Put up or Shut Up Murtha

Published on November 23, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

By now most are aware of the John Murtha call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Murtha actually said (from his own website): http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/statement_051117iraq.html

I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

So in an accommodating fashion, the House decided to do just that, with resolution number 571: http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hres571/109hres571.pdf which merely re-iterates what Murtha said:

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.

Clear so far? Murtha asked for, and the Republicans obliged. The resolution went down to defeat 403-3. Even Murtha would not vote for it!

But here comes the kicker! Newsweek ran a story. In it they basically outline how Murtha was put up to this by Nancy Pelosi (before being hung out to dry), but then go on to state:

By a vote of 403-3, the House ultimately rejected a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted (without Murtha's permission) to sound as cravenly antiwar as possible. Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Murtha, voted against it.

Bowdlerized? It stated exactly what Murtha did! Cravenly Antiwar? Maybe Murtha should have thought before he let Pelosi snooker him! But that is what he said!

Obvious Trap? So to the loons in the Mainstream Media, bowing into the demands of the democrats, is setting a trap?

It is clear that there is no longer any rational thought in the MSM! It is clear from this story that the democrats were out maneuvered, and they are the ones crying fowl?

Perhaps the next time a member of the democrat party wants to make an irresponsible and inflammatory statement, they will think twice about it! For while their mouthpieces in the MSM will attempt to spin it to show them in a good light, the Blogosphere will be ever vigilant and call both the democrats and the MSM to task.

And now it seems, so will the republicans in the House. Were the Senate so fortified in the spine.

Comments (Page 2)

TARSIER

on Nov 24, 2005

I will not be joining in on Bashing Murtha doc, I refuse to trash a fellow jarhead, even if I do disagree with him.

You have to give some credit to the guy. His ideas are flawed I will agree, but the guy must be out of his mind with Senators who voted for the War, and people who Supported it and claimed it was Duty, but who have never served themselves. I just get pissed off at some people who talk a bunch of crap, but don't "Put up" for what they say they believe in. I have the utmost respect for veterans such as Murtha, because they were in combat and understand the hardships and danger that our troops are experiencing.

COL Gene

on Nov 24, 2005

As usual the SPIN that the right places on anything that they see as not 100% supporting Bush is clear. This is the GOP resolution (BS Show) and the Murtha resolution:

The Murtha Resolution
by Scott Shields

The big talk floating around right now, everywhere from Drudge to Kos, is that there will be a vote in the House, tonight at 7PM, designed specifically by the Republican leadership to force Democrats to on the record about the Iraq War. Here's the language of the resolution, courtesy of The Hotline Blog.

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

THE GOP BS Resolution:

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

But it's not actually Murtha's resolution that they'll be voting on. They've completely gutted and rewritten it. Here is the actual text of Murtha's resolution, which will not be up for a vote tonight.

The Murtha 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

1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

davad70

on Nov 24, 2005

What you quote is an a priori. And after the fact CYA. Nice try, but very bad.

Hmmmm

Dr Guy

on Nov 24, 2005

What the heck are you talking about?? That was the actual RESOLUTION.

I am talking about congressional record. I posted the links and the text. Live with it. I think my article had enough links for you, right?

probably not.

Dr Guy

on Nov 24, 2005

To the Kuwait border.

No, but that is a possibility. Yet he did not say that.

Dr Guy

on Nov 24, 2005

As usual the SPIN that the right places on anything that they see as not 100% supporting Bush is clear. This is the GOP resolution (BS Show) and the Murtha resolution

Next time you pollute my blog, try quoting the congressional record. nice to CYA after the fact. I quote from OFFICIAL documents. You posted from someone's cya.

Dr Guy

on Nov 24, 2005

Hmmmm

In time you will learn. Hopefully, or just be a sheep.

davad70

on Nov 24, 2005

Next time you pollute my blog, try quoting the congressional record. nice to CYA after the fact. I quote from OFFICIAL documents. You posted from someone's cya.

It really is unfortunate that are so blind to the truth. Why can't you either admit that you were wrong or admit that you were lying? I really don't think you're lying, but you are obviously wrong.

Why is it that you cannot understand that what I pasted there is the actual official resolution that was introduced in Congress.

The link you put for Murtha's statement doesn't even work. So where is the link to this actual congressional record you speak of?

davad70

on Nov 24, 2005

I am talking about congressional record. I posted the links and the text. Live with it. I think my article had enough links for you, right?

probably not.

You did not post any such link the the congressional record.

Ok, here you go THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Link

H.J. Res. __X

To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005

Mr. Murtha introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on
__XXXXXXX
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 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent 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.

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.

So how in the world is this an after the fact CYA ?

COL Gene

on Nov 24, 2005

The Rep. Murtha proposal not only makes sense but this week 100 Iraqi leaders demanded a timetable for U S and all foreign troop pull out from Iraq. This is the very thing Bush has refused to do. Every day the Bush, "stay the Course" becomes more and more wrong. He can never admit when he has made an error. Most Americans know the Iraq war an error and most Iraqis do not want us in their country. Bush is a Sad leader for our country

davad70

on Nov 24, 2005

He can never admit when he has made an error.

He's not the only one. Seems to be a lot of that going around.

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

It really is unfortunate that are so blind to the truth. Why can't you either admit that you were wrong or admit that you were lying? I really don't think you're lying, but you are obviously wrong.

I am not wrong, I am not lying. Which link did not work for you? You really dont know now to debate. You post an after the fact CYA, and then try to call me a liar? You are a sheeple!

And one who is addicted to my blog apparently.

In the first place, you cannot call me a liar, as all I did was post the appropriate links and then commented on them. You can call the Congressional record a liar if you want (and you might actually get some mileage out of that), but dont call me a liar just because you cant click on a link. That is your problem.

Now, how can I admit I am wrong when I am merely quoting sources? can I admit that my sources are wrong? SUre! I did not write them. But I have no proof they are, and you provide none. So lets get off this stupid kick you are on. You were actually getting better as a debater. You are backsliding now.

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

Ok, here you go THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Thank you! Just like I linked and stated. Thank you for proving my point.

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

Col klink, no one is denying what the Iraqis said. However, they did not say what Murtha proposed. So try to stick on topic. At least Davad posted a link that basically backed up what my article said. You just want to turn this into a Bush bash again. And I will not let you. Comment on the article, or dont comment. Or I will delete. period.

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

He's not the only one. Seems to be a lot of that going around.

You can fix your problem. We can help if you are weak. But you have proved nothing that is contradictory to this article. So perhaps you can admit you are wrong? We will not think less of you for it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!