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 6)

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

Our staying is not solving anything.

I think Ted said it best. leaving with the job half done would be like racing to an accident, performing triage, and then telling the wounded to find a hospital and leaving. Our staying is doing a lot of good, and if you had even one honest bone in your body, you would admit that even tho you hate Bush.

singrdave

on Nov 28, 2005

God help us if we leave behind another Iran!

Which is exactly what we will leave behind if we pull out now! Yes, Murtha was right that we need to discuss it. Bad idea. End of discussion. It would be grossly irresponsible for the United States to leave Iraq in the state that it is in.

Guarantee you that within six months you'd have a lawless state turn into an Islamo-fascist regime like Afghanistan. That was how the Taliban came to power after the Soviets pulled out.

Hey wait a minute! There is a real-world parallel! What do you know?

Good Point

on Nov 28, 2005

That's not a discussion. Discussion restarted. The problem is there is no good ending to this story. Our very presence there is causing a lot of problems. We can't stay there forever. But pulling out right away without hurting those who attack us will be a repeat of the Somalia Syndrome. At some point we have to realize there are certain things we are not capable of bringing to Iraq, and we must set realistic, achievable goals.

Guarantee you that within six months you'd have a lawless state turn into an Islamo-fascist regime like Afghanistan.

Much of Iraq already IS a lawless wasteland, and also problematic is the strong possibility that a harsh anti-American Sharia government could be elected into power.

That was how the Taliban came to power after the Soviets pulled out.

Hey wait a minute! There is a real-world parallel! What do you know?

The Taliban came to power for numerous reasons. One is that they provided security amid the anarchy. Something we didn't do from the beginning. We let oversensitivity to bullshit left-wing grievances become a concern, as if these people had American interests in mind.

I do question why the conventional assumption is that Afghanistan wouldn't have fallen into turmoil regardless of the actors involved.

Good Point

on Nov 28, 2005

False analogies can cause a lot of problems. The complexities involved in war, peace, Islam, occupation, etc. render the analaogy between

critically wounded patient : Paramedic :: Iraq : America

meaningless

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

The Taliban came to power for numerous reasons.

Iraq is not Afghanistan. That does not mean it can be as bad, but at least we are trying to ensure it does not.

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

False analogies can cause a lot of problems. The complexities involved in war, peace, Islam, occupation, etc. render the analaogy between

No, that was a good analogy. We performed triage, now we have to get the patient to the hospital. not give him a set of car keys and say see you later.

Good Point

on Nov 28, 2005

No, that was a good analogy. We performed triage, now we have to get the patient to the hospital. not give him a set of car keys and say see you later.

No; Dog : Puppy :: Cat : Kitten is a good analogy.

critically wounded patient : Paramedic :: Iraq : America is a false analogy. Geopolitics, war, religion, culture, are far too complex to reduced to simple analogy.

COL Gene

on Nov 28, 2005

We may leave behind another Iran no matter how long we stay. Then we will be wishing for Saddam.

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

critically wounded patient : Paramedic :: Iraq : America is a false analogy. Geopolitics, war, religion, culture, are far too complex to reduced to simple analogy.

Not when you understand the situation.

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

Then we will be wishing for Saddam.

We never did. You did.

Good Point

on Nov 28, 2005

Not when you understand the situation.

No, Dr. Guy. No four-part analogy is capable of describing the complexities of the world. There's a reason why the Wikipedia articles on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq consists of much much more than a four-part analogy.

I'm curious as to your extent of your "understanding of the situation." Please, go on.

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

I'm curious as to your extent of your "understanding of the situation." Please, go on.

I am not an expert. But I know if we cut and run, without establishing a stable government, they have no chance. If we do establish a stable one, they have a chance.

The people (most of them) do want a chance. They need the opportunity. We must provide it for them, and contrary to the MSM reports, it is happening. What you see there is just the Bush Hate. Other sources show a better picture. Even the Iraqis see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Good Point

on Nov 28, 2005

I am not an expert. But I know if we cut and run, without establishing a stable government, they have no chance. If we do establish a stable one, they have a chance.

I understand your point, and I also don't claim to be an expert, but I think any stable government that will arise in Iraq will not be to our liking (such as a liberal democracy on par with ours or Western Europe), and will almost certainly be anti-American. I think we're between a rock and a hard place. I don't agree with an immediate cut and run. THAT will embolden the terrorists, to use the phrase. Something along the lines of Operation Linebacker will have to be undertaken against the insurgency before we leave; I don't mean tactically similar, but strategically similar. There's nothing wrong with being an optimist, just don't lose sight of reality. Keep the goals realistic.

The people (most of them) do want a chance. They need the opportunity. We must provide it for them, and contrary to the MSM reports, it is happening. What you see there is just the Bush Hate. Other sources show a better picture. Even the Iraqis see the light at the end of the tunnel.

What I see, and most of the evidence emerging out of Iraq appears to support what I'm saying, that most Americans, and in fact, most non-arabs and non-moslems, don't understand is the intense tribalism and sectarianism that exists there, along with our wishful thinking about Islam, that makes the goals we wish to accomplish so far-fetched I can no longer seriously entertain them.

I think it would do you well to understand (which I think you do, but sometimes forget) that the opposition to the war in/occupation of Iraq comes from many factions; not everyone against the war is a liberal or a communist, although many are. They oppose the war on far different grounds. There's an anti-war left, anti-war right, anti-war libertarians, anarchists, pacifists, conspiracy theorists, etc. Most of them on the left do so out of anti-Americanism and will use any argument, even ones from the right that contradict their own arguments. Unfortunately now, those who are supposedly on the right, like anti-war.com and LewRockwell.com, are falling into this camp too. They use anything, even those of left-wing nature. Those last two sites I actually consider being part of the anti-American right wing.

Here is some follow-up reading on where I'm coming from:

John Derbyshire: Ten Points on the War - March 27, 2003
John Derbyshire: Third Way In Iraq - April 14, 2004
John Derbyshire: A Neocon Crashes VDare - April 28, 2004
John Derbyshire: Lessons From Iraq - May 5, 2004
John Derbyshire: Good Evening, Iraq - September 14, 2004
John Derbyshire: Nice Election: Now Let's Get Out of There - February 8, 2005

Lawrence Auster at View From The Right is someone I highly recommend, offering "The passing scene and what it's about viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect Right."

Lawrence Auster: The Dangers of "Democratization" - March 6, 2003
Lawrence Auster: The Dream of Iraqi Democratization vs. the Reality of Iraqi Violence - April 20, 2004

drmiler

on Nov 28, 2005

We may leave behind another Iran no matter how long we stay. Then we will be wishing for Saddam.

ONE key word here!

COL Gene

on Nov 29, 2005

No Dr Guy I did not wish for any such thing. But do not forget we helped Saddam when we wanted to fight the Soviets.

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!