is free to choose whatever avatar they wish.....and personal offense is no reason to change it, as someone who respects free speech, I would hope you understand this.

There is also a policy against Scat

Elphaba · 11-19-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

MM: What is 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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

MM: Nice deliberate misinterpretation.

This was political posturing, not a military directive.

Marv, I went back to reread your original post. I certainly did misinterpret what you meant, but I assure you that it was not deliberate. Thanks for setting me straight.

Ustwo · 11-19-2005, 09:16 PM

There is also a policy against Scat

Amen to that.

Elphaba · 11-19-2005, 09:32 PM

Thank you, Tecoyah.

Edit: Yikes, that was your replacement avatar?

11-19-2005, 11:11 AM	#48 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	I don't understand why all of you are arguing so vehemently about this. It's as if you can't see past the surface of this thing. For all of you Iraq-war supporters, do you sicerely believe that trying to plan an exit strategy is a bad thing? I find that hard to believe. Are we so caught up in semantics that we can't discuss this simple issue of making a plan without looking over our shoulders to ensure that we aren't in agreement with our fellow american democrats? And for critics of the Iraq-war, do you really believe that it is possible to just pull the troops out at this point? Do you not see how the repercussions of doing that would be, to put it mildly, bad on a huge scale? Even if you don't care what would happen to Iraq, just imagine what would happen to us, democrats and republicans alike, if we simply up and left, after doing what we have done there, and then just hanging them out to dry. We would never recover, especially with the whole world watching our every move. Whether you agree with the war or not is moot now; the war is there, it is hapening. It cannot be erased. Planning on it's conclusion is what needs to be done now. How can we argue that is a bad thing? Murtha's message isn't anything we haven't heard before, nor is the white house's reaction to it. But a lot of the reactions here imply that we have never seen this type of thing before, and don't know how to discuss it without polarizing ourselves from the very people we wish to discuss it with. __________________ Bad Luck City

11-19-2005, 01:20 PM	#49 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	The idea that we should pull all troops out of Iraq immediately exists only in strawman characterizations from Republicans. There won't be a serious discussion of U.S. withdrawl until either 1) A stable U.S.-friendly government is formed (unlikely anytime soon) or 2) Iraqi oil reserves are depleted (somewhere around 2015-2020 if fullscale production can be maintained). Avatar Changed ....we dont do Scat here Last edited by tecoyah; 11-19-2005 at 02:25 PM..

11-19-2005, 09:16 PM	#55 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	There is also a policy against Scat Amen to that. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-19-2005, 09:32 PM	#56 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, Tecoyah. Edit: Yikes, that was your replacement avatar? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

11-19-2005, 01:27 PM	#50 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Is that avatar neccessary?