Murtha refuses to vote for his own idea......

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
The Republicans in the House of Reps put up a bill calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, just like Murtha and others have been hollering for.

Well, only three folks voted for it.

Murtha did not even vote for it.

Here's the story.

hillbilly



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051119/D8DVI20O0.html

Lawmakers Reject Immediate Iraq Withdrawal


Email this Story

Nov 19, 7:56 AM (ET)

By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated.

"To cut and run would invite terrorism into our backyards, and no one wants to see troops fighting terrorism on American soil," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Friday night after the House, as planned, rejected a GOP-written resolution for immediate withdrawal.

The vote, held as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break, was 403-3.

Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.


That included Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the Democratic hawk whose call Thursday for pulling out troops set off a nasty, personal debate over the war.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.

The House action came in a week that also saw the GOP-controlled Senate defeat a Democratic push for President Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, senators approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"Congress in strong, bipartisan fashion rejected the call to cut and run," White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush in Asia, said a statement. Earlier Friday, the president called an immediate troop withdrawal "a recipe for disaster."

Murtha, a Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam and widely respected among his peers, issued his call for a troop withdrawal at a news conference Thursday. In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.



Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position - either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue - the war - that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks.

Democrats said it was a sham and quickly decided to vote against the resolution in an attempt to drain it of significance.

"A disgrace," declared House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"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," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran and ranking Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee.


(AP) Reps. Robert Brady, D-Pa., left, and John Murtha, D-Pa., walk through a corridor, Friday, Nov. 18,...
Full Image


Democrats booed and shouted her down - causing the House to come to a standstill.

Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Democrats gave Murtha a standing ovation as he entered the chamber and took his customary corner seat.

Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the resolution vote was not a stunt. "This is not an attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question," he said.

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.
 
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the resolution vote was not a stunt.

Stunts are usually intended to be amusing. This was a simple exercise in stupidity and arrogance.

The Three Stooges are funny, especially to adolescents. Mrs. Snopes Clinton's socialist medical scheme was just plain stupid and arrogantly anti-American.
 
(Murtha) said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.
Really?

Democratic resolution: "deployment of ... forces ... is hereby terminated"
Republican resolution: "deployment of ... forces ... be terminated immediately"

Looks pretty much the same to me.
 
attachment.php

You guys ar... Chris... Chris! Stop giving me a fishy face, I'm trying to be serious here! Ehm. You guys are pathetic, pathetic!!
 

Attachments

  • 021802chrisshaysmartymeehan.jpg
    021802chrisshaysmartymeehan.jpg
    8.2 KB · Views: 479
Typical. You know that reminds me of Charlie Rangel screaming that we need a draft and then chickening out when it came time to vote.
 
What the dems really want is to incite further attacks by apparent readiness to cave to terrorists. Then with their proof of unwinnability of the war, repubs will be defeated. Then the dems can take control, win the war with their steadfastness and forever show that they are real men. They had their chance when chicken clinton was in office, but decided to ignore the terrorists. Kind of a whistling in the graveyard strategy. Now they have a better idea. I say that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, increasing our danger, and putting the war in doubt, just as they did in Viet Nam when they started the war and now blame it on Nixon. :cuss:
 
Gunpacker said:
What the dems really want is to incite further attacks by apparent readiness to cave to terrorists. Then with their proof of unwinnability of the war, repubs will be defeated.

I could just as easily state that what the Republicans really want is to incite further acts of terror by arresting and torturing the very people we're supposed to be "liberating".

Would either of those statements be true? Maybe, to some; maybe not to others.





By the way, regarding your "unwinnable" war: Didn't we already win this one? If not, then why did Bush come out and state "major combat operations have ended"?
 
Immediate pullout was not what Murtha was asking for.
"deployment of ... forces ... is hereby terminated" and "troops home in six months" sounds immediate to me.

I've seen rationalizations that "troops home in six months" does not mean immediately. However, our troops can't just catch a taxi to the airport and fly home. Actually, six months would probably be fairly rushed to complete an orderly withdrawl of 160,000 troops and all of their equipment.
 
Six months doesn't sound immediate to me, but I guess the term is open to personal interpretation.
Fair enough. I interpret "immediate" as the starting point rather than the completion point.

Since an orderly withdrawl would take a substantial amount of time, a withdrawl started today (immediately) would certainly not be completed immediately.

A different approach would entail abandoning a huge amount of equipment, stuffing the troops into every available vehicle, and driving for the border. That more immediate conclusion could probably be accomplished in a few weeks. And that type of action is clearly not being advocated by anyone.
 
I agree that military withdrawals take a long time. If we started withdrawing today, I would expect it would take at least 6 months, or maybe even longer.

Murtha is a veteran, I suspect he knows military withdrawals would take a long time.
 
Murtha is a veteran, I suspect he knows military withdrawals would take a long time.
That's why I am disappointed by the rhetoric that Murtha and the Democrats are throwing up around this issue. They know that getting the troops home in six months would mean starting the process right now, but they are trying to portray something substantially different through their soundbites in the MSM.
 
Nothing new here. When the Democrats do these announcements or hold secret, emergency sessions and close the Senate, its OK. When Republicnas call for a vote on Murtha's call for an immediate pull out from Iraq, its called a "political stunt".
 
Murtha is putting up a smokescreen. He has always been anti-war, but kept his mouth shut.
Why speak now?

He may be investigated for ethics violations:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/11329-1.html

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...

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).

He's also hooked up with Pelosi.

This guy has done the research:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/11/murthagate-loud-tear-filled-call-for.html


Not much Semper Fi for this Marine eh? More like Semper Fly


G
 
Not that I expect dignity or decency from politicians,

Henry Bowman said:
Maybe my Congressional Rep., Jean Schmidt, calling a spade a spade (and him a coward) shamed him a bit. Amen and so be it.

,but from someone who had to get a call from a Marine to learn about courage and to call a decorated war vet a coward is pretty pathetic. Looks like grandstanding on both sides of the party lines. I've never been a fan of the Democrats or John Murtha, but this type of garbage is not what we spend our tax dollars for employing these people to represent us. Why don't they get down to business and sign the defense bill?
 
Bush should appease the Democrat's call and start bringing the troops home as they wish: one (1) per day for the next few years!

:p

Yup were are withdrawing.... slow but sure! ;)

by the way... The Democrats are up in arms about criticism about Murtha but what about when they criticized a Marine: Remember how they treated Colonel Oliver North??????

Chickens have come home to roost!!!!!
 
Seems Murtha played the same disgusting game back in Somalia:

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/100353.shtml

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, after the Mogadishu battle cost the lives of 18 U.S. Rangers.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

There's more...go read it if you want to raise your blood pressure.

G
 
Pilot said:
Nothing new here. When the Democrats do these announcements or hold secret, emergency sessions and close the Senate, its OK. When Republicnas call for a vote on Murtha's call for an immediate pull out from Iraq, its called a "political stunt".

You've got it a little backwards, Pilot. The Republicans soundly defeated Murtha's resolution, then raised their own "Sense of the House" motion. Their "Sense" had language in it the Dems didn't want to be on record as being in favor of, and wouldn't have been anything Bush would've had to listen to. It was just a ploy (as has been noted). Down the road, when the Dems want to vote on any actual legislation that would have force of law, the Reps can just say, "Well, when we wanted to vote on ending the war months (weeks, years) ago, you Democrats voted "NO."

Political maneuvering that has little to do with any useful work being done. Both parties are operating out of spite, and our Armed Forces are pawns.
 
The Republicans have effectively ended all discussion about the war with this resolution.

By forcing a resolution for "immediate pullout", something no one wanted, including the Democrats, they basically have said they are not going to allow the war to even be discussed on the floor of the House.

The next time a Democrat (or Republican) raises concern about the War, all the Repubs have to do is immediately put an immediate pull out resolution on the floor and require a vote. Forget about discussion of any kind, just require a vote. When it is voted down, they will say "see, everyone wants us to stay".

This is a bad tactic that one day people will look back on as wrong. I don't support immediate pull out, and neither did the Democrats, but there is no reason why the issue can't be discussed.
 
The purpose of Murtha's resolution was not to promote discussion on the floor of the House.

The Democrats were VERY smart in choosing Murtha (recognized as being a war hero and well-informed about the military) to deliver their script. Yes, it was a script of Democratic public talking points, delivered in the form of a Resolution. And the Resolution was delivered the day before the House was scheduled to recess. The Democrats thought there was no way for the Resolution to reach a vote because the House was already scrambling to move "must pass" budget bills before recessing. The Democrats presented the Resolution when they did to be able to define the terms of the public discussion during the Congressional recess.

I give the Democrats a huge amount of credit for coming up with a sharp plan. But this time the Republicans surprised everyone by acting quickly to defuse the Democrats' plan. That's just playing the political game.

Lone_Gunman, if the Republicans were wrong for pushing through a vote, weren't the Democrats also wrong for bushwhacking the Republicans with the timing of the Resolution?
 
Lone_Gunman, if the Republicans were wrong for pushing through a vote, weren't the Democrats also wrong for bushwhacking the Republicans with the timing of the Resolution?

Yes. Just because I think the Repubs were wrong should not be construed to mean I think the Democrats were doing something right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top