Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
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 7)
7 PagesFirst 5 6 7 
on Nov 29, 2005
But do not forget we helped Saddam when we wanted to fight the Soviets.


Soviets, or Iranians?
on Nov 29, 2005

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.

I agree.  There are many here on JU that opposed the war, but very few advocating cutting and running (most of the loony left cant stand the fact that not everyone beleives as they do, so they leave).

I am not so myopic as to think that Iraq is a mini US (God forbid it is anything like the EU).  But while the government of Iraq may not be our bossom buddies, neither do I think they will necessarily hate the US. Unless the Terrorist win.

on Nov 29, 2005

ONE key word here!

Exactly!  If we do it right, we may not have little New York over there, but then we wont have Tehran II either.

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.

No, Col, you are wrong again.  Prior to the Shah being toppled, Iran was on our Side, Iraq was always on the USSRs side.  After the fall of the Shah, we tried to cozy up to Saddam, but not too cozy.  We gave him nothing during the Iran-Iraq War except intel.  After the war, we had to kick them out of Kuwait.  IN effect, the only time that the US was even remotely friendly with Saddam was during the Iran Iraq war, and then due to the maxim of "The enemy of my Enemy is my friend".  And that was a perfect case to disprove that rule.

on Nov 29, 2005

Soviets, or Iranians?

He is confused.  You know them Persians look just like the Cossacks.

on Nov 29, 2005
Yes I ment Iran. The point is the same. And Yes we could end up with Iran II and then we will have made a bad situation worse!
on Nov 29, 2005

And Yes we could end up with Iran II and then we will have made a bad situation worse!

We could also end up with Kuwait II.

7 PagesFirst 5 6 7