Redstate

In response to John Murtha's resolution calling for cut-and-run in Iraq, the House leadership has decided to put the Democrats on the record.

So they will be voting on Murtha's resolution then?

This is a bait and switch ploy.  Murtha's resolution does not even come close the the "immediate withdrawal" the Republicans are introducing.  Murtha is not calling for cutting and running and clearly calls the the maintaining of troops in the area.

This is just politics on the Republican leaderships part.  To bad, we got real issues to discuss, but our politicans have failed us again.

I read over Murtha's resolution and it doesn't sound like the same thing that is being brought forth tonight.  I would hope that the party that is saying we shouldn't politicize this isn't just doing that.

if nobody votes for this resolution, does that mean nobody will be accused of calling for surrender any more? :)

Because I don't think anyone is going to vote for it, aside from perhaps the usual suspects.

If Republicans believe that Murtha's resolution is awful and the American people will punish anyone who votes for it, they should bring it up for a vote, instead of bringing up a Republican substitute and trying to claim "this is the Democrat resolution."

Personally, I think it's a boon for the Democrats if this leads people to understand that the withdrawal position is not equivalent to "load all the troops on a plane tomorrow."

I just got done watching Wolf Blitzer trying to spin this new vote off as a Republican collapse or something. He had some black guy on who was explaining how this last week will help the Dems politically. Jesus, it's people like this that make me wanna go postal!!! We're in a war and this is what they care about. The sad thing is the MSM continues to spin it like they are  voice of reason. BS!!!!!!!!!!! Lets have this vote and see who is who!

This is getting ridiculous, what happened to the GOP who completely dominated?  This Murtha response ploy doesn't even pass the smell test.  Nobody's buying what the GOP is selling these days, and that's unfortunate.   The party needs to take a deep breath and think things through...otherwise 2006 is not gonna be pretty.

between demanding immediate withdrawal and refusing to set a timetable. According to polls, most Americans sit there. The Republican leadership seems to ignore it with this vote.

This is not Murtha's resolution. he called for

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 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republicans are asking for this:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces

in Iraq be terminated immediately.

And they are calling it Murtha's resolution. It's not.

And Jean Schmidt from Ohio (the one that beat Hackett) just relayed a message from a Marine insinuating that Murtha is a coward. What great leaders the GOP are being these days.

This is not Murtha's resolution, this is a sham political hack job by the GOP house leadership.  If they want to do the right thing, they would debate and vote on Murtha's resolution and not this joke of a two sentence resolution they are debating now.

if I were a House Democrat, I'd attend the vote and vote no. I'd imagine that would be a pretty easily defended vote, considering the ridiculous all-or-nothing language the leaders decided to use. No one but the fringe and a few congressmen looking for attention are in favor of immediate and total withdrawal.

My understanding, admittedly mostly from dKos, is that this version was introduced by Hunter and is not the same. I'd vote against either version personally but this seems like political gamesmanship. If you want the Dems on record on Murtha than why not just re-introduce his version?

So, a Democrat puts forth a resolution, calling for the very thing that the left blogosphere has been pounding over and over and over again, and the Republicans send that resolution to a floor vote, and that's ridiculous?

If nobody is buying what the administration is selling, and you're so confident in your position, then why are all the libs on this site so up in arms about this vote? Let's get the critters on the record about where they stand?

Only someone who was a lot less confident of their position than they are willing to let on would call giving the Democrats a chance to vote on their actual position a "stunt" or a "slander of the person who wrote the bill."

The bottom line is that there are a lot of Democrats who'd like to leave the door open, in case things turn out rosy, for them to go back and say, "Yeah, we were there all along - we never advocated withdrawal." The GOP would like to close that door, and I think it's totally fair for them to do so.

First, here's Murtha's original 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 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Now, here's the resolution that Republicans are voting on tonight:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces

in Iraq be terminated immediately.

I and a lot of Democrats support 1.  We don't support 2.  

What Democrats show up will almost certainly vote "present".  That is the only way they can assert that the vote is a sham.

The Democrats continue to exhibit a split personality on the Iraq war: they say one thing and do another.

So, yes, get them on record with a vote.

It's not only a Time for Declaration, but a Time for Therapy.  They need a cure.  The more they vote (or skip votes), the more the public will see what they stand for.

The obvious solution for Dems is to simply ignore the vote.

Let the Republicans vote it down unanimously, with no votes for it except for perhaps Ron Paul.

It will be seen for what it is, a rather silly (read desperate) political ploy, yet the vote will remain in the congressional record.

And if, by around June of 2006 we have say, 70% or more of Americans calling for an immediate withdrawal, which is not at all inconceivable, you've got that vote to toss around during the mid terms.

His resoultion said to withdrawl as soon as practicable and this one says immediately. These are decidely different resoultion and it is an obvious strawman from the Republican leadership. Of course none of it matters becuase other than poltiical junkies most people are paying no attention what so ever to resoultions on the friday evening before Thanksgiving.

If anything it is more proof that our biggest budget drain is the operations of congress itself; they should save us all the money and turn off the lights and go home.

is that the GOP is not asking the Democrats to vote on Murtha's bill. They are asking them to vote on a flawed, bad interpretation of Murtha's bill. It's very simple.

CNN, MSNBC and Fox, it's Murtha's resolution. If it's not, I stand to be corrected.

So, a Democrat puts forth a resolution, calling for the very thing that the left blogosphere has been pounding over and over and over again, and the Republicans send that resolution to a floor vote, and that's ridiculous?

As others have pointed out, the resolution being debated was put forth by a Republican, and it is not Murtha's.  If the GOP put Murtha's up for a vote, that would be different.

of a strawman debating tactic as is possible.

The left blogosphere = the Democratic Party

The left blogosphere = something that doesn't make moderate/conservative Democrats like me cringe/vomit/run in fear

Setting a timetable for withdrawal = immediate withdrawal

Since there is a short break in the proceedings I can pause in updating over at NoEndButVictory.com, I have to say this:

I can't be the only one who thinks that massive votes against this resolution will, themselves, be a demonstration that the House is NOT for immediate withdrawal.

Maybe that's all this is about.

It's

not

the

same

resolution.

What part of this are you having trouble with?

I and a few other people on this thread just did correct you, I think. I think we all here know that the MSM is guilty of corner-cutting. They are saying that the GOP resolution today = Murtha's resolution yesterday. It doesn't, and we all just gave you the texts.

Outstanding, and this is long overdue.  Stand up and be counted and let the nation see on which side of history you stand.  It's a simple act of discipline, courage, responsibility and accountability.  If you feel the troops so be withdrawn, so be it, have the courage to vote and be counted for history to see and judge.  

This action by the House is a breath of fresh air after the parade of cowardice in the GOP Senate and their failure to band together, take a stand and be accountable, whether on judicial nominees, budget items, ANWR, illegal immigration, or the War.  

I would be interested if Murtha was one of the Dems that voted to pul the plug on Vietnam in 1975.  The irony and ignominy has come full circle.

And you guys say we control the media.  sigh

but I've been following the liveblogging, and I read that one of the Republicans referred to this as the "Democrat resolution," and one of the Dems leaped up with a point of order to ask who introduced the resolution under debate, and the Chair responded that it was Rep. Hunter's resolution.

I personally have no problem if the Democrats go on record against a flat-out, drop your guns and run withdrawal (the way Saddam's army used to do it).  It's true, some of folks at dkos won't like it, but I'm frankly not even sure that instant withdrawal is a majority position over there.

I would have no problem with Murtha's resolution coming to a vote.  I'd be interested to see where things stand on that.

However, the point remains that Murtha called for immediate withdrawal....

Still wrong.  Murtha's calling for withdrawal at "the earliest practicable date".

says the story they're moving to the wire now will make it clearer that it is NOT the same resolution. Don't know what Fox's source is.

As Section 3 of Murtha's bill goes without saying, I don't feel it needs to be included in the "compromised GOP version" of the bill.  So let's look the only point of substance being ommited:

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

So are you saying that this totally makes or breaks what Murtha is saying?  Withdraw all of our forces from Iraq, but without mentioning keeping a few marines in Kuwait it's apples and oranges, nothing resembling the original bill?

Typical False Outrage, as only Democrats can do...

Well, the libs on the site can try to downplay this all they want, it's still a great move.  Shame on the conservatives here who think this shouldn't be done because it's gasp political!  Guys, sometimes we have to play politics to win.  The dems have a lot of people on their side who want us to pull out.  If the dems won't even show up to vote that they feel this way, it's going to frustrate and discourage their base.  This vote certainly doesn't hurt us.  And ya, it's not the exact wording Murtha used.  It's still essentially the same spirit.  In fact, it's closer to what a lot of liberal activists want than what Murtha said.  I say this is a great move.

Murtha's version has too many "Whereas" in it. The GOP version is clean and clear. You want to 'Cut and Run' or not?

they have the strength of lie, the bravery ambush and the convicition of cowards, when it ocmes to actually backing up their cheap sleaze.

We whould push back and watch them fold like =the empty suits they are.

You'll notice, for example, that the word "immediately" doesn't appear in the first resolution.

Seriously...the Republican version is downright laughable. As in, I'm sitting here laughing at how stupid a move this is. And wondering what they think they're going to get out of a vote on the equivalent of "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! ARE THEY OUT YET? ARE THEY OUT YET? WE SAID NOW!"

before Thanksgiving? before the end of the month? what would it take for everyone to pack their stuff up and drive to Basra?

I agree that the two resolutions are not dramatically different.  But there is something of a difference between "immediate" and "earliest practicable."  

I wonder why the Hunter resolution didn't just adopt Murtha's language.  Did it not sound cowardly enough?

to vote that they feel that way because they don't feel that way. It's amazing how difficult this is to understand.

The GOP is either desperate, foolish or just plain stupid! I'd say put both resolutions to the test and have everyone vote as they will. No need to try and lie by passing an apple as an orange. I know folks on both sides are upset and agitated, but blatantly lying about this resolution is silly. Duncan Hunter should call up his resolution and the Murtha should call his up for a vote..I'd be surprised to see how many folks switch from No to Yea or vice versa on both votes

I happen to think that the far-lefters who want us to withdraw tomorrow need a stiff dose of reality, too.  Whatever they think, politically it's not gonna happen.

Politically, I'm not so sure this is a genius move.  The Democrats are slowly coalescing around a "leave according to some reasonable time frame" position while the GOP risks being portrayed as the "stay in Iraq indefinitely" party.  (I recognize many folks DO want to stay in Iraq indefinitely; however, you'll want a better sound bite than that for the next election.)

If this vote helps the public consciousness distinguish between the "reasonable" position and the crazy position of pulling out tomorrow, I think that may play out as advantage: Dems.

Pep rallies either. "What do you mean they are cheering for their team, offering support... all while they should be at their desks studying!"

As an Viet Nam veteran it is difficult for me to understand why another Viet Nam veteran would undercut our grand children as we were undercut.

But Murtha's opinion is his opinion. He will be permitted to harm our troops in the field by exercising his First Amendment rights.

For those who are having a problem with the simple proposal that apparently will be the subject of the vote let me weigh in as a lawyer.

The operative language of Section One of Murtha's resolution is:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

This is actually simpler for Murtha's supporters than his proposal. Technically to vote for Murtha's proposal you would have to agree with all of the "Whereas" clauses above the operative sections. You also need to agree to the rapid deployment force.

Simply taking the intent of Section one and voting on it allows any one to vote for it for any reason. You don't have to agree with the "Whereas" clauses or the rapid deployment force in Section Two.

We Viet Nam veterans very much want to see which of our representatives are like the cut-and-run congress of the late 60s and early 70s.

We are also the veterans who supported the Swift Boat Vets financially and otherwise.

Bring on the vote!

Allan Yackey

I'm looking a little closer at Murthas and now see the "the earliest practicable date" part.  However, what does this mean?  As soon as we can get everybody on the plane?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "the earliest practicable date" is essentially what the administration is saying as well: We leave when we can do so without leaving the job half done.

I say call up both as is and let the chips fall as they may

on Mark Kilmer's diary last night, and I would rather see the Senate do it, but I'll take it for starters:

"This must not stand!  By: The Rebel  

It's not what Republicans in general must say now.  It's what President Bush must do now.  He must take to the airwaves upon his return from Asia and hit Murtha and his ilk right between the eyes.  He needs to lay down three markers before the American people. First, he should call Murtha's and the Democrats' PR bluff and demand that the Senate devote substantial debate to Murtha's cut and run policy, and then also demand that Frist call for an up or down vote.  No amendments, nothing but a yes or no to the question "Should the United States immediately withdraw all its armed forces from Iraq?"  Let's put all these Senators on the record.

Second, he must tell the American people, as well as the Congress, that as long as he is the president, we will never cut and run from our commitment to the Iraqi people.  He needs to tell Murtha to visit Iraq again, this time speaking directly to the Iraqi people, and ask them whether our continued military action is in their best interests.  Let's ask Murtha what he thinks would now be in the best interests of the Iraqi people and how he would achieve it.

And the third marker the President must lay down is the most important.  He must tell the Congress that any attempt to scuttle a special appropriations bill re: funding the war effort, will be met head on.  He must tell the American people that we made that mistake once over 30 years ago, and that we will not make it again.  He can go into as much detail on that as he thinks appropriate.  You know the appropriations issue will be the next battleground.  The issue needs to be pre-empted now.

This response must be made by the President, not by McCain, Frist, Warner, Lott or any of the other useful idiots.  I won't hold my breath waiting, however."

Murtha's resolution was as much a political ploy (and play for attention) as this vote is. And just as meaningless.

"immediately" means turn and go. Earliest practicable means as soon as it can be accomplished.  In practical terms, this means safe, intelligent, planned withdrawal, that will take into account the stability of the country, minimum timelines, etc. One is intentionally dumb in order to be a silly game of chicken, the other is a debatable point and policy.

is it is exactly the same wording but the demohacks are trying to say it is different because the poltrron Murtha has tried to withdraw his cheap slime.

I think the intent is clear, regardless of the definition of "the earliest practicable date".  If you're mad at the GOP for not remembering to say Simon Says, I stand by my false outrage charge.

I don't see what the problem is with voting no. Let Murtha and Barbara Lee vote yes. I don't think it will be so very difficult for voters next year to distinguish between a vote against immediate withdrawal and support for a timetable of withdrawal or, indeed, basic opposition to the administration's stay-the-course policy.

That phrase sounds like a fudge to me.  But if I had to guess I would say the intended meaning is a whole lot closer to "as soon as we can get everybody on the plane" than "as soon as Iraq is a stable and thriving democracy."  

So I think the differences between the two resolutions are overblown.  

Regardless, the impression I get from the live blogging at NOBV is that this is all bit of a farce.

This is a big Republican lie.  An attempt to smoke out the so-called hypocrisy of the left.  No the only thing this maneuver smoked out is the lying dirty tricks the Republicans play to avoid giving the American people an honest debate.

Don't say that on the floor, you'll get hooted down by the Massachusetts delegation. Just ask Jean Schmidt.

I didn't notice the "hereby terminated" before. That makes it effectively the same. I'm still laughing at the terseness of the Republican resolution, though. Nobody could possibly vote for that. They know that, and apparently think that getting the Democrats on record against that will be the same thing as getting the Democrats on record as opposing a timetable. I think that's stupid. Voters can tell the difference, even if the GOP leaders think they can't.

Or maybe "the earliest practicable date" means "When the Iraqi army is strong and stable enough to police Iraq on their own without the aid of US forces"....Gosh, sound familiar?

Do you think it would be

1. A bunch of "no" votes on a resolution that you say is the same as the Murtha resolution, but they say is not?
   
2. A bunch of "yes" votes on the Murtha resolution itself?

I very much doubt this is what Murtha meant.  

Pls do so and honestly tell yourself if they are the same instead of guessing

Acceptable:

"This is a big Republican lie.  An attempt to smoke out the so-called hypocrisy of the left."

Unacceptable:

"No the only thing this maneuver smoked out is the lying dirty tricks the Republicans play to avoid giving the American people an honest debate."

I banned you once. You asked nicely. This is your bare last warning.

If you think the addition or subtraction of a word or two, which would mean being out in 24 hours vs. being out in a month somehow produces a result other then "cut and run", then whatever helps you sleep at night.

You're right, in homes all across America, voters are sharing your laugh-fest over if Murtha really wanted to leave by dawn, rather then a few weeks later, and how substantially different this would be, and what the results would be.  Yep.

Okay, let's look again at the Democrat resolution, and discuss it with respect to the Republican.  I'll be brief.  It seems the meat of the arguement is over the following:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Where the one side is saying this is not calling for "immediate withdrawal".  Actually, it terminates "the deployment of forces in Iraq."  That pretty clearly says immediate without using the word.  It is only the redeployment that can wait for the "earliest practicable date."

The Republican resolution softens the statement to establish only a sense of the House, rather than a immediate termination.  Why would this cause such heartburn to the Democrats calling for withdrawal?

It's never happened to me, but I am always worried that my disagreement with most people here on this issue will get me banned for ideological reasons, despite my support for many Republican issues. It's good to see that as long as I'm civil, I shouldn't get any warning notices. :)

Neither do I.  But I also don't feel that it is any sort of a timetable.  It's only a few notches different on the scale then immediate pull out.  If Murtha or any other Democrat wants an orchestrated exit following a specific timetable, how about introducing that?  Otherwise, let's stop fussing over the differences in "the earliest practicable date" and "immediate".

Voters let us know their feelings on "nuance", as I recall.

There isn't one between refusing to set a timetable and immediate withdrawal...unless you call that setting a timetable...which is in effect immediate withdrawal.  You can say what you want, but saying that we will draw down troops in say Jan 2007 is no different then Nixon's plan to get the US out of South Korea.  All it will accomplish is for the insurgency to wait until 2007 when we withdraw troops and then topple the Iraqi gov't which is unable to protect itself because we withdrew before they were trained.

From a Fox News poll on 11/08 55% want troops to stay in Iraq to finish the job (down from 58%).

I will note that a CNN poll that breaks the question down into 4 options (Withdraw now, withdraw in 12 months, stay until finished, send more troops) looks like 19%/33%/38%/7%...which implies that 52% would support a timetable to withdraw in the next 12 months or sooner.

You can look at these results at http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I'm very curious to see what the result of this vote will be.  It is very possible that the Democrats will have to show their hand.  Problem is, the Republicans will also have to do the same.  Very dramatic.  This will be a watershed.

The Murtha resolution likely would have split the Democratic caucus.  This version will not.  Who benefits thereby?

It does provide fodder for talking heads to opine "well, the bills were really both the same," but I doubt many people will have the patience to sit through that particular meta-argument.

The original resolution is predominantly propaganda, and is in itself a stunt.  I would suggest the apoplectic left should be happy with the clear wording of the second choice which is apparently going forward.

"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";"

What the heck was the vote for a constitution?  Have you looked at oil output lately?  What a hack.  

"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;"

Why not?  Have you proved this to be true?  Just you opinion parroting the opinion of your overlords, Moore and Soros and gang.  Total propaganda.

"Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;"

So what?  Do you want to throw that investment away?  Idiot.

"Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;"

Are you going to piss their sacrifices away too?

"Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,"

Duh, and the American people are not anymore?

"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;"

Prove it.

I can't go on this ticks me off so much.  

This is acceptable?

Acceptable:

"This is a big Republican lie.  An attempt to smoke out the so-called hypocrisy of the left."

Wow, I haven't been using near enough wiggle room.  Although I did come close to being warned by streiff once.

of the left" It is true, actual, certified, verified and continuing hipocrisy. It is the result of a complete absense of a moral compass. How else can you explain an anti-war, pro-abortionist?

All this liberal whining makes me sick...

Unless you are John Kerry, you are either for it or against it.  What is wrong with bringing an immediate withdrawl to a vote?  If you want to bring 'em home, say so.  If not, vote that way.

I love that the House GOP is back on the offensive.  Brilliant move.    

I don't know when the "earliest practicable date", but I sure as heck know it's not "immediately".

For example, if we do get the Iraqi troops sufficiently trained by 2007, then the difference means everything.

Let's assume we have a resolution that says "we will withdraw the troops by Jan 2007, if and only if the Iraqi troops are sufficiently trained."  Would you have a problem with that?  Because realistically, any bill setting a "timetable" is going to look a lot like that.  Short of the fringe which says "let's leave tomorrow," I doubt many people are in favor of setting a date in stone.

Although the language was over the top, the sentiment was ok to express.

I'm not as nice as Leon. streiff usually isn't as nice as I.

I've looked a the two and I can't find much difference except the removal of a zillion self-serving "Wheras's".

I've read the comments on both sides and I'm struggling to find a difference between:

• "... hereby terminated..." and
  
• "... terminated immediately..."

Unless the resolution is in some language other than conventional English, 'hereby' means upon passage of the Murtha resolution --- which in English means 'right now'. On the other hand the second resolution calls for immediately, which my dictionary defines as 'right now.'

Forget the nonsense about "...redeployed at the earliest practicable date..."; unless the Democrats have invented a matter transporter the troops clearly can't be out by the time the resolution is passed. On the otherhand they seem to have their 'Wayback' machine running overtime to try to rewrite what they said two years ago.

--------------------

"The earliest practicable date" is NOT the same as "immediately."  However slight the difference in wording, the GOP's cut-and-run resolution is not the same as what Murtha submitted.

Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid.

"How else can you explain an anti-war, pro-abortionist?"

Someone who sees the innocent human life lost at war as a tragedy and the abortion of a fetus as the destruction of a non-human entity.

Never supported the swift boat vets and never will...didn't support Kerry either but I thought the job they did on him was a hack job.  Maybe we should just start analyzing the service jackets of all of the vets who aren't republicans like Murtha.  Maybe they have phony decorations also. I've always thought Murtha was an honorable guy.  Even if he is a Democrat, he's always been a hawk.  I'm wondering how many of the guys posting on this site that Murtha is a "poltroon" and a "coward" have even served a minute in combat let alone in the armed services period.  Before you start calling someone like Murtha such despicable things maybe you should sign up and do a tour.  Then talk to me about how cowardly he is!

"... earliest practicable ..." refers to the redeployment, not the deployment which according to Murtha's resolution would be ended 'hereby' i.e. immediately upon passage of the resolution. Clearly the troops couldn't be out be midnight under either resolution.

we should have political gamesmanship. Especially after the incredibly sincere and serious debate waged by the Democrats for the past couple of months.

I ALMOST DIDN'T HEAR YOU THERE!

PS. Wipe the spittle off your face.

PPS. I'm sorry that you feel the need to play by the Democrats rules.

PPPS. I'm really sorry that you feel that not playing by the Democrats rules automatically makes 'us' dishonest.

PPPPS. I'm really sorry that you'd like to continue down the path that the Democrats have led us to for their political gain. A path sure to contain the bodies of wounded, maimed and dead soldiers who's battle was lost not because they didn't fight hard enough.. but because of silly intellectual arguements of how to say WHEN we plan on 'Cutting n' Running'.

pass the weed, turn up Hendrix and lets get our butts out of 'Nam, errr, I mean Somalia, oops, Iraq, thats right, Iraq.

are the Republican's going to show. The only interesting thing on the R side will be how the RINO's vote.

about resolutions, I just had a thought, which I am sure will be immediately be shot down as politically naive, but here I go. :)

Why doesn't the new government in Iraq call for a vote among the Iraqi people on whether or not the US should stay? Wouldn't that solve all this once and for all?

If they want us to stay, then President Bush has a rock solid mandate. If they want us to go, well, the people have spoken.....

A Democrat representative should not have to swallow that ungarnished little Republican turd.  It should be properly sandwiched between boilerplate and a band-aid to be more palatable.

The R version actually gives the Dem's that aren't noted rabid communists an out. The Murtha version is potentially disastrous for some of them.

The Murtha version is potentially disastrous for the country if a lot of Dem's vote for it.

The Murtha version is potentially disastrous for the country and the Bush presidency if all of Dem's vote for it or worse a few Republican's vote for it.

The problem is that the public is having very strong doubts about the war.  Both House Dems and Republicans are supporters of the war effort.  So, I guess it depends on what the narrative in the media turns out to be.  But my sense is that Congresspersons who support a continued presence in Iraq will come out looking rather poorly.  This goes for both Dems and Gops.

The new Iraq is not a pure democracy.  It is a representative democracy.  The people have elected representatives.

If the duly chosen representatives of the Iraqi government wanted us to leave, that would indeed be politically relevant.  My understanding is that they do not.

If Murthas EXACT language was passed, and lets call it like it is, take out the all the WHEREAS and lets get down to brass tacks, if these three parts were passed:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

If that was approved, you very same people would be screaming AFTER the vote that Section 1 meant IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!  Why not cut the bull and just say it?  Just like Harry Reid is spinning that Frist's amendment was  a great victory for the Dems and now Repub's have no confidence in Bush.

You people are more and more pathetic.  You have no backbone in Iraq, and you have no backbone in saying what you believe.  Hunters amendment lays it on the line for you and you refuse to tell the American people what you believe.  For crying out loud, how many Dems are screaming exactly that:  GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!  Kucinich? Jackson Lee? Waters?  McDermott?  Nadler?  I can name 20 more.

But notice, not one has voted for it.  Not one.

You're gutless, intellectually dishonest, and are hurting this country.

You just said that the withdrawal position is not equivalent to "load the troops on a plane tomorrow." Exactly what is it equivalent to, then? I could summarize the Republican withdrawal position as follows: "load all the troops on a plane as soon as they finish the job." What's the Democratic objection to that?

That Fitzmas anticipation day really was the low point for the Republicans.  They seem to be finding their sea legs again.

is also being sold a set of goods by the MSM and up until now hasn't been countered by many Politicians including the POTUS/VPOTUS (do i get credit for the first utterance of VPOTUS? pronounced vee-potus).

This is just an extension of the Republican 'fightback' the POTUS started last week.

...would be that it's contingent on something they fear - success.  They will settle for nothing less than a humbling defeat for Bush...even if it costs the country dearly.  

Schmidt should not have called Murtha a coward.  She should have the Marine come down and call him a coward.  Better yet, have a planeload of Marines come down and call all the Dems cowards.

By squelching this innane political dissent of the Dem's.

. . . . like "the earliest practicable date" is a lot different from "immediately".

Just stripped of the crap.

I wish things in Iraq would turn out rosy...I wish we had the stones to send and additional 400,000 troops to Iraq and actually win this war.  

We set out to create a stable arab democracy in the middle east, a worthy and wonderful goal.  In order to accomplish this we had to conquer a nation, I have no problem with that..but if you're going to conquer an entire country do it correctly.  Get in with overwhelming force, destroy all opposition, declare martial law, secure the borders, shoot anyone who opposses you, set-up a transitional (puppet) regime, integrate the Iraqi army in keeping the peace, and get out.  

We do not have enough troops in Iraq...this vote and all the questions around it are stupid, and simply further exposes a weakened GOP.  Bush must either do what it takes to win, despite what the political consequences will be, or leave.  

Let's see how many dems take the Cindy stance. Let's just see. This will be funny. I always thought the clear GOP strategy should be to make the dems choose between the whacks and the mainstream of the country on three issues:

Abortion, racial quotas, and practicing Christianity.

This is a brilliant why to split them over Iraq. I hope it works.

Really? What is the difference? Why isn't the shorter resolution just a restatement of a portion of the longer resolution (namely by deleting the whereas clauses?)

What does "earliest practicable date" mean?

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

I think practicable in this context means feasible; leaving the Marines and the call for security and stability through diplomacy seems to back this idea up.

Not exactly cut and run, but i do see the points about that here.

Either proposal seems a bit lacking to me, and would require filling out with planning - which should be expected by the proposers.

and with all due respect to the US Marines, but the United States has military forces other than the Marines :-) And some of them are even pretty good.

with a show of hands in Congress as to who favors an indefinite deployment.  In fact, I think it would be a downright great idea.

but I'd like to hear one of our resident Lefties say it, too.

An Army Officer who learned the CORRECT lesson from Viet Nam, he has this to say to Jack Murtha

Remember how we, you and I, heard the same defeatist garbage from the same institution in which you now hold office back in that distant war that everyone likes to compare this one too? Remember how it felt? It's no different now than it was then for those fighting and dying in a foreign land for a cause they believe in.

Yet, there you are, spouting the same sort of crap we heard when we were in that young man and his comrades position.

Do yourself, the country, and especially our military a favor and show the resolve and support we begged for during that time. Make "never again" a reality for once in your pathetic political career. Show some backbone, some moral courage.

There is no "peace with honor" when you leave before the job is done.

See the job through to the end despite the obstacles and challenges.

Just once.

And yes, if it's important, I wore this country's uniform for 28 years as an infantry officer. I believe as much in the oath I took then as I do now. More importantly, I remember the feeling that my country had abandoned me as if it were yesterday, and I vowed if it ever tried it again, I'd speak up loudly and often.

It would be nice to believe you too remember that, and you too had made that sort of a vow.

But apparently, or at least so it seems, you've forgotten what it was like then. The emptiness in the pit of your stomach as you realize the cause you and so many of your comrades, some of whom had died for it, was simply too uncomfortable for those at home in Congress to bear anymore.

Funny, that ... you talk about being upset that men who've never worn the uniform are criticizing you, yet you feel no apparent problem with pulling the rug out from those in combat by all but declaring their mission has failed ... just like the '70s. Our military certainly doesn't seem to feel that way, if the young soldier with the 101st's email is any indication.

Yes it's pretty sad to see someone who actually knows what it was like, what it feels like in your gut when you hear people like yourself say what you've said, do it anyway.

Sad indeed.

It causes me to worry about America's future if you are indicative of what it can expect from it's "leadership".  

I figured that's the currently effective resolution which led to war in the first place. That hasn't been repealed or reversed by legislation, yet.

do you have a hard time telling the truth?  Unless you are mentally challenged, which I am not implying, we all know what MUrtha is saying:  GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!

What is the problem with saying it like it is for you?  I dont understand your thought processes.  Are you are going to stand there and tell me that if Murtha's EXACT language passed the next quote out of Pelosi's mouth would be, "the message is clear, we are leaving tonight."  If you dont think so, you should come to FL, I have some prime vacation land I would love to sell you.

Whereas Congress and the American People are about to be shown Iraq to be a success;

Whereas I voted with one other person to reinstate the draft last year and got my 'whereas' handed to me and didn't like it;

Whereas the check from my communist front group? I called and they told me "what I've done for us lately";

Whereas I never got a ticker-tape parade from when I served in Vietnam;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency and worse yet the insurgency has become the target of Iraqi citizens;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq.. and are demonstrating in France nightly in protest;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of Iraqi's in the Sunni Triangle feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that winning in Iraq is not in the best interests of Democrats in the United States of America, the Insurgents of Iraq, or Muslim Dictators in the Persian Gulf Region;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date... preferably yesterday.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region but out of the range of Iraqi scud missles, kamikaze boat attacks from Yemenese or Sudanese militants or Iranian nuclear rockets.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy by handing over these duties to the UN. The UN's track record speaks for itself having been involved the Congo, Saddam's Iraq, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Kosovo, Somalia and the Israeli invasion of Palistine.

For the same reason we have Congressional votes rather than plebiscites.

So, the left-wing is now saying that Murtha is NOT calling for an immediate withdrawal???

Then why does the first paragraph of my front page story in the NYTimes this morning say: "The partisan furor over the Iraq war ratcheted up sharply on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as an influential House Democrat on military matters called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and Republicans escalated their attacks against the Bush administration's critics."

Should the NYTimes issue a retraction?

The public is unhappy about the course of the war. They don't like soldiers dying. They don't like an aimless, ill-defined conflict with no clearly defined means to gain victory. Which is a communications failure of the Presidency and the President himself.

They also don't want a repeat of cut-and-run seen in Teheran 1979, Beirut 1983, Mogadishu 1993, and so on. EVERY time we've run away we've been hit harder; culminating in 9/11.

The American people want a plan. Running away and pretending the bad men won't come after us is not a plan. Neither is surrendering the central portion of Iraq to bin Laden and Zarqawi. If allowing bin Laden to run Afghanistan as his own personal fiefdom gave us 9/11, imagine what he'd do with central Iraq (and likely, a post-coup Pakistan with nukes).

A more deliberate plan to harm the United States by creating the nuclear armed Caliphate could not be imagined.

It is good policy and politics to put Democrats on the RECORD for either running away; or not. Democrats would be well advised to put the heat on Bush not by catering to their aging ex-Hippies and neo-Freikorps "the Jews stabbed us in the back" coterie (looking at you Cindy Sheehan, Jim Moran, Cynthia McKinney, and John Conyers); but rather by coming up with a plan to decisively win. Up the ante by going all in to WIN the war on terror, not run away and hide.

As a Democrat it frustrates me no end to see the Party repeat the destructive policies of McGovern, celebrated by the idiot media. The cost of losing Vietnam directly to us (never mind Pol Pot's genocide and the boat people, Communist repression) was low. That's because US security was held by a nuclear stand-off with the Soviets and massive troops staring each other down across the Iron Curtain. Tell me again how you deter bin Laden or Iran's new President from nuking us when they have Allah on their side and we show them precisely how many Americans they need to kill to break us (about 2100)? Running away in Iraq will get us nuked. Period.

Democrats and the nation would be better served by a PLAN to engage bin Laden and destroy him; tiered deterrence involving pre-emptive military action (and the ability to do it whilst engaged in multiple areas) not just strategic nuclear retaliation for a nuclear strike on our soil; military options to destroy Iran's nukes in a worst case situation; and general military reform and enlargement. Basically the FDR strategy. Unfortunately the Party is now Howard Dean's and Cynthia McKinney's, not FDR or Trumans.

I just watched the replay of Murtha's press conference on C-SPAN and he said it would probably take about 6 months before his withdrawal resolution could be implemented.

I know it's a common belief at RS that the NYT never gets it wrong, but yeah, they may have missed that part.

Chairman, please call the vote...

the last time the dems had a murtha get his way, we abandoned a south vietnamese army that was on the way to victory and led to slaughter

ford was no reagan

the dems tried to abandon the sandinistas to mass murder, decried the grenada rescue, and tried to stop reagan from defeating the evil empire and getting a wall torn down

but reagan was reagan

41 abandoned the shiites and kurds he encouraged to rise up

41 was not reagan

reagan's progeny control congress

and 41's 43 is reagan-like in action if not words

millions will live since this is so

This is not Murtha's position?  He called for "immediate withdrawl" of U.S. forces from Iraq did he not?  I thought the media reported that yesterday.  In fact, the San Fran. Chron. stated "Murtha calls for immediate withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq."  So did CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, MSNBC. Were they wrong?  Please advise.  (Looks like the liberal media left you guys hanging).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Nice to see this site hasn't gone total Troll-ville.

but not have to slaughter everyone to do it making the US look terrible to the rest of the world and forever poisoning Iraqi's against us.

This 'gentle' solution we have been following has resulted in more soldiers.. perhaps even 1000+ more dying in this type of campaign WHEREAS they might have not with a 'murder-death-kill' type war campaign.

This method wont truly bear fruit until the 5 year old Iraqi male lives his life under a democratic way of life (as well as a non-theocracy) and grows up to be an adult.

What, you can't read english?

"The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

What's not practicable about now... unless, of course, one is worried about winning the war.

Further evidence:

"quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region."

Which means we pull out now and maintain some troop level Qatar or Quwait.

And we we try to secure a civil war through diplomacy

"The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."

It a cut and run statement, with the "practicable date" use for Dem politcal cover.

Now is the GOP resoultion also a political play? Of course. But the GOP resolution DOES capture the essence of Murtha's resolution.

Go sell your analysis to the stupid people. It's not gonna play here.

Yesterday the MSM repeatedly stated "Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."  In fact, that statement was reported by every major news organization in the country.  Now that Republicans are calling them on it, the left and their friends in the media are denying that is Murtha's position.  It is a pretty sad day when the left assumes/depends that we can't remember events 24 hours ago.  I have spoken.

If Murtha's (and presumably your) position is not "bring the troops home now," then what exactly is it? Murtha's resolution says that the deployment is terminated and the troops should come home as soon as practicable. Well, I say it won't be "practicable" until the job is done. Are you guys just being disingenuous? Or is there a substantive distinction in your mind between "immediately" and "as soon as practicable"? (By substantive, I mean something other than "as soon as we can process all the paperwork and line up the logistics.")

The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

The deployment of military force in Iraq is hereby terminated.  What does this mean in realspeak?  Since I'm not a lawyer, I have to read the words as they are written and this says that upon passage the money will be cut off.

...redeployed at the earliest practicable date.  On the other hand, said forces that are no longer deployed will be redeployed at the earliest possible date.  So, who decides what that date is?  What conditions are acceptable for such redeployment?  Etc, etc.

Bottom line, Murtha's resolution is easy to support because it says whatever you want it to say.  It's a typical Democrat Trojan Horse.  It will do nothing but give them cover to continue to undermine the war effort, undercut support for the troops and whine on every Sunday news show that the administration is defying the Congress and the "will of the people."

Anyone who would support this farce is anti-military, anti-troop and anti-American.  They are doing damage to our troops in harms way and selling out any probability that we can defend our shores.  While Murtha's service in the Marine Corps was honorable, he's on the wrong side of this.  

The Democrats in Congress, and their acolytes in the media are not honorable people, nor do they honor the service of men and women who volunteer to defend us all.  They are simply disgusting excuses for humanity.

but I keep hearing the left talk about "where's the plan", "there is no plan", "we need a plan", ad nauseam.

• The plan was to turn over the administration to a provisional Iraqi government: accomplished on time as I recall;
  
• The plan was for the Iraqis to draft a Constitution: accomplished pretty close to on time as I recall;
  
• The plan was for the Iraqis to elect a legislature; accomplished on time as I recall;
  
• The plan was to train Iraqi military and police forces; under way and on track as I recall;

The "plan" for the creation of new governments in Japan and Germany did not proceed as rapidly as the Iraq plan. What more do you want? The detail timelines, all the line and subline items?

We set some pretty ambitious goals and it looks to me like the goals were met.

What more "plan" does the left want? Oh, wait I know, it's the one that doesn't include George Bush.

I choked while laghing...  Go easy on us.

"In another sign of rising discontent in Congress over the war in Iraq, perhaps the House's most influential Democrat on military issues called today for the immediate withdrawal of all American forces from that nation." SF Chron.

"An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, called for the United States "to immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

Rep. Murtha Calls For Immediate Troop Withdrawal From Iraq...

AP   |  Posted November 17, 2005 04:00 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.  Reported on CNN

calling for us to "cut and run".  Just where, pray tell, will those maintenance troops be housed.  Iraq?  Doubt it.  Saudi Arabia?  Oh, that's supposedly what wound up OBL in the first place.  I know, Israel!  Well, maybe not.

This is more BS from the anti-American party who doesn't have a program to offer the American public other than, BushLied(TM).

Let me stress, Cut&Run is the only offering the Democrats have.

When Murtha suggests A and the Republicans suggest B, in an attempt to smoke out so called hypocrisy, this is intellectually dishonest (what I called earlier, and you found acceptable, the big lie).

Given that, the only thing this maneuver proves is that Republicans will use dishonesty.  This dishonesty is ill-timed because what our system of government needs today, more than anything, is honest civic discourse.

that it would probably be about 6 months before his withdrawal resolution could be implemented.  That's his plan.  I know the press accounts have talked about an "immediate" withdrawal but if you really think he meant tomorrow, all I can tell you is I just saw it with my own two eyes.

I would have no problem, for example, with a resolution that said, in effect, "we will withdraw the troops by 2007, if the Iraqi security forces are sufficiently trained at that time."  That's a time frame but it's not inflexible.

There could also be a resolution that said "we will withdraw the troops by 2020, if the Iraqi security forces are sufficiently trained..." but I think at that point the American people would start asking why we think it might take that long.

Between the extremes of setting a date certain and saying it will take however long it takes, there are options in the middle.  I'm not saying you have to favor those options but they do exist.

is Cut&Run.  If I know that you will eventually leave my yard without killing me, I will hide under the bed.  Then when you leave, I will come and burn your house down.

Anything short of complete, total victory is unacceptable.  It does nothing but embolden our enemies because they know the Democrats and the NYT will give up sooner than later.

If I take you at your word, you want nothing more than a target date for withdrawal. But Murtha said something more: his resolution says that the deployment is "terminated." In his public statements over the last several days, he also has said that our military has no further role, that their job is done and they themselves are now the enemy in Iraq. On that reading, then for him to say "as soon as practicable" is not to be distinguished from "immediately" by any substantive consideration like making sure the Iraqi security forces are ready to take over. If that is indeed what he means, then he's trying to play politics disingenuously, and I'm in favor of the GOP effort to call his bluff.

I realize that not all democrats advocate immediate withdrawal.  But a lot of their most hard core people do.  I know quite a number of them here in Chicago.  In the heart of liberal country you see some very hardcore pacifists who desperately want the people they voted for to stand up and demand that we leave immediately.  This vote is not going to make them happy.  I'm starting to think that if the dems keep disappointing these people, they're going to split.  All you need is a successful green party or really any party that honestly advertises itself as liberal and pacifistic and the democrats will lose about 20% of their voters.  Blacks are also starting to get tired of the way democrats have been treating them.  I think at this point Republicans shouldn't be shy of showing to the Democrat constituents how little their party cares about their concerns.

There is no such thing as a gentle war.  We were fools.  If a war is worth fighting you must be willing to go the distance.  To win you must be cold, cruel, and calculating.    WWII is considered the honorable war...and we nuked two cities full of civilians.  That was what it took to win.  What's this war gonna take and will we do it?

The resolutions are substantively identical; the GOP version simply leaves all the pompous "whereas" nonsense on the cutting room floor.

The Murtha version calls for cutting and running. The GOP version calls for cutting and running. And as a practical matter, either you are for cutting and running, or you are not.

Please choose, because the ongoing efforts to have it both ways are increasingly tiresome.

The.

Resolutions.

Are.

Substantively.

Identical.

Which part of this are you having trouble with?

Stop howling like a stuck pig and get on the record. Or don't, and let that speak for itself.

call Murtha a coward.  She said, thanks to Michelle Malkin, "He [a Marine Col] 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."

The House will probably repremand her.  I think she deserves a Medal of Freedom.  Maybe W could strip Tenet of his and give it to Rep. Schmidt.

but I really wish people would get off of the 'nuked two cities' nonsense. The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagaski was hardly the most significant bombings of WW II. The Tokyo firebomb raids killed more poeple than Hiroshima; the only difference was that it took a thousand airplanes and 24 hours to accomplish.

This should make you feel good too (from the dark side):

------------------------------------

"The republicans have achieved their goal today.  This very blog shows it clearly.  The Democratic party is confused."

(proceeds at length about voting this way or voting that way or abstaining)

"How many people would like to take a breath, step back, realize this is incredible rhetoric.  The only purpose of this 'resolution' is to trap Democrats any way you like it."

(goes on in platitudes...)

----------------------------------------------

Its just darn refreshing in the dark sometimes.  All that chaos, and charm too.  Has anyone done some stats on the foul language?  That would be fun.  Percentage increase based on topic...  

everything but our Country and our way of life.

Over the last few years they have attempted to defend treason committed by a presidential candidate when he was part of the Naval Reserve.  They've defended every sort of behaviour on the part of a sitting president.  They've defended attacking the mission of our military during wartime.  And on and on and on...

So, defending a vote is small change.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012314.php

Murtha's version calls for redeployment at the earliest practicable date, i.e., as soon as possible. Under Murtha's bill, the current deployment is terminated, full stop.

The GOP version reduces this to shorthand: immediate withdrawal. Under either version troops will still be in theater for a while, under both versions the troops will be departing ASAP. You're making a distinction without a difference.

The resolutions are substantively identical. Stop braying and put yourself on the record. Either you want to cut and run as Murtha does, or you don't. It's not a difficult question.

that we should not stay in Iraq one minute longer than we stayed in Germany or Japan after WWII.  History should be our guide since we haven't had any military issues with either country since the end of that war.

yourself a one-way ticket out, "vet". Don't come back.

.

has been the toy of Cynthia McKinney, etal since the late '60's.  Truman died, John Kennedy died, the party belongs to Teddy, Cynthia, John Kerry, etal.

There are no current Democrats that Truman would call compatriots.  Or patriots for that matter.

A better resolution would be to agree with Murtha, on the condition that he re-up and walk point on every mission under taken by the "quick reaction force."

The important words are highlighted:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

This means the deployment ends as soon as the resolution is passed, i.e., immediately

There obviously isn't adequate transport to get everyone out today, and the second clause hedge in Murtha's resolution reflects that. Nevertheless, it's clearly an instruction to pack up and go -- uniforms in duffle bags and tails between legs.

Which of the words do you not understand? cut, and, or run?

don't have strong doubts about the war or our military.  We have strong doubts about our politicians.  Actually, I don't have any doubts about congress.  There isn't enough common sense or honor in Washington DC to fill a shot glass.

What the Republicans ought to propose is a better resolution...one that agrees with what Murtha wants, on the condition that he re-up and walk point on ever mission in which the "quick reaction force" is engaged.

We should not pretend that the House has spent the day doing legislative work.

In a legislature which takes the people's business seriously, any resolution with such wide-ranging policy implications as Murtha's has would be referred to a committee for hearings and amendment, then brought to the floor for serious debate and voting.  Every member of the House knows that.

That has not happened today.  Instead, the House leaders chose to immediately bring to the floor a simplified and therefore distorted version of Murtha's proposal.  Further, they set an obviously inadequate time for debate on the resolution.  Their obvious aim was to preempt serious and sustained legislative attention to the war.  Further still, when challenged on these tactics they launched an ad hominem attack on Murtha, calling him a coward.

So now we have a cartoonish, personalized debate instead of serious legislative work on the most important issue of the day.  Congress can do better than this.

RedState can do and has done better than this as well.  This thread is going nowhere.

Their obvious aim was to preempt serious and sustained legislative attention to the war

The only thing the Dems have been serious and sustained about is regaining power regardless of the cost to the citizens and our military.  

Take that -- from the DFL!

I will grant that the GOP resolution is a political resolution, but in no way more so than the dem version.

"Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date"

There is no definition of practicable in the Dem version.

You know damn well that they will just use the imprecision of the word to their advantage.

10 to 1 you think that "public purpose" is a good substitute for "public use" in interpretation of the 5th.

Murtha: "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated."

For you to tell us that that language is not calling for immediate withdrawal is about as dishonest as anything gets. Sure, we all know it will months to move all those people, trucks, and tanks out of Iraq; we can't just have Scotty beam them up. But that is a logistical constraint. The policy is immediate withdrawal, as in "hereby terminated."

You either do not want to face the consequences of your sentiments, or you are trying to BS a roomful of people who aren't falling for it.

155 thoughful posts is nowhere?  Right.

What went nowhere today was the Dems outrage at the Repubs "disrespecting" Murtha.  Tsk tsk.  How about his disrespect of 160,000 troop?

In the conservative scheme of things, which is one of the reasons for redstate, they have done exactly what is the serious business of the people.  They have begun to combat the idiotic propagandization of the congress by leftist peacnic socialist liberals who do not represent the majority of Americans.  And doing a effective job so far.  

As for this thread?  You don't seem to be contributing to it going any where.  In fact, from your assertion that Murtha's proposed legislation has wide ranging policy implications apart from cut and run, why don't you find some of those implications and bring them to the table?  Others above have chimed in and found nothing besides cut and run, why don't you refute them?

is an honest opposition party that supports the Country rather than their own morally bankrupt agenda that has been rejected by the majority of voters.

The lefties in the room are objecting to the stripping away of their wiggle room.  Clear statements of policy are pretty scary, after all.

As was the firebombing of Dresden...but why does that make the Hiroshima/Nagasaki point nonesense?  The mere mentioning of it  doesn't diminish horrors of Tripoli or how idiotic Picketts charge was.  It's a historical event that everyone has heard of that illustrates the scale of wars brutality.

and that we are stupid to treat them with such seriousness all the time.

msm says most americans want us to pull out now

and yet they and the dems are mad that we have a vote on it

and we all know how the vote will come out

what does that tell us

We go thru this same exercise  every new moon only to learn at the end that all our worrying was for naught.

We usually dont see this because we buy the msm event driven narrative that tells us that public opinion changes every month or so due to Bush finally speaking or some such rot.

And when we have a real poll called elections, we win.

But then we buy into the msm narrative and dont govern as if we won.

Why do care so much what these proven losers and liars say to small audiences.

This was  true even when Reagan had no Fox and Rush.

We thinkers here at redstate are not smarter than average voters.

They choose real conservatism every time they are asked and given the choice and they reject liberalism

which is why clinton ran as one

... what our system of government needs today, more than anything, is honest civic discourse.

And I'm certain having senior Democrat members of congress running to every camera in sight while screaming "BUSH LIED!" at the top of their lungs is doing wonders for "honest civic discourse" in this country.

Time for you folks to get over the fact that our side is fighting back after spending the last two years in hibernation.

The polls show 19% of Americans favor an immediate withdrawal.  Can you show me where the MSM claims a majority wants us out now?

that even libs know are lies and that repubs need to internalize so that they dont go wobbly two days after the real polls, ie elections that we always win, when themsm tells us that americans have changed their minds and really want liberalism

so to the left, votes are ill-timed, dishonest manuevers

but yesterdays msm polls were the final definitive word on what america wants eh

the last 6 congressional elections were ill timed huh

Rep. Renzi (R-AZ) said very clearly, a few minutes ago, that Murtha's resolution and Hunter's resolution are two completely different things.

He said Murtha's resolution deserves a fair debate but that it has been incorrectly spun in the media as calling for an "immediate withdrawal."  He says it is important to vote on Hunter's resolution to send a message to the troops that we are not debating an "immediate withdrawal."

I doubt anyone will admit he is right but in any event, Murtha's resolution will come up for a vote under regular order and we'll all get to see where everyone stands then.

possibly because I skipped a few steps in my post.

This seems to be a ploy by Republicans to get Democrats to put their money where their mouth is. But there's a problem--the Democrats, for the most part, are not demanding immediate withdrawal; they're demanding a timetable for withdrawal. This in opposition to the president's strategy, which seems to be to stay the course with no timetable for withdrawal. The position of the American people, according to polls, is to set a timetable for gradual withdrawal. This lines up with what the Democrats, for the most part, are advocating. I think the voters will recognize that convergence of desires, despite this ploy.

Clearer?

That's not much difference considering we're going on 60 years in Germany and Japan, and 140 something years in New Orleans, although I hear we're reconsidering our occupation there.

. . . our troops in Germany and Japan aren't being shot at regularly.

what makes withdrawal "practicable", ie what has to happen to make it practicable?

the same things that make "immediate" impracticable?

Because your assumptions are factually wrong in every respect.

"This is not Murtha's resolution," he said, "but it is his headline."  Urges a no vote to make clear that Murtha's resolution is not about immediate withdrawal, as it has been portrayed in the press.

Seriously. Read the update.

I don't think so. He's done his service to this country. That's just silly to suggest, even though I know you are not literally serious.

Take it up with Reps. Renzi and Kingston.  You know where to find the latter, at least.

Rep. Renzi is apparently a veteran himself, and he seemed quite concerned that the troops would take "immediate withdrawal" to mean exactly that unless the House clarified itself.  Maybe John Cole is right that everyone would know better, I dunno.

I have no problem counting heads to see who favors an immediate withdrawal.  I have no problem counting heads to see who favors Murtha's resolution.  Afterwards, you can pontificate all you like about why the two votes came out differently, but the simple fact is that they're not the same thing just because you say they are.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

Obviously Murtha believes an immediate withdrawal is "practicable".

Nice of him to clarify.  So many of the visiting KosKids were confused about it.

no last trip home

its actually quicker than immediate

it is

here

by

He came flat out and said 6 months was what he thought was the likely time frame.  I saw it with my own two eyes.  Your quotation of half a sentence does not change that.

There is also this tricky issue of whether "redeployment" and "withdrawal" mean the same thing.  They do not.  The argument I see here seems to be that, well, redeployment elsewhere in the ME is impracticable and therefore we can just ignore that part of Murtha's resolution.  That might be a great argument to bring up when his resolution is debated on the merits, but it doesn't justify rewriting it and claiming that it's the same thing just because you say so.

Two Republican Congressmen have said the resolutions are two different things.  Quoting half a sentence from Murtha's statement does not make them wrong.

From gamecock's link to Murtha's own webpage:

My plan calls:  

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.  

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

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

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq  

This war needs to be personalized.  As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war.  They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them.  That’s why I am speaking out.  

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

(bold emphasis mine, capitalization of the last sentence is as it appears on the webpage)

Can everyone drop the "he didn't mean pull the troops out NOW" charade, please?

... the statement posted on Murtha's site?

gamecock supplied a helpful link.  Go look at it, whydontcha?

However, "hereby" is not the operative term.  Every resolution says "hereby."

If a resolution said "it is hereby ordered that troops shall be withdrawn by 2009," would you call that an immediate withdrawal?

This business of "we're going to rewrite your bill to say what we think it means" is silly and I'm not going to keep going back and forth.  Obviously no minds are going to change.

It doesn't say there will be an immediate withdrawal.  No matter how many times you repeat yourself, or claim that what it actually says is the same thing as immediate withdrawal, it still doesn't say that.

... clearly and unambiguously refers to the passage of the resolution.

The resolution is the "here" in the "hereby".

That's really not so difficult to parse, is it?

You are going to try and claim that a statement that Iraqis view the US as the enemy is equivalent to saying the US is the enemy?

I can't take it any more.  See you after the war.

and you're walking around the room, looking at all your money on the table, looking at your cards and wondering if you could've played them any better. You can have another drink if you want, and stretch a little, but you're not getting any more cards and you can't leave until you turn over the ones you've already got. You should've folded yesterday.

... you can "redeploy immediately" without "withdrawing immediately".

But I think in order to suppose that you have to willfully misinterpret his clear statement.

That's fine, I guess, but I wonder how you reconcile pejoratively calling the justification for entry into Iraq a bunch of lies when lies is what you seem to prefer.

the definition of "practicable" lately?  Please do so and honestly tell yourself if, when coupled with the "hereby terminated" clause in Murtha's resolution, it essentially means the same thing as "immediate withdrawal".

Here, I'll save you the trouble of looking it up:

Practicable

Pronunciation: 'prak-ti-k&-b&l

Function: adjective

1 : capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished : FEASIBLE

synonym see POSSIBLE

You Leftists are trying to spin this like Murtha's resolution called for withdrawal at the "earliest (advisable) date", but it doesn't; it says "practicable", i.e., possible.  As a member of the military in the business of moving things, I can tell you it doesn't take 6 months to "accomplish" the redeployment of 135,000 troops; more like a month (or less) using air, sea, and land routes through Turkey.

That sounds a whole lot like "Cut-and-Run" to me.

after all, the President has been repeating the same bunch of stuff for the last year on stay the course, turning the corner, and I got news for you, the people ain't buying it anymore.  Sure, Bush can repeat it a bit louder as he did last week, but that doesn't really change things.  Most people in this country want some sort of change in policy, period.  It's merely a question of degree.  Most dems (and the public at large) don't want to immediately withdraw.  But I think setting a timetable would be a good idea because then the Iraqis have to put up or shut up.  Give them 6-12 months under the condition of knowing we're leaving.  I bet you will start either seeing things finally getting better (out of necessity) through recruiting of troops, fixing infrastructure, more political compromise, etc.; or, you see things continue to deteriorate, in which case we're probably not going to be able to stem a civil war there no matter how much we want to.  That's the realistic view of it in my mind.  Open ended commitments with no real goals don't accomplish much except having more troops die and creating more terrorist in the future who view us as an occupying force.  Dealing with the Iraqis, it's all about perception, and right now, their perception of us sucks.

doves bend over forwards and backwards at a moments notice whether practicable or not

see madonna video

are both kerry sensitive GWOT fighters?

we called nazis

"Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region."

Quick-reaction force equals carrier-based fighters/bombers-what could be faster?  Maybe land-based aircraft in Iraq?

Over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines equals ship-bound troops and equipment coming into any engagement from a logistical and tactical disadvantage because they are somewhere over the horizon.

Who needs land-based forces, when we can return to our late twentieth century gunboat diplomacy?  Suddenly, the Democrats seem to be nostalgic for it. They must believe that the terrorists from that era--those who still live and can find a quiet moment--are stroking their beards and thinking,"Those were the days. If we could only go back..."

and abortion is not my primary political concern.  But I'm curious: Just exactly what type of entity is it growing inside a woman, if not (i.e., non-) human?

Let me make sure I have this right -- did all those House Republicans just vote for the bill, so that they can now vote against it?

then what's the problem? If the people arent't buying it, we should have a vote to get out tonight. I mean, you get what you pay for, right? Let me ask you a question. Let's say we take your advice, and set 6 months from today to leave. What would you say to the families of those guys killed on the 30th day of the 5th month? Tough luck, fellas, you should've lived one more day? Talk about a deadline. If you were an infantry soldier, when would you start going on sick call instead of patrol? If you make a deadline, make it right now, or see it through it to the end. That's why we need a vote tonight.  

when war was much tougher than now

check that public pulse machine you guys have been using for 25 years

I believe they voted for a rule change that would allow a vote on the resolution.

While the American people might well want a timetable for a gradual withdrawal, this is not what  Murtha had proposed in his bill.  I simply don't see how anybody can parse the language of his bill to suggest anything other then cut and run.

With this in mind, reading your post I can't help but ask the question of if the polls are correct, then why don't the Democrats construct a more rational bill that actually addresses the metrics involved in an actual withdrawal?  What are they worried about?

My answers to this question are rather cynical, I'm afraid.

79% of the police officers in the U.S. believe Steve M is a criminal. Not exactly the same thing, but every bit as destructive, no?

You think they're going to vote for the "Murtha" resolution?

Forgive me if I misunderstood your question.

The only "yea" votes tonight will be recorded by members who write a (D) after their names.

Nobody did interpret this differently until it was time for the Dems to waffle.  Did you see the front page of the Birmingham News this morning Mr. Roll Tide?  

So it sent a jolt through Congress on Thursday when the same John Murtha stood before a bank of televison cameras and announced tearfully, that he had decided it was time to start withdrawing US troops from Iraq.  And not soon. Now.

I have to say that I concur.

are still, technically in touch with reality on some level

I wonder now if maybe the bush mute strategy until 60 days before elections might not actually show his evil genius

to let them lull themselves into a false sense of security

Reps Renzi and Kingston are welcome to their opinions regarding the resolution's interpretation, but Rep Murtha had this to say:

"My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."

It's not Leon who you have a problem with -- it's Rep Murtha, the author of the resolution himself.  Spin all you like, but that's a simple fact you can't easily avoid.

I don't live in Birmingham anymore.  I miss the barbeque.......

The Republicans first voted for the resolution so that they could later vote against it.

It is my understanding that they voted for a suspension of the rules so that a vote on the resolution could take place.

They didn't "vote for the resolution".

If they didn't want the resolution to pass, why vote for the rule?

for a really excellent job of liveblogging, and thanks for the play-by-play for those of us who stayed too late at work. I do look forward to reading the closing statements tomorrow.

After gazing long enough at that list of Talking Points dressed up in Whereas, and then being tantalized by the teasingly ambiguous promise of some real action, Some Dems might vote "yes, yes, yes!" in the heat of the moment.  but even if cooler heads prevail, they will vote "present" instead of "no" because the original is deadly serious Democrat crackpottery from one of their own, which cannot be laid off on Republicans.  

You're not ... ummm ... being disingenuous, are you?

They wanted the vote to happen because the purpose of the vote is to put members who have been supporting Murtha's statements on record as supporting immediate withdrawal.  I doubt many will have the stones to vote as they speak.

The poltroon Murtha wanted immediate withdrawal..check

The poltroon Murtha claims we can do more militarily in Iraq....check

The poltroon Murtha, and the rest of the poltroons in the DNC are too cowardly to supprt their chickenhawk squacking publicly on the record...check.

Pay up.

why not allow a vote on the other resolution?

call it as such. But for the rest of us who value honesty, pls don't pretend you know so much

believes what they want us to believe, why not put both resolutions to a vote? Somehow it seems they are doing the very same nonsense they complained about when the Dems were in power and that didn't end very well. Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

The Republicans took the perfectly good club that Murtha handed them, whittled it down to a chopstick and still expect to beat the Dems senseless with it.  The further down this thread I go, the lower my expectations go for what will be plausibly spun as a "Republican stunt" tomorrow morning.    

I'm just surprised on of our resident Dems hasn't thrown "fake but accurate" back in our faces yet...maybe I haven't read far enough down yet.

When Murtha suggests A and the Republicans suggest B, in an attempt to smoke out so called hypocrisy, this is intellectually dishonest (what I called earlier, and you found acceptable, the big lie).

"Acceptable" is not "accurate," and as I mentioned following that, I was being kind.

Given that, the only thing this maneuver proves is that Republicans will use dishonesty.

You weren't quick before. No reprieve this time.

The event was just reported on our local TV news as, "The House just defeated a GOP resolution to bring our troops home from Iraq immediately."

I'm surprised she couldn't fit the phrase "desert the Iraqi people" in there someplace.

How many times have we seen on this site and other political blogs this aggravating fallacy? Just as one Republican's words (those of Tom Tancredo, for example) don't stand for the whole party's beliefs, one Democrat's words don't stand for the whole party's beliefs. And yet on RedState we have people laughing it up that Democrats, offered a chance to give an enthusiastic "yes!" to withdrawal, turned that option down. Like I said at the start, it ignores the middle ground.

My guess is, had Murtha's bill come to a vote, it would have failed by a similar if slightly smaller margin. Nobody wants the troops to be brought home immediately. What 50-60% of the American people want is to start discussing the issue.

What are they worried about?

Being called traitors and cowards? Having it shut down on a procedural vote like tonight's...then being called traitors and cowards? Or maybe they're not "worried" about anything--they just acknowledge that they don't control the executive or legislative branch, and can only push their position in the public sphere...which is exactly what they've been doing?

or just an ad hominem attack upon my integrity.  You appear to be suffering from a case of psychological projection.

Please, tell me, what is it that I "pretend" to "know so much" about?  The definiton of "practicable"?  Or were you referring perhaps to my knowledge of troop movements?  I fear you'll be disappointed in either case.

WRT the former, the definition is not mine, but rather Merriam-Webster's.  They've been in the business for a while, and quite successful at it I might add, but who knows -- maybe they could learn a thing or two from your superior interpretive skills.

WRT the latter, I've worked in Air Mobility Command (the Air Force's strategic mobility arm, for your information) since it's inception in 1992.  For 3 of those years, I served as the functional in charge of managing mobility aircraft maintenance operations for the entire European theater (to include operations at Incirlik AB, Turkey); so Yes, I know whereof I speak.  Perhaps you'll be so kind as to share your CV, so that readers might judge the relative merits of our life experiences concerning this subject?

Well three members of Congress agree with Cindy, Matthews, Blitzer, and Zarqawi. That's it. This was a good exercise in splitting the elected democrats from the base of their party.

I think the GOP should pull the same thing on race-based "affirmative action", unrestrictied abortion on demand, and prayer before a highschool football game.

Part of the Murtha cut and run strategy is to move troop "over the horizon" as a "quick reaction force" What it the point of that? If we withdraw what would be the criteria that OKs a reinsertion of troops?

for your answers. I am going to do some looking around on the internet to see if there has been any discussion of the Iraq representatives voting on US presence there.

that I know of, but there is a report that in June, 82 members (out of 275) of the Iraqi National Assembly signed a petition asking for a timetable for withdrawal of Coalition troops. However, the leaders do not support this.

That if you set that timetable you have also set up a condition for success.  Now suddenly how do you determine that success?  In your example, yousay that a resolution might be Withdraw on some date (if troops are trained).  So in effect you are saying withdraw when the job is done (which is the idea anyway).  How is that a middle ground?