Attention Casca

[Silat]

Here you go bud...


GOP HOUSE STUNT: Leadership Revises 'Murtha Resolution' to Call for Immediate Iraq Pullout!
To Force Vote Tonight on Combat Vet, House War Hawk's Gutted Resolution!



In what can only be described as a cynical and partisan last minute stunt by the Republican-controlled House of Representative, GOP leaders have announced a sudden vote this evening on...

In what can only be described as a cynical and partisan last minute stunt by the Republican-controlled House of Representative, GOP leaders have announced a sudden vote this evening on the "Murtha Resolution" which had called for the immediate phasing out of troops in Iraq and a deployment of a "quick-reaction U.S. force" of Marines in the region should trouble arise.

The GOP-modified version of Murtha's resolution, which had given numerous reasons for his call for a pull-out has starkly changed both the language and meaning of the original resolution in hopes that Republicans can force Democrats onto the record voting in favor of, or against, "immediate termination" of forces in Iraq.

The BRAD BLOG has obtained PDF versions of both the original Murtha Resolution [PDF] as well as the 3-line GOP-Amended version [PDF] version being put forward by House Leadership for the last minute vote this evening.

Congressman Murtha (D-PA) is a long time Iraq war hawk, strong advocate of the military and a combat veteran of both the Vietnam and Korean conflicts. In an emotional statement yesterday, he had called for the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq.

After the preamble in Murtha's original resolution, which gives numerous reasons to support his call for troop withdrawal, the following statement is made:



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.


The GOP revision, however, includes no preamble, and states that all troops will be removed immediately. This is it, in its entirety:


Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

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


Well I guess if you leave out the whole Murtha statement and use the GOP version then it looks like cut and run.
If you actually read the whole Murtha statement it is obvious that it is not cut and run as the gop talking points would have you believe..

[Ripsnort]

LMAO! The Republicans call a Democrat bluff, only to be called "cynical and partisan". Thats a good one!:rofl

[Maverick]

Silat,

Frankly I don't really see it that way. Look over section one of the resolution you posted.

"The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated"

That's the cut part, sounds like it's rather abrupt.

"and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

That's the run part and both are in the very first part of Murtha's resolution. There's no transition at all. It's just get out now.

Oh and the follow up.

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

This is a feel good portion with no mission specified, no trigger point specified, no location for deployment specified and lastly no clear exit strategy. In all fairness there doesn't really need to be any exit strategy as there is no strategy for entrance at all there.


The last part.

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

In other words we'll throw words and money at the country and hope that something "good" will result. I wonder how many years this strategy will be in place. Perhaps 12 or so under UN supervision.

[Casca]

So you are maintaining that the "over the horizon" section and the "diplomatic" section disposes you to regard Murtha's legislation as something other than cut and run?

I would call those sections lipstick on a pig.  Maverick's analysis comports with my own.  What is more, the world press, including Aljazeera, is going with our interpretation it seems.

As for the Duncan bill, I have twice described it as chicanery in previous posts.  I have not been defending it.  In substance though it would not affect troop deployment one way or the other.  It asks for the "sense" of the legislative body on the topic.  

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Casca
So you are maintaining that the "over the horizon" section and the "diplomatic" section disposes you to regard Murtha's legislation as something other than cut and run?

I would call those sections lipstick on a pig.  Maverick's analysis comports with my own.  What is more, the world press, including Aljazeera, is going with our interpretation it seems.

As for the Duncan bill, I have twice described it as chicanery in previous posts.  I have not been defending it.  In substance though it would not affect troop deployment one way or the other.  It asks for the "sense" of the legislative body on the topic.  

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

The point is that you righties are treating Murtha differently than your own.
As elections approach watch the righties clamoring for withdrawal. Watch them say that it is their idea and the time is right:)
Try to have a non partisan eye when it comes to interpreting what our government is doing to us.
They are all using us.. But the reps are in charge. So I cant blame the dems for any of this.
We deserve better...........

[Silat]

Originally posted by Maverick
Silat,

Frankly I don't really see it that way. Look over section one of the resolution you posted.

"The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated"

That's the cut part, sounds like it's rather abrupt.

"and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

That's the run part and both are in the very first part of Murtha's resolution. There's no transition at all. It's just get out now.

Oh and the follow up.

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

This is a feel good portion with no mission specified, no trigger point specified, no location for deployment specified and lastly no clear exit strategy. In all fairness there doesn't really need to be any exit strategy as there is no strategy for entrance at all there.


The last part.

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

In other words we'll throw words and money at the country and hope that something "good" will result. I wonder how many years this strategy will be in place. Perhaps 12 or so under UN supervision.

Ummm geeze Some of this is exactly what the reps are proposing as if its their idea. Funny how that works.................Of course they arent being so blatant as to say Cut and Run when they call for reduction, planning, or some sort of timetable.
My point Mav was the BS that both sides pull . But you guys only see the dems as bad.
Well Mav, the dems are not in power in any way shape or form. In the BB;s every problem is a DEM problem or a left leaning media issue and that just isnt the case but it sure soothes the Rightwing Savage Beasts to hear it..
All the serious issues we are experiencing are of rep doing at this time as they are in complete control.
But I appreciate you and Casca for the gentlemanly discussion that we are having:)
See you up
Happy Holiday Season to you and yours.................

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Maverick
Silat,

Frankly I don't really see it that way. Look over section one of the resolution you posted.

People see what they want, but no one in politics outside a few congressional spokespeople have even attempted to portray this as anything besides a cynical and cheap attempt to use the war to score some political points.

The vote went like 498-3 with Murtha himself voting against it.  

It was a joke, one of the stupidest wastes of time even this ridiculous congress has attempted.

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Casca
So you are maintaining that the "over the horizon" section and the "diplomatic" section disposes you to regard Murtha's legislation as something other than cut and run?

I would call those sections lipstick on a pig.  Maverick's analysis comports with my own.  What is more, the world press, including Aljazeera, is going with our interpretation it seems.

As for the Duncan bill, I have twice described it as chicanery in previous posts.  I have not been defending it.  In substance though it would not affect troop deployment one way or the other.  It asks for the "sense" of the legislative body on the topic.  

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It wasn't Murtha's legislation, that's the point.

It was rewritten to be so blatant as to make anyone voting for it a political kamikaze artist.

I posted a link to a lovely interview with police trainers in Iraq, tey basically said Murtha's plan, as enunciated by Murtha, was likely teh best option.

Of course, why listen to the guys on the ground when you have Cheney and DeLay to tell you "the truth"?

;-)

Sakai

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Sakai
People see what they want, but no one in politics outside a few congressional spokespeople have even attempted to portray this as anything besides a cynical and cheap attempt to use the war to score some political points.

The vote went like 498-3 with Murtha himself voting against it.  

It was a joke, one of the stupidest wastes of time even this ridiculous congress has attempted.

Sakai

Sakai,

No ill feelings intended, but I don't see either resolution as being different from the other. As I already stated the first part of Murtha's own doggerel is the same as the doggerel that was voted on. The second and third clauses of Murtha's resolution were meaningless verbage. It was there strictly as window dressing.

Take it even further. Look at the third clause in the resolution. Seek solution through diplomatic means. Who exactly are we going to me having a dialogue with? The press has indicated the vast majority of the "insurgents" are nieither a government from that nation in conflict with the sitting govt. nor even a group of Iraqi citizens for the most part. They are outsiders. Who shall we recognise to have a discourse with?

Since at this point there is NO recognized hostile government entity how are you going to use diplomatic means to address they problem?


Silat,

Please quote me where I said the Republican resolution was better than the Democratic one. I was not commenting on whether one was a better or more sensible resolution at all. I was commenting that you thought there was any difference between them. There isn't. the crux of both is the same. One just says it in fewer words.

Both of these items are a blatant political move to seek a greater position prior to the election. The only thing I can say is that the Republicans simply took the ploy of the Democrats and used it against them. Political posturing from the start with no real value.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Maverick
Sakai,

No ill feelings intended,  

And none taken, but I'd note that every review of that action has corroborated what I pointed out.

Reading legislation is an art form, changing a word or two doesn't indicate much to the laiety, but speaks volumes in terms of policy.

Murtha's piece asked for an "as soon as is practicable" withdrawal while the GOP revision asked for "immediate" withdrawal.

Think of it as the difference between peace talks and unconditional surrender.

Note that even Murtha did not vote for it, an indication the changes were substantial.

Cheers,

Sakai

[Silat]

Originally posted by Maverick
Sakai,

No ill feelings intended, but I don't see either resolution as being different from the other. As I already stated the first part of Murtha's own doggerel is the same as the doggerel that was voted on. The second and third clauses of Murtha's resolution were meaningless verbage. It was there strictly as window dressing.

Take it even further. Look at the third clause in the resolution. Seek solution through diplomatic means. Who exactly are we going to me having a dialogue with? The press has indicated the vast majority of the "insurgents" are nieither a government from that nation in conflict with the sitting govt. nor even a group of Iraqi citizens for the most part. They are outsiders. Who shall we recognise to have a discourse with?

Since at this point there is NO recognized hostile government entity how are you going to use diplomatic means to address they problem?


Silat,

Please quote me where I said the Republican resolution was better than the Democratic one. I was not commenting on whether one was a better or more sensible resolution at all. I was commenting that you thought there was any difference between them. There isn't. the crux of both is the same. One just says it in fewer words.

Both of these items are a blatant political move to seek a greater position prior to the election. The only thing I can say is that the Republicans simply took the ploy of the Democrats and used it against them. Political posturing from the start with no real value.

Well I was referring to the rightwing bias that you have exhibited:)
But what you are missing is that Murtha was one man. Not the dems together. The Rep response which was completely political in nature was a group effort......
And a sorry one at that. But the followers of Rush and Hannity love these kind of things as it satisfies them without actually having to think about the real issues..

Now will you or did any Bush supporter on this board  also criticise righty Chuck Hagel for what he said? Call him a Cut & Runnner?
What he said had much common ground with Murthas statement. Or does he get a pass? Hmmm funny how the "Right" leaning media didnt pillary Chucky baby............
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/
 
From the article this:
Hagel also did not back away from comments he made in June to U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and "the reality is that we're LOSING in Iraq."
"It gives me no great pleasure to have said that and to say that now," he said Thursday.

[Maverick]

Nice change of direction. You still don't get it and instead lapse into namecalling as justification. Please reread what I posted for comprehension. Note that I do not imply anything in my post.

Let me state this as plainly as I can.

The innitial resolution was political grandstanding.

The second resolution is saying the same thing as the first. It is IMO also political grandstanding.

Neither one of these resolutions should have been brought forward.

[ravells]

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.

Yes

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

Not sure, but yes if they will be safe in carrying out their duties.

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

Yes, but you can't abandon them now.

ravs