I just got done watching the videotape of the debate. I couldnt see it live, but my wife did tape it for me.
I think that this whole sorry episode can be summed up by the points of order that were raised during the debate by the Congressman from California. After several GOP speakers had referred to the bill as Murtha's bill, 2 points of order were raised. The first point of order was to ask the chair if this was Murtha's bill which was being debated. The chair dishonestly said that was open to debate, after which the hall was filled with boos and catcalling, and the chairman had trouble bring the house in order. At that point, the second point of order was raised, which was to ask the following procedural question - "Is this the Murtha Amendment we are debating or is it the Hunter Amendment?". Pinned down, the chairman was forced to admit that this was not the Murtha Amendment, but the amendment put forth by Hunter, in which the wording had been significantly changed from what Murtha was calling for.
I know that, in recent days, the Republican Party has been an ethically challenged one, but yesterday's actions by them not only crossed the lines of ethics and morality, but completely obliterated those lines. I mean, to sponsor a bill that is worded in a way to show a cut and run strategy, then to attempt to attribute the bill to Murtha, and pin it all on him, is one of the sleaziest, most reprehensible, and dishonest maneuvers I have ever seen in my entire 56 years of life.
Murtha never suggested cut and run. He suggested first of all a staged redeployment of troops, with a fast reaction force to be stationed just over the horizon, and mentioned Kuwait as a base for those troops. In any event, if needed, those troops could go into where any fires are, kick ass, then come back to Kuwait. Seems like a workable plan. You give control back to the Iraqis, and keep the threat of massive force available, while taking our troops out of harms way, and forcing the Iraqis to take responsibility, all at the same time. No longer would we be seen as occupiers, the reason for the insurgency would be gone, and the Iraqis could continue the political process.
That the Republicans would take the plan outlined in the above paragraph, change it to immediate complete withdrawal, and then to claim that this was Murtha's bill, is nothing short of disgusting. You know, I have never been crazy about the Democrats, and am still not impressed with them, but at this point in time, I have nothing but utter contempt now for the House Republcans who tried to pull of this sleazy sham on the American people.
As for the vote itself, when my tape ran out, it looked like all the votes had been counted, and I only saw 2 Democrats and 1 Republican in favor, and this is appropriate. This was not a bill. This was a sham, a lie, and a slander.
