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 3)

davad70

on Nov 25, 2005

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.

What are you talking about? I provided you a link to the congressional record that shows the resolution that Murtha introduced on the 17th. The COMPLETE resolution. So how is that an after the fact CYA like you keep insisting?

davad70

on Nov 25, 2005

At least Davad posted a link that basically backed up what my article said.

How did the link I provided back up what you said? You said;

Bowdlerized? It stated exactly what Murtha did!

here's the definition of bowdlerized;

bowd·ler·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bdl-rz, boud-)
tr.v. bowd·ler·ized, bowd·ler·iz·ing, bowd·ler·iz·es
To expurgate (a book, for example) prudishly.
To modify, as by shortening or simplifying or by skewing the content in a certain manner.

Ok, now that we have that out of the way look at the entire text of both of the resolutions, not any statements or quotes from other articles...the actual resolutions that are part of the congressional record you keep referring to. The one Murtha submitted on the 17th Link
and the one the GOP submitted on the 18thLink

Would the GOP's version not qualify as a bowdlerized version of Murtha's?

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

What are you talking about? I provided you a link to the congressional record that shows the resolution that Murtha introduced on the 17th. The COMPLETE resolution. So how is that an after the fact CYA like you keep insisting?

And it is exactly what I 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.

That is what I said! Are you esl? Seriously!

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Friday, November 25, 2005

No, at least he tried to! You are just a jerk. Buh, buh bye!

Dr Guy

on Nov 25, 2005

How did the link I provided back up what you said? You said;

Bowdlerized? It stated exactly what Murtha did!

here's the definition of bowdlerized;

bowd·ler·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bdl-rz, boud-)
tr.v. bowd·ler·ized, bowd·ler·iz·ing, bowd·ler·iz·es
To expurgate (a book, for example) prudishly.
To modify, as by shortening or simplifying or by skewing the content in a certain manner.

Very good! Now prove it wrong. PROVE it wrong. No opinions. FACTS. Do it! Or just be a sheeple.

davad70

on Nov 25, 2005

And it is exactly what I said!

Well, I guess you'll have to define what an "after the fact CYA" is.

After what? This is the resolution that he introduced in congress. This resolution is what started it all. So what did it come after?

Very good! Now prove it wrong. PROVE it wrong. No opinions. FACTS. Do it! Or just be a sheeple.

I just proved it wrong. Did you read the definition of what that word means? Once again, Murtha's original resolution is;

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.

The GOP resolution is;

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

You don't see that as shortened and simplified?

The only thing their resolution calls for is the deployment be terminated immediately. Immediate means right now.
Murtha said "at the earliest practicable date." Another shortened and simplified concept of Murtha's resolution.

In addition, the GOP resolution omitted the following;

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.

Once again, bowdlerized.

davad70

on Nov 25, 2005

No opinions. FACTS.

Where exactly have I stated any opinions regarding this whole issue? I have provided dated transcripts of the actual congressional record and working links to the above. All of which show that you don't know what you're talking about when you say that what I provided is an after the fact CYA.

Your first link doesn't even work.

stevendedalus

on Nov 25, 2005

The fact remains that Murtha set the issue ablaze; and the administration blinked.

ParaTed2k

on Nov 25, 2005

Murtha didn't set anything in motion that wasn't already in motion. Prs. Bush has said that we won't abandon Iraq. We will stay until the Iraq government decides they are ready and asks us to leave.

What happened in Cairo was the government of Iraq assessing their situation and coming to an agreement on what that means.

Of course Iraq wants foreign troops out of their nation as soon as it is able. Why do people want to play politics with this great news? Link

Dr Guy

on Nov 26, 2005

just proved it wrong. Did you read the definition of what that word means? Once again, Murtha's original resolution is;

Again, you proved me right!

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.

What part of that do you not understand? You might want to reread the bolded part!

Dr Guy

on Nov 26, 2005

Where have you stated any facts to refute me? Do you even know how to debate? Geez! You are a fish in a barrell!

Dr Guy

on Nov 26, 2005

The fact remains that Murtha set the issue ablaze; and the administration blinked

Now that is a great response! I dont think blinked, I think reacted. ANd in that I think it was about time.

Just seeing different sides of the elephant!

Dr Guy

on Nov 26, 2005

Of course Iraq wants foreign troops out of their nation as soon as it is able. Why do people want to play politics with this great news?

Short answer? They hate bush. And so even when his predictions are realized, they try to paint it as bad news.

davad70

on Nov 26, 2005

Where have you stated any facts to refute me? Do you even know how to debate? Geez! You are a fish in a barrell!

All over the place, but you will never admit to being the misinformed sheeple that you are. It's no fun with you on this one any more because you refuse to comprehend what you even wrote. If you can't even comprehend your own words there is not much chance of you understanding someone else's.

I'll talk to you the next time you spread your misinformation.

Dr Guy

on Nov 26, 2005

All over the place,

No, NOwhere!

You have not posted any facts yet! Now try to post one! Start with one! Go from there.

Do not insult us again.

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!