Senior Democrat urges Iraq pullout!
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
- Status
Now here's something to consider...
I think that Murtha has a really good point: our troops are targets, and we might be making it worse by doing what we are doing there right now. It IS time for refreshing our strategy, one way or another.
I hope the Republicans pay attention to this fact.
I think that Murtha has a really good point: our troops are targets, and we might be making it worse by doing what we are doing there right now. It IS time for refreshing our strategy, one way or another.
I hope the Republicans pay attention to this fact.
woerm
Member
just got done frying the phone
one senator/ one misreptile
found out from senator the house was site of quote silliness unquote
called misreptile poor staffer knew my voice from prior contacts
misreptile should be voting against withdrawl unless he's intersted in drawing unemployment.
strenious objection to cut and run was noted
calls appear to be running 80 or 90 to one against cut and run
it appears the Democrats have lost their minds and probably the 06 elections as well.
r
one senator/ one misreptile
found out from senator the house was site of quote silliness unquote
called misreptile poor staffer knew my voice from prior contacts
misreptile should be voting against withdrawl unless he's intersted in drawing unemployment.
strenious objection to cut and run was noted
calls appear to be running 80 or 90 to one against cut and run
it appears the Democrats have lost their minds and probably the 06 elections as well.
r
Leatherneck
Member
Please enlighten us. i.e., provide a link.cbsbyte said:
I admit I've only seen the excerpts from MSM. But those excerpts i've seen make me ashamed Murtha is perceived as a U. S. Marine. I assure you, the Marines do not share his views. I think he must be having an onset of dementia. Too bad we allow such in our Congress.
TC
Leatherneck said:
I read a quote that he said we need to pull out, or take the fight to the enemy, with more troops and more support. This may have been after his initial statement, but it has VERY different implications, and indeed it is consistent with lessons learned in Viet Nam.
I, too, would like to see an actual transcript.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
It never ceases to amaze me that through thick and thin, representatives of the Democratic (sic) party always sing out of the same page of the hymn book, whereas the Republicans...
Aw, never mind.
Aw, never mind.
The media is presenting this representative as making a drastic call to pull out of Iraq. It's as simple as that. They do a good job at defining the issue for the gullible masses.
Our troops are targets? Did this guy just pull a Rip Van Winkle and just wake up from a deep sleep?
More leftists baloney. They're pilling it on thick and only the very ignorant are buying this garbage.
Our troops are targets? Did this guy just pull a Rip Van Winkle and just wake up from a deep sleep?
More leftists baloney. They're pilling it on thick and only the very ignorant are buying this garbage.
gc70
Member
Here is Murtha's speech. Good luck decoding it.
The speech is like jello. The first 9 or 10 paragraphs of the speech are a stream of disjointed platitudes, truisms, or gripes. Not surprisingly, he complains about the war costing too much, but also complains that the money appropriated by Congress isn't being spent quickly enough.
He eventually gets around to calling for "redeployment" of our troops. You decide what "redeployment" means, because at different points he mentions more troops, fewer troops, a different deployment strategy in Iraq, or to get out of Iraq. Or maybe he didn't really mean any of that - you decide.
The speech is like jello. The first 9 or 10 paragraphs of the speech are a stream of disjointed platitudes, truisms, or gripes. Not surprisingly, he complains about the war costing too much, but also complains that the money appropriated by Congress isn't being spent quickly enough.
He eventually gets around to calling for "redeployment" of our troops. You decide what "redeployment" means, because at different points he mentions more troops, fewer troops, a different deployment strategy in Iraq, or to get out of Iraq. Or maybe he didn't really mean any of that - you decide.
wingnutx
Member
"Redeployment" in this case means the same thing as "Advancing towards the rear".
Carl N. Brown
Member
What would be the reaction today to Tarawa?
Abandon Australia to the Japanese Empire?
Abandon Australia to the Japanese Empire?
mountainclmbr
Member
That the Stalinist supporters in the US Congress want the Stalinists in Iraq to win is no surprise to me. They did this same thing in Vietnam, the Soviet proxy exploits in Africa, Central America and South America. Did I forget to mention that they wanted the USA to support Hitler and N. Korea? They have not waivered. Those who never learned from history are gambling with other people's lives (and maybe their own too).
Mad Chemist
Member
[QUOTE
Dear Rep. John Murtha: Grow Up You Coward![/QUOTE]
That man served our country and earned two purple hearts. You may disaggree with him, but calling him a coward is a damn lie and you know it.
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to prove your point.
Dear Rep. John Murtha: Grow Up You Coward![/QUOTE]
That man served our country and earned two purple hearts. You may disaggree with him, but calling him a coward is a damn lie and you know it.
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to prove your point.
wingnutx
Member
I disagree with Murtha more than I can say, but anyone calling him a coward needs to ****.
M-Rex
member
Interesting goings on...
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DVA92G0.html
According to Drudge...403-3 against the pull out. Still trying to find cooboration.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DVA92G0.html
According to Drudge...403-3 against the pull out. Still trying to find cooboration.
gc70
Member
Here are the results of the House roll call vote "On Agreeing to the Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
6 Democrats voted "present" and 3 Democrats ("Bush knew about 9/11" McKinney, Serrano, and Wexler) voted for the resolution. Note that Murtha voted against the resolution.
6 Democrats voted "present" and 3 Democrats ("Bush knew about 9/11" McKinney, Serrano, and Wexler) voted for the resolution. Note that Murtha voted against the resolution.
Last edited:
You know, there'd probably be a lot less heat, and a lot more light, if anybody'd bothered to actually understand what Murtha, one of the most pro-military members of Congress, was actually talking about.
As he said, his plan is to remove American forces from Iraq, with a quick reaction force based in (probably) Kuwait, and an over-the-horizon (I'd guess assault carrier based, but he didn't detail it) MEU on standby.
It may not be the right idea, but "cut and run", it aint.
His idea is that the Iraqis will never step up and fight for themselves as long as we're around to do it for them, and that as long as we are seen as an occupying foreign power, the insurgency will only get worse.
He may be wrong, but his record both in uniform and in the Congress would suggest that he at least be listened to.
And anyone who questions the courage and patriotism of a man with multiple Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star needs his or her a$$ kicked. The man cares deeply about our military, he goes to Walter Reed regularly to meet with the wounded and find out what they need. The story of him getting a wounded Marine a Purple Heart that the Corps wouldn't authorize will bring a tear to the eye of a statue. He's a true patriot, no matter what O'Reilly says about him. You can disagree with him all you want, but attacking his character or commitment to this nation should draw the wrath of anyone who's ever worn the uniform.
--Shannon
NB - I have no idea what O'Reilly in particular has to say about him, I'm using him as a proxy for the Right-wing attack machine, which has gone after him in ways that sicken me, as it should any veteran.
As he said, his plan is to remove American forces from Iraq, with a quick reaction force based in (probably) Kuwait, and an over-the-horizon (I'd guess assault carrier based, but he didn't detail it) MEU on standby.
It may not be the right idea, but "cut and run", it aint.
His idea is that the Iraqis will never step up and fight for themselves as long as we're around to do it for them, and that as long as we are seen as an occupying foreign power, the insurgency will only get worse.
He may be wrong, but his record both in uniform and in the Congress would suggest that he at least be listened to.
And anyone who questions the courage and patriotism of a man with multiple Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star needs his or her a$$ kicked. The man cares deeply about our military, he goes to Walter Reed regularly to meet with the wounded and find out what they need. The story of him getting a wounded Marine a Purple Heart that the Corps wouldn't authorize will bring a tear to the eye of a statue. He's a true patriot, no matter what O'Reilly says about him. You can disagree with him all you want, but attacking his character or commitment to this nation should draw the wrath of anyone who's ever worn the uniform.
--Shannon
NB - I have no idea what O'Reilly in particular has to say about him, I'm using him as a proxy for the Right-wing attack machine, which has gone after him in ways that sicken me, as it should any veteran.
Were I a congresscritter, I'd vote for it
I think that calling a vote on the matter was an excellent idea, and I have more respect for the Republican who introduced the measure than I do for any waffling, mealy-mouthed Democrat who wants to snipe at the president's policies from the sidelines while still talking tough.
Congratulations to the three Democrats who voted for it. History will judge you accordingly.
For all the others who voted against the resolution but still want to take potshots at the war, I think it's time for them to sit down and have a nice hot cup of ****.
I think that calling a vote on the matter was an excellent idea, and I have more respect for the Republican who introduced the measure than I do for any waffling, mealy-mouthed Democrat who wants to snipe at the president's policies from the sidelines while still talking tough.
Congratulations to the three Democrats who voted for it. History will judge you accordingly.
For all the others who voted against the resolution but still want to take potshots at the war, I think it's time for them to sit down and have a nice hot cup of ****.
ravinraven
Member
If you're going to fight a war, for God's sake, fight it to win!
Amen, Leatherneck. Sounds like you heard Gen D. McCarthur, [sp?] say, "There is no substitute for victory."
Anyway. We have to remember that the Rep. party was born in 1856 {??} from the anti-slavery elements of the Democrat party, the anti-slavery elements of the Whig party and the entire Free States party. The Republican party was born to the pro-liberty movement a mere 80 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is still at least preceived as pro-liberty. Dubya, despite his signing of the Patriot Act and the anti-first-amendment-for-60-days-before-an-election-act, dubbed The Campaign Finance Reform Act, is preceived as pro-liberty by the Dems. Therefore, the hate campaign.
The Dems tried to prevent and then stop the Civil War which was a battle to, among other things, free the slaves. In 1865, shortly after the end of the Civil War the KKK was formed by Democrats to prevent the rise of the Republican party in the south. The "solid south" emerged from the Civil War as mostly Democrats who were anti-liberty. It was not until recently that a southern politician would have a career if he/she were not a Democrat. [An acguaintance of mine and a veteran of the RAF Battle of Britian, now long gone, was named Kefauffer [sp??]. His uncle's name was Estes. Remember him? Estes was the only Democrat in that family because he wanted to be a politician.] Given the legacy of the Dem. party, it is no wonder that they are advocating surrender in Iraq. They are anti-liberty. That's their job, folks. I am pro-liberty. The neocons are a bit iffy in my mind as to their pro-liberty stance. However, they are pro-liberty enough to be hated by the Democrat party.
I think that the debate should be: "Is it time to can the concept of liberty?" It could be that we would be better off enjoying the serenity of totalitarianism rather than dodging and weaving in the chaos of liberty.
rr
Amen, Leatherneck. Sounds like you heard Gen D. McCarthur, [sp?] say, "There is no substitute for victory."
Anyway. We have to remember that the Rep. party was born in 1856 {??} from the anti-slavery elements of the Democrat party, the anti-slavery elements of the Whig party and the entire Free States party. The Republican party was born to the pro-liberty movement a mere 80 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is still at least preceived as pro-liberty. Dubya, despite his signing of the Patriot Act and the anti-first-amendment-for-60-days-before-an-election-act, dubbed The Campaign Finance Reform Act, is preceived as pro-liberty by the Dems. Therefore, the hate campaign.
The Dems tried to prevent and then stop the Civil War which was a battle to, among other things, free the slaves. In 1865, shortly after the end of the Civil War the KKK was formed by Democrats to prevent the rise of the Republican party in the south. The "solid south" emerged from the Civil War as mostly Democrats who were anti-liberty. It was not until recently that a southern politician would have a career if he/she were not a Democrat. [An acguaintance of mine and a veteran of the RAF Battle of Britian, now long gone, was named Kefauffer [sp??]. His uncle's name was Estes. Remember him? Estes was the only Democrat in that family because he wanted to be a politician.] Given the legacy of the Dem. party, it is no wonder that they are advocating surrender in Iraq. They are anti-liberty. That's their job, folks. I am pro-liberty. The neocons are a bit iffy in my mind as to their pro-liberty stance. However, they are pro-liberty enough to be hated by the Democrat party.
I think that the debate should be: "Is it time to can the concept of liberty?" It could be that we would be better off enjoying the serenity of totalitarianism rather than dodging and weaving in the chaos of liberty.
rr
gc70
Member
-- deleted after reading Murtha's resolution --
Last edited:
Many have criticized the Republicans for "politicizing" the war with this resolution.
I disagree.
The purpose of this was to cut the crap.
Now that it's over, maybe some positive debate can happen, debate over *** to do next in Iraq, and what the plan really is and should be. That would be useful.
I disagree.
The purpose of this was to cut the crap.
Now that it's over, maybe some positive debate can happen, debate over *** to do next in Iraq, and what the plan really is and should be. That would be useful.
Republicans..show some signs of life
The Republicans in the House forced the Democrats to go on the record regarding the war. All the double speak comes down to three people voting to leave Iraq now. With all the Bravo Sigma passing the lips of Democrats, they have now been served. I'm sure the complaining and name calling will start tomorrow. It is unlike the Republicans to show any spine at all. This was a pleasant surprise and overdue. ( I don't mean to indicate that Republicans always speak the truth, but for the Democrats it is a rare quality. I commend Murtha for his straight forward honesty. )
The Republicans in the House forced the Democrats to go on the record regarding the war. All the double speak comes down to three people voting to leave Iraq now. With all the Bravo Sigma passing the lips of Democrats, they have now been served. I'm sure the complaining and name calling will start tomorrow. It is unlike the Republicans to show any spine at all. This was a pleasant surprise and overdue. ( I don't mean to indicate that Republicans always speak the truth, but for the Democrats it is a rare quality. I commend Murtha for his straight forward honesty. )
The two resolutions
Note that the resolution put forward by the Republican House leadership is jes' a wee bit different from that submitted by Rep. Murtha
Murtha's resolution:
Hastert's "call his bluff" resolution:
There's a lot of people who would support the first resolution, but not the second. I think that had Hastert allowed Mr. Murtha's resolution to come before the House, the vote tally would have been quite different.
But then again, since such resolutions have no legal force, they're meaningless no matter what they say.
--Shannon
Note that the resolution put forward by the Republican House leadership is jes' a wee bit different from that submitted by Rep. Murtha
Murtha's resolution:
RESOLUTION
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
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;
Therefore be it
1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
2) Congress assembled,
3) That:
4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines
shall be deployed in the region.
9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10) through diplomacy.
Hastert's "call his bluff" resolution:
There's a lot of people who would support the first resolution, but not the second. I think that had Hastert allowed Mr. Murtha's resolution to come before the House, the vote tally would have been quite different.
But then again, since such resolutions have no legal force, they're meaningless no matter what they say.
--Shannon
gc70
Member
Yep, the Republican resolution gets right to the point while the Democratic resolution has a laundry-list of excuses/reasons. Oh, and the Democratic resolution also talks about a quick-reaction force and over-the-horizon Marine presence; would that be I MEF and their ships already in the Persian Gulf?
Probably true, since many people are easily confused or distracted.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it doesn't make the pig any more attractive. Both resolutions boiled down to "cut and run."
Last edited:
Waitone
Member
Spinelessrepublicans may actually be growing a spine. The resolution called Democrats bluff. Now those same people who are singing French songs are now on record as opposing immediate withdrawal. Outstanding countermove. I honestly think Bush is beginning to fight back. Time will tell if its a blip or if he has had it.
Murtha? I find it curious he comes out four square right after Bush and Cheney launch as counter attack with the verbs. I'm particularly intrigued by Murtha's endorsment of Screamin' Dean as Chmn of the DNC (IIRC the office). If the brotherhood of Marines is what Marines claims it to be and if Murtha is the "hero" he is portrayed, then I suspect what Murtha has done created great angst or comes with a huge price. Let's just watch Murtha's fortunes for the foreseeable future.
I fully expect to see move / countermove by both parties from now until the summer recess in '06. If Democrats can't find something to stick to Bush for impeachment purposes, then they have to turn up the rhetoric. Stand by 'cause its gonna get interesting.
Murtha? I find it curious he comes out four square right after Bush and Cheney launch as counter attack with the verbs. I'm particularly intrigued by Murtha's endorsment of Screamin' Dean as Chmn of the DNC (IIRC the office). If the brotherhood of Marines is what Marines claims it to be and if Murtha is the "hero" he is portrayed, then I suspect what Murtha has done created great angst or comes with a huge price. Let's just watch Murtha's fortunes for the foreseeable future.
I fully expect to see move / countermove by both parties from now until the summer recess in '06. If Democrats can't find something to stick to Bush for impeachment purposes, then they have to turn up the rhetoric. Stand by 'cause its gonna get interesting.
- Status
