congessional vote in house proves hypocrisy of democratic party!

[Stu Ghatze]

Enough already, ...how much more proof is needed that shows unoquivically that the democrartic party IS using the war in Iraq for its OWN political means?

The democratic party cannot put their vote where their mouth is in the final vote of 403-3 rejecting the Iraqi pullout vote!

If democrarts care so much about American security, & the fate of Iraq's future ...THEY should NOT be so concerned about their own personal political future, ..& ESPECIALLY if THEY actually believe that their voting supporters represent the majority who are in favor of an Iraqi pullout!

Huh huh, ..apparently the democratic house members do not want to risk their political future, & especially the ones who refused to actually take an honest vote!

If this act does not convince the mainstream majority of the democratic party's true "DISINGENUINE" behavior, ..well then; NOTHING WILL!

 

[KCConservative]

Enough already, ...how much more proof is needed that shows unoquivically that the democrartic party IS using the war in Iraq for its OWN political means?

The democratic party cannot put their vote where their mouth is in the final vote of 403-3 rejecting the Iraqi pullout vote!

If democrarts care so much about American security, & the fate of Iraq's future ...THEY should NOT be so concerned about their own personal political future, ..& ESPECIALLY if THEY actually believe that their voting supporters represent the majority who are in favor of an Iraqi pullout!

Huh huh, ..apparently the democratic house members do not want to risk their political future, & especially the ones who refused to actually take an honest vote!

If this act does not convince the mainstream majority of the democratic party's true "DISINGENUINE" behavior, ..well then; NOTHING WILL!

No doubt, it was a brilliant political move by the right. The libs were asked to put up or shut up. Obviously they aren't about to put up. Now let's see if they'll shut up. :mrgreen:

 

[Binary_Digit]

Let's see...Hunter changed Murtha's proposal. They voted on Hunter's proposal. Bush huggers think they voted down Murtha's proposal. Yep, a brilliant political move indeed. :roll:

 

[KCConservative]

Let's see...Hunter changed Murtha's proposal. They voted on Hunter's proposal. Bush huggers think they voted down Murtha's proposal. Yep, a brilliant political move indeed. :roll:

:mrgreen: Keep spinning it, Digit. It's amusing.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

No doubt, it was a brilliant political move by the right. The libs were asked to put up or shut up. Obviously they aren't about to put up. Now let's see if they'll shut up. :mrgreen:

No..they cannot ever put up, ..or shut up because it IS their nature to seek destruction of bush's presidency, ..or any other republican administration.

EXpect to see, & hear of even MORE invented conspiracies in an effort to smear & destroy the Bush presidency.

The problem that the democrat party has is that THEY never seem to think that their OWN voting record should ever HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, & better yet that the voters pay no attention to their words, actions...& voting records!

Double talk, & more of it, exemplified by John Kerry himself in the 04' election as they REFUSE to take any stand that holds them accountable, ..& they will say and do any g-damn thing to get elected!

And....they will say whatever it takes, ..depending on "which" type of groups that they are addressing, & mugging for when after their votes.

(DEMOCRATIC PARTY)Politicians you bet, ..caretakers of American security & best interests, ..hell no! :smile:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Stu Ghatze
Enough already, ...how much more proof is needed that shows unoquivically that the democrartic party IS using the war in Iraq for its OWN political means?

The democratic party cannot put their vote where their mouth is in the final vote of 403-3 rejecting the Iraqi pullout vote!

If democrarts care so much about American security, & the fate of Iraq's future ...THEY should NOT be so concerned about their own personal political future, ..& ESPECIALLY if THEY actually believe that their voting supporters represent the majority who are in favor of an Iraqi pullout!

Huh huh, ..apparently the democratic house members do not want to risk their political future, & especially the ones who refused to actually take an honest vote!

If this act does not convince the mainstream majority of the democratic party's true "DISINGENUINE" behavior, ..well then; NOTHING WILL

The Republican vote was a joke. Only I'm not laughing.

Straw Man Resolution in Congress: Joking Around with the Lives of the Troops
By Juan Cole www.juancole.com Saturday 19 November 2005

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

Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and 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.
By the way, Murtha's plan resembles in some ways the one I myself had put forward last last August. I am pleased to see that someone with substantial military experience is thinking along similar lines. Murtha called for an end to US military "action" in Iraq, as in, presumably, the counter-productive destruction of cities such as Fallujah, Tal Afar and Husaybah.

Note that Murtha calls for a withdrawal ("redeployment") of US ground troops from Iraq at the earliest date that would be practical. That is, he is not saying that you could get them out tomorrow. "Practicality" would involve considerations such as not having Iraq collapse altogether.

This is what I had said:

1) US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to do the policing . . .


2) In the second phase of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily be brought out of Iraq.'
Note further that Murtha foresees a US quick-reaction force being left in theater. You could imagine it being based in two places: Kurdistan in the north and Kuwait in the south. I have argued for a similar force, which could intervene if set-piece battles broke out and Iraq looked as though it was falling into large-scale civil war. (Indeed, this is just the sort of light, mobile special ops force that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld says is the future of the US military).

I had suggested,

3) For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces . . .
4) With the agreement of the elected Iraqi government, the US would prevent any guerrilla force from fielding any large number of fighters for set piece battles.'
Murtha is not giving up on Iraq, just urging diplomacy rather than white phosphorus and prison torture as the way forward.

I had written,

The US should demand as a quid pro quo for further help that the Iraqi government announce an amnesty for all former Baath Party members who cannot be proven to have committed serious crimes, including crimes against humanity . . . The US should join the regular meetings of the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighbors, with Condi Rice in attendance, along with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, employing a 6 + 2 diplomatic track to help put Iraq back on its feet through diplomacy and multilateral aid.
Murtha was viciously attacked for his judicious resolution, and this courageous and honorable man was smeared as some sort of coward by persons who wouldn't know an M-16 from a 5 iron.

Ironically enough, General Casey was at the same time giving Rumsfeld a plan for US troop withdrawal! Its terms?

The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn. Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.
In other words, the troops would be withdrawn as soon as practicable, and practicality is spelled out in these ways.

All Murtha is saying is that Casey's plan should be speeded up, and that dependence on a big infantry force on the ground should be replaced by quick reaction forces based nearby. The argument, in short, is not about the preconditions for withdrawal but about its exact shape and rate.

Republicans in Congress responded to Murtha's considered plan by introducing a phony resolution the bore little resemblance to Murtha's, and then helping defeat it overwhelmingly. The intent was apparently to force the Democrats either to look as though they were in favor of "cutting and running" or to vote against immediately withdrawing US troops and so associating themselves with Bush's 'stay the course' policy. The Republican straw man resolution was:

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.

Well, this stupid resolution is not what Murtha was saying, and the vote on it is meaningless. It is worse than meaningless. It is political clowning.

Indeed, given the GIs being blown up on a daily basis, the Republican phony resolution was the equivalent of trying to do a stand-up comedy routine at the funeral of someone's beloved son who had died at age 20.

I don't think the American people will find it amusing. We'll see in 2006 whether they did.

http://www.juancole.com/

 

[KCConservative]

EXpect to see, & hear of even MORE invented conspiracies in an effort to smear & destroy the Bush presidency.

There is a long list already.

AWOL
Skull & Bones
Stolen election
Diebold
Countless Bushisms
Choking on a pretzel
War for Oil
Mission Accomplished
TurkeyGate
Another stolen election
Haliburton
Wired during the debates
SheehanGate
RoveGate
CheneyGate

and now...

Cooked-the-Intelligence BooksGate

:mrgreen:

None of it sticks, but they keep trying.

W. Still your president!

 

[Binary_Digit]

Spin? Gee, I must have read the news wrong. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how I misread these:

"Here's what Murtha offered:

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.
2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Rep. Hunter's bill, however, calls merely for the immediate termination of the U.S. deployment to Iraq. Here's the exact language:

1. That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

By proposing this legislation, Duncan Hunter is calling for America to cut and run. Whether that's his policy or a tactic, it must be stopped. Voting "No," however, plays into their cynical hands."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051118/support_murtha_vote_present.php



"WASHINGTON -- An attempt to force a vote on a Republican version of a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq disintegrated into a raucous House floor debate last night over the Pennsylvania congressman's honor and the treatment of Iraq war critics."


http://post-gazette.com/pg/05323/609279.stm

"Aiming to blunt the impact of Mr. Murtha's call for a withdrawal from Iraq, Republican leaders decided to use the last hours before the House adjourns for two weeks to put the issue to a test.

They rushed to the floor a one sentence non-binding resolution stating: It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Mr. Murtha had called for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, "at the earliest practicable date", adding he thought this could be accomplished within six months."

http://www.voanews.com/english/Hous...ejects-Any-Immediate-US-Pullout-from-Iraq.cfm

So tell me KCConservative, where exactly is that spin you're talking about?

It's sad, but the reason this is such a brilliant political maneuver is NOT because it puts the Dems on the hotseat, it's because drooling Bush huggers won't notice or care that it wasn't acutally Murtha's proposal being voted on!

 

[Old and wise]

No..they cannot ever put up, ..or shut up because it IS their nature to seek destruction of bush's presidency, ..or any other republican administration.

They don't need to do that. The Bush huggers and the shrub himself are doing a fine job of destroying his Presidency.

 

[KCConservative]

So tell me KCConservative, where exactly is that spin you're talking about?

It's sad, but the reason this is such a brilliant political maneuver is NOT because it puts the Dems on the hotseat, it's because drooling Bush huggers won't notice or care that it wasn't acutally Murtha's proposal being voted on!

You had your vote. You were given the chance to cut and run, surrender to the terrorists and the vote was 403-3.

Any questions?

 

[shuamort]

My question is, how many democrats were for Murtha's proposal before the vote?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

You had your vote. You were given the chance to cut and run, surrender to the terrorists and the vote was 403-3.

Any questions?

Hey KC, ..maybe those corrupt republicans rigged the vote by using "diebold" machines! Huh huh huh....:lol:

 

[Gibberish]

You people are ignorant if you believe this was a vote soley on the US withdrawl from IRAQ. Do you really think they would create a document that was a clean, clearcut, and timley withdrawl from IRAQ? They just titled it so because the media would run with it as a vote to withdrawl and show that only 3 democrats want to withdrawl. No, only 3 democrats thought whatever terms they had to agree to to withdrawl were worth it.

 

[Iriemon]

Why should the Dems vote to withdraw? Bush wanted this war; let him and the Republicans stew in it another 3-4 years.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why should the Dems vote to withdraw?

Because the Dems have been squawking about withdrawing the troops for quite some time.

I guess they didnt have the testicular fortitude to put their vote where their mouth was. Anyone surprised?

Further evidence that the anti-war crowd isnt anti-war, just anti-Bush.

 

[Binary_Digit]

You had your vote. You were given the chance to cut and run, surrender to the terrorists and the vote was 403-3.

Any questions?

Yes. Why do you let FOX news do your thinking for you?

The Dems did NOT have their vote.

The referrendum was fabricated by the Republicans and did not resemble what Murtha was actually calling for at all.

Murtha did not propose to cut and run. Murtha believes the military has accomplished its mission in Iraq, so he proposed starting the Iraq withdrawal process. At what point can we decide the military is finished in Iraq and start the withdrawal process without someone calling it a cowardly cut and run??

I don't know how many times this has been said in the other thread, which you conveniently and ironically cut and ran from, but there is a HUGE difference between "pull out immediately" and "pull out at the earliest practical date."

Now go ahead, cut and run from that point just like your boy Navy Pride did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The referrendum was fabricated by the Republicans and did not resemble what Murtha was actually calling for at all.
Murtha did not propose to cut and run.

False.
Murtha's "plan" said "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

Murtha believes the military has accomplished its mission in Iraq, so he proposed starting the Iraq withdrawal process.

False. Murtha argues that US troops are part of the problem:
"...the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize...but I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress"

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

At what point can we decide the military is finished in Iraq and start the withdrawal process without someone calling it a cowardly cut and run??

When the Iraqi government says "We think we can handle it. Thanks for your help (and please don't go too far)."

 

[Gibberish]

False.
Murtha's "plan" said "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

This is why majority of democrats did not vote on it. Removing US troops immediately would be devistating to the Iraqi people. We would be setting them up for invasion or anarchy.

We don't want to cut and run. We want an exit strategy. We want an agenda for the mission. "Stay the course" is not an agenda or an exit strategy. It is an excuse. Bush himself is a hypcrite on this issue.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) - On Bosnia

False. Murtha argues that US troops are part of the problem:
"...the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize...but I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress"

I don't know how Murtha would think they are bombing Iraq because of us, other then the terrorists annoucing after every bombing that they will kill anyone that is helping US.

I think Republicans are scared to leave Iraq. They see how messed up it has become and they don't think the killings will stop. So once we leave the Iraqi people might be massacred and it will be because of the failure of strategy by the US Administration. The whole world will see this.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The referrendum was fabricated by the Republicans and did not resemble what Murtha was actually calling for at all.
Murtha did not propose to cut and run.

False.
Murtha's "plan" said "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

False. Murtha's plan said:

"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.

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

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.73:

Murtha believes the military has accomplished its mission in Iraq, so he proposed starting the Iraq withdrawal process.

False. Murtha argues that US troops are part of the problem:
"...the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize...but I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress"

True, but what I said was not false. From the same speech you quoted: "Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates."

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...51117iraq.html

At what point can we decide the military is finished in Iraq and start the withdrawal process without someone calling it a cowardly cut and run??

When the Iraqi government says "We think we can handle it. Thanks for your help (and please don't go too far)."

That's just about the best answer anyone could give. It's interesting to note that the Iraqi government has started saying exactly that, but I don't know if that was before or after Murtha's proposal.

 

[Cremaster77]

Okay. Since noone from the Right had the guts to answer me in the other thread I'll try it in this thread.

A Republican led Senate passes a big tax cut bill, 90% of which in terms of absolute dollars benefits the top 10% of income earners. However, the bill also benefits small businesses and lessens the effects of a recession. It also eliminates taxes on the lowest income earners. Overall, everyone gets a tax break, but the vast majority benefits the top 10% in this country.

Now...Democrats propose a resolution that says "The federal government resolves to give tax breaks to the rich". It is overwhelmingly voted down in by both parties. Does this prove hypocrisy from Republicans, since they did give tax breaks to the rich (along with all the other benefits of the tax cut bill)? Is this a huge victory for Democrats?

The only answers I got in the other thread were:
1) "I don't care"
2) "Quit whining about tax cuts for the rich"...which clearly I am not doing.

Any takers?

 

[KCConservative]

You people are ignorant if you believe this was a vote soley on the US withdrawl from IRAQ.

Correct, it would be ignorant to believe that. What I do believe, however, is that the GOP pulled a remarkable political ploy and stuffed it right back into their partisan liberal laps. America has heard the left asking for the removal of troops for a long time. But when given the chance, the libs barfed all over themselves.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Enough already, ...how much more proof is needed that shows unoquivically that the democrartic party IS using the war in Iraq for its OWN political means?

The democratic party cannot put their vote where their mouth is in the final vote of 403-3 rejecting the Iraqi pullout vote!

If democrarts care so much about American security, & the fate of Iraq's future ...THEY should NOT be so concerned about their own personal political future, ..& ESPECIALLY if THEY actually believe that their voting supporters represent the majority who are in favor of an Iraqi pullout!

Huh huh, ..apparently the democratic house members do not want to risk their political future, & especially the ones who refused to actually take an honest vote!

If this act does not convince the mainstream majority of the democratic party's true "DISINGENUINE" behavior, ..well then; NOTHING WILL!

I believe that it's absolutely obvious before God that conservative republicans are more interested in the security of our great nation than liberal democrats.

 

[Gibberish]

Correct, it would be ignorant to believe that. What I do believe, however, is that the GOP pulled a remarkable political ploy and stuffed it right back into their partisan liberal laps. America has heard the left asking for the removal of troops for a long time. But when given the chance, the libs barfed all over themselves.

I can go for that. Which is why democrats did not vote for it. The liberals want to pull the troops out now. The democrats know that would be a disaster, all we want is a timetable and exit strategy.

There is a difference between a liberal and a democrat the same as there is a difference between a neocon and a republican.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Come on people, this has been stated over and over again. The democrats didn't vote for Hunter's bill because it's not what they were asking for. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Look, if Hunter's and Murtha's referrendums were esentially calling for the same thing, then explain why they didn't just vote on Murtha's referrendum. Why did they go through all the trouble of having Hunter make up a whole new referrendum, when they could have easily voted on Murtha's origional instead???

(hint: because the two referrendums were not calling for the same thing)

This is not rocket science, it's common sense for crying out loud.