Reply With Quote
It's being debated on CSPAN right now.
Yes, my wife and I are nerds.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 (UPI) -- The U.S. House of Representatives debated a Republican-sponsored resolution Friday night to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately.
Vietnam vet congressman wants out of Iraq (November 17, 2005) -- Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, called Thursday for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha, the ... > full story
U.S. Democrats ask for Iraq timetable (November 14, 2005) -- The Democratic Party leadership in the U.S. Senate Monday demanded the Bush administration lay out a plan to have U.S. troops withdraw from ... > full story
Senate signals problems with Iraq funding (April 19, 2005) -- In a symbolic blow to the Bush administration, the U.S. Senate has signaled its disdain for funding Iraq military operations outside the annual ... > full story
The resolution was introduced by the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Republicans characterized the resolution as an occasion for the House to express its support for U.S. troops, while Democrats called it an attempt to avoid a debate about the Bush administration's conduct of the war.
The New York Times said the resolution was intended to exploit conflicts within the Democratic Party over Thursday's proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to withdraw U.S. troops as fast practicable.
Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Committee and a supporter of the 2003 invasion, said Thursday the administration is engaged in "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
"It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region," Murtha said.
The deployment of thousands of U.S. soldiers to Iraq also threatens the country's military capacity, Murtha said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fee...bc-us-iraq.xml
It's being debated on CSPAN right now.
Yes, my wife and I are nerds.
whoa, it's getting loud. They're yelling at each other and . Gavel banging, catcalls, and booing on both sides.
I love this .
It's a manuever by the Republicans to make the Democrats vote one way or the other, but the Democratic leader is saying to vote against it. It would be foolish to do.
^The point of the proposal is to bait the democrats into withdrawing, that way later on they could be used in 06 to prove that democrats are flip flops and weaklings on perserverance. It's a brilliant move, the democrats are calling it a Republican Stunt and Cheap shot at john murtha.
Heh, Murtha is reading a letter from a disgruntled mother of a US troop.
"In 2004 my youngest son graduated from college, and was all ready enrolled in the marines, he was ready to help our country and others. It is with great distress that we watched the administration mishandle the war. There was no plan, no push to go in and win the war totally. Losing Colin Powell was a deep blow to us. We respected his honor...
We are a patriotic family, but I can't abide by sending my son [for a second tour in Iraq] in a war being planned by [rumsfeld and cheney]. [we would support the war if] we felt our son was being used in a proper manner for a valiant effort, but he's not."
Damn.
Heh, yup. Good manuever on the part of the GOP leadership.
It would also get the GOP rank and file ON THE VOTING RECORD as favoring staying in Iraq with no withdrawal plan even on the table less than 1 year before the '06 elections.
I'd love to see the Demos call their bluff.
(sigh)
Yet another political ploy on the part of the GOP to say that people who want to hold the administration accountable for it's failures are un-American or cowards. :vomit
ADMINISTRATION HITS OUT
The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone
Cheney
DEMOCRATS HIT BACK
I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done
John Murtha
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4450488.stm
Murtha dry humped Cheney. Damn, what a slap.
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) relaying a message from a Marine Colonel to the Dems:
"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.
Power Line's John Hinderaker takes apart the AP's reporting on the vote and writes:
Cut-and-run is the approach favored by the Associated Press, the major media and the Democratic Party's left-wing base; but that base comprises a small minority of voters. So it makes perfect sense to ask Congressional Democrats to state whether they want to surrender in Iraq, and turn that nation over to al Qaeda, or not.
More than that, of course, it's the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the media's breathless heralding of each liberal politician who comes out against continuation of the war, a substantial majority of House members will vote to reject the call for surrender. That's good, as our service personnel deserve the assurance that our government continues to stand behind their mission
Cheney Approaches the Shark Tank
It's a pretty smart move. Like introducing a bill calling for the draft to be reinstated.
I thought this kind of stuff only happend in East Asian parliaments.
Great theatre. I wanna see that pompous, pretentious wimp Frist getting his hair-do mussed, and why not a couple of teeth knocked out.
===================================
The New York Times
November 19, 2005
Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - Republicans and Democrats shouted, howled and slung insults on the House floor on Friday as a debate over whether to withdraw American troops from Iraq descended into a fury over President Bush's handling of the war and a leading Democrat's call to bring the troops home.
The battle boiled over when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she had just received from a Marine colonel back home.
"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Democrats booed in protest and shouted Ms. Schmidt down in her attack on Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran and one of the House's most respected members on military matters. They caused the House to come to an abrupt standstill, and moments later, Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, charged across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.
"You guys are pathetic!" yelled Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Pathetic."
The measure to withdraw the troops failed in a 403-to-3 vote late Friday night.
The rancorous debate drew an extraordinary scolding from Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee.
"Today's debate in the House of Representatives shows the need for bipartisanship on the war in Iraq, instead of more political posturing," Mr. Warner said in a statement.
But as the third hour of debate opened, with the House chamber mostly full on the eve of the Thanksgiving recess, even two senior Republicans, Henry Hyde of Illinois and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, tried to temper the personal nature of the confrontation by offering tributes to Mr. Murtha. "I give him an A-plus as a truly great American," Mr. Hyde said.
Then Mr. Murtha, who normally shuns publicity, gave an impassioned 15-minute plea for his plan to withdraw American troops, who he said had become "a catalyst for violence" in Iraq. The American people, Mr. Murtha thundered, are "thirsty for some direction; they're thirsty for a solution to this problem."
The uproar followed days of mounting tension between Republicans and Democrats in which the political debate over the war sharply intensified. With Mr. Bush's popularity dropping in the polls, Democrats have sought anew to portray him as having exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq before the American invasion in 2003. Republicans have countered that Democrats were equally at fault.
The battle came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha's measure and left little time for meaningful debate.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, denied that there were any political tricks involved and said pulling forces out of Iraq so rashly would hurt troop morale overseas. "We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
The measure's fate was sealed - and the vote count's significance minimized - when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.
"Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them," said Ms. Pelosi, who assailed Republicans as impugning Mr. Murtha's patriotism.
The parliamentary maneuvering came amid more than three hours of often nasty floor debate and boisterous political theater, with Democrats accusing Republicans of resorting to desperate tactics to back a failed war and Republicans warning that Mr. Murtha's measure would play into the hands of terrorists.
In South Korea, where Mr. Bush was in the final day of the Asian economic summit, the White House released the text of a speech that he is scheduled to make later on Saturday to American forces at Osan Air Base.
"In Washington there are some who say that the sacrifice is too great, and they urge us to set a date for withdrawal before we have completed our mission," Mr. Bush planned to say, keeping up the daily drumbeat of White House response from 7,000 miles away. "Those who are in the fight know better. One of our top commanders in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William Webster, says that setting a deadline for our withdrawal from Iraq would be, quote, 'a recipe for disaster.' "
"General Webster is right," Mr. Bush's text said. "And so long as I am commander in chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground."
On Thursday, Mr. Murtha called for pulling out the 153,000 American troops within six months, saying they had become a catalyst for the continuing violence in Iraq. His plan also called for a quick-reaction force in the region, perhaps based in Kuwait, and for pursuing stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
But House Republicans planned to put to a vote - and reject - their own nonbinding alternative resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Democrats denounced the Republican measure as a fraud. But Democrats privately acknowledged that they were seeking to escape a political trap set by the Republicans to box them into an unappealing choice: side with Mr. Murtha and face criticism for backing a plan that American commanders say would cripple the mission in Iraq or oppose their respected colleague and blunt momentum for an overhaul of the administration's Iraq policy.
House Democrats greeted Mr. Murtha with a standing ovation on Friday as he entered the chamber.
"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House, and it is outrageous," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.
While some 70 liberal Democrats who support ending American military involvement in Iraq have praised Mr. Murtha's plan, many of his other party colleagues appeared to harbor doubts. To a member, Democrats said they respected the counsel of Mr. Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who has earned bipartisan respect in his three decades in Congress as a champion of American service members.
But many senior House Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, have distanced themselves from Mr. Murtha's resolution, saying a phased withdrawal is a more prudent course. The House debate is likely to stoke an intensifying partisan debate on Capitol Hill over the administration's handling of the war, including how it used prewar intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Democrats, including Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, as well as Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, defended Mr. Murtha and gave examples of what they said were faulty intelligence.
The House action comes just days after the Republican-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push to have Mr. Bush describe a timetable for withdrawal. Underscoring unease by both parties about the war, though, the Senate then approved a Republican statement that 2006 should be a year in which conditions were created for the Iraqi government to take over more security duties in the country and allow the United States to begin withdrawing.
Even as Republicans sought to make political hay from Mr. Murtha's plan, Democrats defended him as a patriot.
"I won't stand for the Swift-boating of Jack Murtha," said Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Mr. Kerry, who is also a Vietnam veteran, was dogged during the campaign by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Korea for this article.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
hahah a pussys could not even vote no..
Can ya'll dem's stfu now and let our Soldiers finish the job?
Well take it from the NOn partisan! MIddle of DA road!, Mr. Moderate, "There's no thing as Red state/blue state just spangled stars across the fruited Plaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!!!!!!!!!jack,...HUh.. Not to be confused with Theordore Roosevelt, the great Moderate with out bias, prejudiuce,..just sincerety and a clear understanding of todays issue, NO left no right just what's sincere... I am talking about no one other than the Great Smo Jo, war veteran, John McCaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiinnnnnnnnuh!!
and he says..."Hi, I'm John McCain and i endorse this neocon war."
.....this message brought to you by The Plain Jane, , Harry, Sue, Independent and Moderate Society for a Bipartisan Washington, Political Action Commitee.
...seriously, John Murtha is being led by popularity polls. Democrats and bogus independents are always the first to dessert. Like the saying says, In a storm the rats leave the ship first.
(shrugs)
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
I will believe that "victory is just around the corner" when this graph has a sustained downward trend.
Until then, I can do little but retain a rather pessimistic assessment.
Here is a question for the Bushies--
When do we say we won? What are the criteria?
and the fools leave it last...
IF the ship doesnt sink, then the fools are the first to dessert.
You know it yourself, the war is gonna be won. The rats have fleed to the sight of a gimpy waterspout. Imagine if this was a storm(war) like vietnam.
Well had not Murtha said what he said, Zargawi wouldnt of claim victory thus alqueda in Iraq would of stayed demoralized. Now Murtha's gaff is gonna cost more lives than Robertson's call to assasinate a jungle Venezulan Commie king.(shrugs)
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
I will believe that "victory is just around the corner" when this graph has a sustained downward trend.
Until then, I can do little but retain a rather pessimistic assessment.
Here is a question for the Bushies--
When do we say we won? What are the criteria?
The resolution is stupid, but it is even more stupid not to have a plan of some sort to withdraw from Iraq. Automatically labeling any semblance of a plan cowardly or surrendering is even more stupid. Is there anyone here that wants a permanent occupation? If not, then any sensible nonsucking multi-billion organization had better have a plan.
So which is it?Originally posted by RandomGuy:
Heh, yup. Good manuever on the part of the GOP leadership.
so answer me this lefties.. do you want to cut and run?
Because the Repubs are fed up with Dems saying the dubya/ head/Repugs lied about the "Saddam evidence without doubt", the call this "immediate pull-out" vote by the entire House just to trash Murtha.
The two points are totally unrelated. But once the Repug sliming/trashing machines starts spewing, truth and accuracy is the target.
===============================
The New York Times
November 20, 2005
Session Exposes Political Risks Ahead for G.O.P.
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - It was a bitter and fitting final note for a discordant Congress.
The ugly debate in the House on Friday over the Iraq war served as an emotional send-off for a holiday recess, capturing perfectly the political tensions coursing through the House and Senate in light of President Bush's slumping popularity, serious party policy fights, spreading ethics investigations and the approach of crucial midterm elections in less than a year.
Capitol Hill was always certain to be swept up in brutal political gamesmanship as lawmakers headed into 2006 - the midpoint of this second presidential term and, perhaps, a chance for Democrats to cut into Republican majorities or even seize power in one chamber or the other.
The ferocity of the fight in the House over a measure to withdraw American troops from Iraq shows that the war may command the high ground in the coming electoral contest, and that the course of events in Iraq - whether a new government takes hold, whether the violence continues, whether American troops are still committed in large numbers and still being killed by the scores each month - will be of prime political consequence here.
But when lawmakers return next month they face other, immediate challenges that also carry substantial political risks. Some are matters related to the war, like the continuing debate on the treatment of detainees in the campaign against global terrorism. Others are the kind of domestic pocketbook issues that Congress must deal with every year - including contentious tax and spending measures - but have been impossible to resolve this year, even with one party in control of both houses.
Not just the war, but a whole series of events have turned what would have been a tough season for the Bush administration and the Republican majority into an extremely daunting one, sowing dissent among the majority's rank-and-file and providing opportunities for Democrats, who continue to have problems of their own.
Among developments that have knocked Republicans badly off course: The botched response to Hurricane Katrina. Party conflict over paying for the storm. The indictment of Representative Tom DeLay. Soaring fuel costs. A failed Supreme Court nomination. Federal charges against a vice presidential aide in a case related to prewar intelligence. Growing public unease about the war and its death toll. Off-year election victories by Democrats.
The litany has members of Congress taking stock of their own political fortunes and acting accordingly.
"Bad poll numbers on your side unite your opponents and divide you a little bit," said Representative Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri and a man in the eye of the Congressional storm as he fills in for Mr. DeLay in trying to hold House Republicans together.
Both of the responses cited by Mr. Blunt were on display last week in an unusually messy Congressional windup. United Democrats forced House Republicans to look solely to their own membership to win approval of spending and budget measures that carried a political price given their reductions in spending on an array of social programs - cuts ready-made for campaign attacks.
As a result, some Republicans chose to part company with their colleagues. Twenty-two defectors joined with Democrats to send a major health and education spending bill to a stunning defeat, the first such loss in a decade for the take-no-prisoners Republican majority.
Fourteen Republicans opposed $50 billion in spending cuts over five years despite major concessions by their leadership to win moderate support. They acted partly out of fear that a vote for the cuts would expose them to Democratic political attacks, a fear well founded. Within hours of the vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out news releases to the districts of 50 lawmakers who backed the measure to make sure voters back home heard that their representatives had "blindly rubberstamped" the leadership's plan.
The rising political animosity was evident in the tone of the House debate on the fiscal bills and Iraq. The chamber rang with name-calling, taunts, ridicule and jeers. The exchanges over the war after a call by Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, for a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq were poisonous as bottled-up sentiment on the conflict boiled over. Some lawmakers saw it as a new low.
"We can do better," Representative Tom Osborne, Republican of Nebraska, scolded his colleagues.
The troop withdrawal measure, brought forward by Republicans to put Democrats on the spot, was defeated, 403-to-3 late Friday night.
"It is a reality that no one is finished debating the war," Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia, vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Saturday, adding that he expected the passions evoked Friday to cool somewhat over the recess. But Mr. Kingston said Republicans forced the vote out of frustration with Democratic tactics. "We had just had it with Democrats running around saying President Bush lied. It was time for us to call their bluff."
(Of course, this dumb is totally wrong about calling anybody's bluff. The Dem's weren't bluffing about when openly and repeatedly calling dubya/ head liars.
The question of pulling out now is totally unrelated to pre-war lying. All the stupid stunt vote was to show that most Congressmen are against pulling out, now as are probably a majority of Americans. dubya/ head still lied pre-war.)
The atmosphere and progress in the Senate, often the graveyard of legislation, were noticeably better than in the House. Republican senators set their sights lower on their spending cuts and approved their budget bill weeks ago. They were able to attract significant Democratic support for tax cuts and even had a bipartisan vote pressing the administration to move more aggressively to secure Iraq to allow a troop withdrawal.
But the Senate has serious divisions of its own. Just a few months ago it was on the brink of a historic rules showdown over judicial filibusters, a subject that could resurface should Democrats chose to block Mr. Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. Democrats also infuriated Republicans by forcing a closed-door session on the use of prewar intelligence, and ill feelings linger over that episode and the subject itself.
Though Democrats see political openings, they have handicaps. The battle over Mr. Murtha's proposal showed that the party remained conflicted over its approach to the war in Iraq, aware of vulnerabilities on national security issues and the role of Democrats in approving the use of force in Iraq. Democrats have yet to produce their own policy argument for why they should be awarded control of the House and Senate, preferring to concentrate for now on exploiting the Republican struggles.
And Republicans do not have easy days ahead. When the House and Senate return in December, they will have to reconcile differing budget bills or face the humiliating prospect of falling short of the cuts sought by conservatives. They intend to take up the politically charged issue of immigration, an issue that divides their party by ideology and geography.
What may be equally troubling for Republicans is the filing on Friday of a criminal conspiracy charge against a former senior Republican House aide, Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon was once a spokesman for Mr. DeLay and was a partner of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who is the subject of a federal investigation and had close ties to some House Republicans. The charges hint at potential legal exposure for lawmakers who were wined and dined by the two, adding to Republican ethics cases.
Republicans acknowledge that the recent months have been trying. But they believe they can hold off Democrats with the built-in advantages of in bency and by producing results on legislation that appeals to their conservative base and the business community while propelling what they believe is a thriving, underappreciated economy. And House members are looking toward possible leadership elections early next year to bring some stability at the top should Mr. DeLay be unable to resolve quickly his criminal charges in Texas.
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he remained confident of the outcome of next year's elections.
"We're going to be in the majority," Mr. Reynolds said. "I just can't tell you how many."
Others say the political future may be out of the hands of either party.
"I think the maneuvers of this week probably aren't going to help either side in the election," said John J. Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California. "What's really going to matter is what happens on the ground in Iraq. If there is good news out of the ground in Iraq, then Republicans will benefit. If there is bad news, then they will have even deeper problems."
"Bombs in Baghdad," Mr. Pitney said, "are going to have a lot more impact than speeches in Washington."
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
