403-3

[rccar328]

Well, the Democrats had their chance - with Representative John Murtha being the latest figurehead to be used by the left wing, calling to have troops pulled out of Iraq, and claiming that the American people are against the war, it was put to a vote on Friday.

 

House Republicans basically told Democrats to back up their words with votes. The result: 403-3 against. Even Murtha didn't vote for the resolution.

 

Here is the question behind all of this: if it's really true that the war in Iraq is so horrible, and if it's really true that so many Americans are against the war, then what are the Dems afraid of? They are now calling the quick vote on the resolution a "political stunt," yet if pulling the troops out is the right thing to do, then why not turn it on the Republican's heads by voting for it? The Democrat's excuses here make entirely no sense.

 

Source

[THE BADGER:]

It's just another reason for the two parties to argue, instead of working together to solve this problem.

[ShadowTemplar]

Mighty thin point you got there, rccar, though I notice that your taste in newspapers has improved.

 

Without seeing the wording of the resolution it's impossible to draw the conclusion that the Democrats don't support Murtha. The fact that he himself didn't vote for it does suggest that the wording had been explicitly designed to be unacceptable or to represent a more radical view than the one Murtha argued.

 

Another possibility is that the democrats figured that the republicans would all vote against the protocol, and that would make the opposition to Operation Iraqi Screwup look like a partisan issue, when what they were angling for was bipartisan debate. The GOP party dicipline certainly held the distance, and it is entirely possible that what the Republicans tried to do was close the debate or derail it into the usual partisan trenches, both of which would have been accomplished by a decision by the Democrats to vote for the proposal en bloc.

 

It is highly probable that what we're seing here is an effort at damage control by the Republican leadership: Faced with growing disappointment in the administration's inability to handle Operation Iraqi Screwup, they decided to propose a resolution that would have turned the debate into a shouting match if the Democrats voted for it or give the appearance of the Democrats not being able to back up their rethoric if they voted against it.

 

Remember that the current administration like shouting matches because shouting matches lack nuance and maturity, and the key to winning a shouting match is dominating the media by being loud and easy to understand, while an honest debate is won by presenting real arguments and showing at least a semblance of intellectual honesty. The current administration is very, very good at the former (especially since their near-total dominance of the electronic media give them a considerable head start), and they are extremely poor at the latter, because their politics lack coherence, honesty, and intelligence.

[toms]

"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."

 

Thats what it looks like to me. Its similar to the war on terror and the partiot act... I suspect a lot of politicians have major reservations about a lot of things that are going on, but any hint of that and you get pounced on by the media as "liberal" and "unpatriotic". So they are all voting for things that are highly doubtful based on a fear of standing up and being counted.

 

That a guy wuldn't vote for a resolution backing him does imply that there was something else going on...

 

That said, the USA got into this mess, it can't bail out now, so I wouldn't want them to pass the resolution anyway... more honest debate and less fear mongering would be nice though...

[rccar328]

I agree that pulling out of Iraq would be a massive mistake - but Democratic congressmen have been calling for a pullout of Iraq for months (dare I say years?) now - Murtha is just the latest figurehead/political whore (in the vein of Joe Wilson and Cindy Sheehan) to be used by the MSM to preach an anti-war agenda.

 

The issue is this: if these Congressmen really believe that pulling out is the right thing to do, why are they afraid of being 'vilified?' What kind of a lame excuse is that?

 

"Well, I wanted to do the right thing, but I was afraid they'd say mean things about me!"

 

The entire reason for the resolution was because (as the Dems, particularly Murtha, said) the American people are against the war (at least, according to the latest polls). That being the case, what are they afraid of, really?

[Kain]

Probably the inevitable power vacuum that'll hit if we withdraw too soon.

[ET Warrior]

That being the case, what are they afraid of, really?

My guess would be fear of not getting re-elected. If they're vilified by national media seems there might be a decent enough chance they won't be back in office next election. And THAT is motivation for most politicians.

[ShadowTemplar]

You're still not producing the actual language of the resolution, rc. Without knowing the wording we cannot tell whether the resolution faithfully represents Murtha's sentiments. I believe that the debate is pointless until and unless you produce the evidence to back up you claim. While you're at it, it would certainly be nice if you got the context of those quotes in the article to go along with it.

 

To use your own rethoric: Back up your words with some evidence. Or is that request going to end 403-3 as well?

[rccar328]

Here is the resolution, as proposed by Murtha:

Link

 

The basic summation is this: in the "whereas" section, Murtha goes through all of the lies perpetrated by the MSM and the liberal wackos (Dean, Kennedy, etc.). Then, the bill basically says that because we're losing in Iraq and couldn't possibly win (which is only believed by those who buy buy into the doom and gloom lies about Iraq), we should pull our troops out, leaving a minimal "quick-reaction force" of marines, and solve the problems in Iraq diplomatically.

 

Now that I've read the actual resolution, I think Murtha's an even bigger idiot than I first believed. How this man made it into Congress is beyond me.

 

Now, in light of the President's speech yesterday morning (Nov. 30), any argument that the Democrats could give either for the withdraw of our troops or that we are somehow losing in Iraq basically fall flat on their faces. Our goal in Iraq was to set up an independant, democratic Iraqi government. Well, the Iraqis have voted on a constitution, and their parliamentary elections are coming up. I'd say we're succeeding. The Iraqi military and police forces are not only growing, but are becoming more and more self-sufficient every day. Sounds like success to me. We've lost just over 2,000 troops in the liberation of over 26 million people. As far as military campaigns go, that is a success of gargantuan proportions.

 

Where is the failure? I'm sure you wackos will come up with some lame explanation about why the sky is falling in Iraq, but I fail to care. The war in Iraq has been and continues to be a great success. If any part of the President's plan has been a failure, it's been his failure to adequately couter the arguments and lies of Washington liberals, and the Bush administration has been taking big steps to fix that.

[El Sitherino]

Not only is your post inflammatory, but it's also completely and utterly incorrect.

 

Congratulations on knowing absolutely jack **** about anything.

[StaffSaberist]

Not only is your post inflammatory, but it's also completely and utterly incorrect.

 

Congratulations on knowing absolutely jack **** about anything.

Perhaps his post is inflammatory. However, you cannot disregard the resolution which clearly shows a few things:

 

From the resolution itself:

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified

 

If that poll is accurate, and most polls have a ± 3% margin, this is an incredibly high number of people. Can you honestly say it's a good idea to pull out, knowing the terrorists may carry out their threat to "Make 9/11 look like a picnic"? I don't think so. If 45% of any country thinks we got what we deserve, we need to make sure that, at the very least, they aren't a threat to our land. And if we leave them alone, they should be closely monitored.

 

From the resolution itself:

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom

 

This number is tragic, but terribly small compared to, say, the bloodiest war in our history: The Civil War. Hundreds of thousands lay dead because of that war, an excess of 200,000. If this is incorrect, there is smoething very wrong with our school system here in the West. And if more soldiers are dying over there, I grieve for them... and appreciate that they died in Iraq, and not on Washington D.C. streets.

 

From the resolution itself:

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

I see. No doubt this is true. And I deeply regret that the enemy wasn't bombed in more locations. It would take out the terrorists, and save money and lives. However, are we going to let money, whose value can change, dictate whether we lose our freedom, whose value never changes? I can just imagine Arab terrorists busting in my door and killing me for making this post. Thus would be the norm if we let these terrorist ba****** win. They will not be allowed to continue attacking us while we have strength left. That sounds a lot more powerful than the Democrats' message:

 

"We will not allow the terrorists to continue attacking us - while we have money left."

 

Yes, money is an important consideration. Nonetheless, President Bush is well aware of our monetary situation. He has placed priority on freedom over money - a position I admire. I do not agree with our President on all points, but I definitely agree with the war on terror.

 

From the resolution itself:

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

 

What makes you think the terrorists are national terrorists. We are fighting on many fronts, Iraq not the least. Terrorists would still cross the borders and attack us. Even were this not true, what on Earth makes some think that the other leaders would go along with this?

 

And reaction-forces? React to what? Another attack on a massive scale? Why not stay in Iraq, disable the terrorists before they can repeat or exceed 9/11? Some say they want a smoking gun. I say this is a good idea on paper, but it doesn't apply to real life. If we wait for a smoking gun, the gun has been fired, and somebody is either wounded or dead. Waiting for the smoking gun - or the detonated chemical weapon - is an invitation for disaster. We must defeat the enemy before we leave.

 

And if we leave, this will show the terrorists that we have won... what? Nothing. That all this death will be worthless. Because we lost. Because we couldn't finish the job. George Bush Sr. made the same mistake when he invaded Iraq in 1991. He didn't kick Saddaam out of his bloodstained throne room. Instead, we left. Since then, the World Trade Center has been attacked at least twice - once using a car bomb, and once using airplanes as projectiles of destruction. Leaving now will give the enemy confidence that we are weak, especially - if he's not dead, dear God I hope he is - Usama Bin Laden.

 

In summary: I agree with this thread, but nit with the flame in the starter's previous post.

[TK-8252]

The problem with your argument is that you buy into the whole "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" crap. The insurgency in Iraq is made up of Iraqi citizens who want to kick the Americans out of Iraq, for one reason or another.

[StaffSaberist]

I disagree with you there, but I don't think I have a great chance of changing your mind there. However, I still firmly believe that the other foreign nations won't be any happier with us having our troops to "keep an eye on Iraq". Because that's what we are doing now: Keeping an eye on them. They would say something to the effect of:

 

"You wish to station troops here? Why? You can do that in the country you just attacked."

 

And they would have a valid point. And, all things aside, I still think we don't need an exit strategy so much as we need a strategy to win. OK, let's get the troops moving, sweep the entire country. Then, when the threat to our nation is neutralized, we can bring them home.

 

Ah, what-the-heck. You got me going, and do does the music playing. Is that "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" really such crap? They haven't hesitated to attack us before, have they? Nor have they failed to attack Spain (remember the train bombings?) and there WILL be more. By fighting here, I do not mean we will have a full-fledged war like in Iraq. I mean that we will be infiltrated by terrorist cells. Finding one these days is a big deal. If we don't stop the terrorists where they stand, finding 20 will be the norm - if we can do anything about it. It can be all hell in the USA. Right now, the only hell we have is a political firestorm.

 

And the enemy is not an insurgency. According to Encarta:

 

in·sur·gent [ in súrjənt ]

 

 

noun (plural in·sur·gents)

 

Definitions:

 

1. rebel: somebody who rebels against authority or leadership, especially somebody who belongs to a group involved in an uprising

 

 

2. political rebel: a member of a political party who rebels against the party leaders or policies

 

The enemy is not rebelling. They are the remnant of a loyalist group of terrorists called the former Iraqi government. Far-left liberals and far-right conservatives are insurgents of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. (Hey, I may be far-right in some ways, but I have my limits.) The word 'insurgent' is horribly misused by the media.

 

So, I'm not talking about continuous fighting, I'm talking about sporadic terrorist attacks, and far more often. And that is the main reason we cannot leave. Don't get me wrong: when the time comes, I will be for the withdrawl of troops, like everyone else. But the time is not come until the death-toll stops going up so fast in Iraq. They may hate our country, but they need not try to kill us to get us out. It means we'll be there to stay.

 

Also, the guy who wrote the proposal didn't say immediately get out of Iraq. He said at the earliest possible convenience. The Republicans played a little game, asking 'do we pull out now?' and that changed the whole proposal. That's why he didn't vote for it. He didn't say NOW, he said WHEN YOU CAN. The Repubs knew this, and they played a political game. They knew the bill, when so twisted, would never pass.

 

That should explain why he didn't vote for 'his own bill'. (Darn, second uber-post so far)

[edlib]

The problem with your argument is that you buy into the whole "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" crap. The insurgency in Iraq is made up of Iraqi citizens who want to kick the Americans out of Iraq, for one reason or another.

Exactly. And calculate in the fact that eventually the terrorists are going to figure out that it doesn't have to be an "either/ or" situation.

 

There's also absolutely no reason to believe that we can't be fighting them over there AND over here. So far it hasn't happened, but these folks aren't stupid, and eventually they will begin see the obvious. And much sooner than later, I think,.. That is to say if it hasn't already happened.

 

In fact, it probably works greatly to their advantage to have a huge chunk of our armed forces (as well as a huge portion of our attention and energies focused) overseas at the time, as well. I truly believe that all of the world's major terrorist organizations have the exact same goals as Bush and Co. in that respect: Keep American Troops in the Mid-East. Helps their recruiting, and provides a strategic distraction.

 

So if you enact a campaign of constant easily-executed, cheaply-produced low-level attacks on American troops stationed overseas to keep attention and debate focused there, as well as to try to strengthen the resolve of the administration and citizenry to "Stay-the-course"... all the while you could be planning a series of devastating attacks on the homeland that they never expect and will be completely unprepared to deal with.

[toms]

It would be nice and refreshing if politicians actually did what was right rather than what was popular... but I'm not sure i've seen it in my lifetime, as I doubt I will in the future.

 

I think rccar328 does have a point, but it seems to me that this Murtha guy is on the extremes of the debate, and its not much of a surprise that he didn't get a lot of support. It was a clever (if sneaky) move by the republicans to call him on it.

 

When the democrats SHOULD have stood up for what they felt was right was back just after 9/11 when Busgh was using public outrage to justify ayting and everything... but at that point they were too scared (and probably understandably) as the population and media was in no mood to hear rational arguments. Now its too late. All but the most strident anti-war protestors believe that (even if we shouldn't have gone in in the first place) withdrawing too early would be an even worse mistake.

So since they let the troops go in, they are stuck with that decision.

People can still think the war in iraq is terrible and wrong, that logically mean they should support pulling out. The two do not correlate.

 

I truly believe that all of the world's major terrorist organizations have the exact same goals as Bush and Co. in that respect: Keep American Troops in the Mid-East. Helps their recruiting, and provides a strategic distraction.

 

Exactly. The longer american forces remain in the region the more support al-quaida gets. But conversely, the stronger al-quaida gets the better it is for western politicians. Its a self sustaining symbiotic relationship.

Its always better to have an enemy to rail against...

[TK-8252]

The enemy is not rebelling. They are the remnant of a loyalist group of terrorists called the former Iraqi government. Far-left liberals and far-right conservatives are insurgents of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. (Hey, I may be far-right in some ways, but I have my limits.) The word 'insurgent' is horribly misused by the media.

 

Even the U.S. generals call them insurgents.

 

Also, Saddam was not supporting terrorists.

[StaffSaberist]

No, but he was a terrorist, to his own people. Thousands upon thousands are found dead in mass graves in Iraq.

[El Sitherino]

Well technically, most of the people he killed were political enemies trying to either kill him or remove him from power, by force. Which is also punishable by death in the US, treason and all.

But anyway, that's not really the point. The point is our political heads keep using buzzwords to terrify people into support.

 

I do agree about one thing though, removing a mass amount of troops at this point would be foolish. As it is, we've effectively proven these people were safer under Saddam's rule, as compared to now.

 

And Afghanistan has gone to ****, and we're doing nothing to help it.

[StaffSaberist]

I do agree about one thing though, removing a mass amount of troops at this point would be foolish. As it is, we've effectively proven these people were safer under Saddam's rule, as compared to now.

 

And Afghanistan has gone to ****, and we're doing nothing to help it.

 

[YodaVoice]I agree.[/YodaVoice]

 

I don't know that they invented insurgent, they would probably make the definition something other that "rebel". But, anyway, what I quoted is done so for truth.

[rccar328]

There's also evidence that this wasn't just Murtha's plan: Link

 

Basically what it gets down to is that Murtha's plan was cooked up by both he and Pelosi, endorsed by the Democratic Party conference...and then they mysteriously abandoned him when it came to a vote.

 

Also, this language they're using about withdrawing from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date" is misleading. I looked up 'practicable' just to make sure I had it right - it doesn't mean the same thing as 'practical', it basically means 'as soon as possible', or as soon as we possibly can - which means start moving troops out today, to withdraw all of them within a few months. And Murtha has been out there making sure his point was made, saying quite clearly that we should withdraw 'immediately'.

 

In fact, the President's plan, as he outlined it in his speech the other day, is to withdraw troops as soon as it is practical: when the Iraqi military and police forces can support themselves and adequately defend their own nation.

 

And to say that Saddam was not supporting terrorists is a bald-faced lie: there is documented proof that Saddam was paying large sums of money to Palestenian suicide bombers, as well as his harboring of known Al-Qaida leaders. This is not up for dispute, it's a known fact.

 

Also, it's largely understood (though not by all) that it's not an either/or situation when it comes to fighting them over there vs. over here. This is why we have things like the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Middle Eastern terrorists (I think from Iran) were caught just a couple of months ago trying to enter the US illegally from Mexico, and I've heard numerous stories of authorities raiding Al-Qaida training camps in the US - including one in the Bend, Oregon area, where I happen to have relatives (which is how I heard about it).

 

This is why the holisitic 'War on Terror' includes the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and measures to try and secure our homeland - because we don't want to become a nation like Israel, where Islamofascist anti-semites try to murder as many innocents as possible by blowing themselves up in busses and restaurants.

 

Well technically, most of the people he killed were political enemies trying to either kill him or remove him from power, by force. Which is also punishable by death in the US, treason and all.

Of course, there was that time that Saddam gassed an entire village because someone tried to assasinate him while he was there...but they were obviously all in on it.[/sarcasm] And were all of the women Saddam's sons raped traitors, too? How about those who were thrown in prison, tortured, maimed, killed, or left to die for the 'crime' of making negative comments about Saddam's regime? Did they deserve what they got?

 

All of that aside, though, if our forces are somehow 'feeding the insurgency' by inspiring new recruits, then the sooner we get the Iraqi military, police, and government up and running, the better, because when Iraq can defend itself and our troops can leave, the 'insurgency' will die. I think it'd be great if we could bring the troops home starting tomorrow...but we can't. To quote the President, we have to "stay the course."

 

The problem with the Democrats is that they don't have any defined policy, and absolutely no useful suggestions. Some drag out retired generals who say there aren't enough troops. Others say there are too many troops - that our military presence in Iraq is the root cause of the problem and that we should pull out ASAP. They're only unified in one thing: Bush is evil, Bush is wrong. They're out there constantly criticizing the President, but "pull out" is not a constructive suggestion, just a recipe for disaster. And if our military presence in Iraq is somehow making the problem worse, then sending even more troops in won't solve a thing. The answer: the President must be doing it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And on a side note...I apologize for being so 'inflamatory' in my last post...I got a little carried away.

[toms]

Hmm. did you link the right article? that Newsweek one paints Murtha in a much better light that i expected (actually has been to iraq for one thing) and has actually made me side more with him and the democrats than I was initially tending to do.

 

Did you read:

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.

 

Or the bits about how just as many people may be getting tortured by the current security forces (who surprisingly enough have the same attitude as the old security forces) as did under saddam? Its a harsh country, in a harsh region, with lots of antagonistic ethnic groups... which is why its similar to all other such countries in having harsh rulers. But we don't invade them.

 

Lets not drag up the old "saddam supported terrorists" argument. You know as well as anyone that is patently untrue. he may have supported palestinians, but so does saudi arabia, and every other anti israel country in the world. He didn't support any al quaida terrorists in any attacks on the US though.

 

THe US needs to get things stable as soon as possible (hihc probably requires more troops not less int he short term) and then get out. But since 90% of the troops will be the same as the ones under saddam people shouldn't expect an overnight improvement in the way they act. But while the US is there they are just recruiting more and more soldiers tothe al quaida cause.

 

(side note: there are two factors at the root of 99% of the problems - they are the Saudi Royal Family and Israel. If you don't address those problems you are just cutting heads off hydra....)

[rccar328]

Lets not drag up the old "saddam supported terrorists" argument. You know as well as anyone that is patently untrue. he may have supported palestinians...

Here you openly contradict yourself..."You know Saddam didn't support terrorists...he may have supported those terrorist, but so does every other anti-semetic nation in the Middle East" is no argument - other Middle Eastern nations who support Palestenian terrorism are just as guilty on that count.

 

As for your quote from the article, the only bill I could find through the House website was the one proposed by Murtha - from what I've heard, all the Republicans did to the bill was put it to a very quick, very public vote. I would call that spin from Newsweek.

 

THe US needs to get things stable as soon as possible (hihc probably requires more troops not less int he short term) and then get out. But since 90% of the troops will be the same as the ones under saddam people shouldn't expect an overnight improvement in the way they act. But while the US is there they are just recruiting more and more soldiers to the al quaida cause.

I agree with you here in part: the US does need to get things stable as soon as possible and then get out...but things are going well the way they are - they just aren't being reported that way by the MSM. I have heard over and over and over and over troops who served and/or are currently serving in Iraq who say that they see the news and wonder what kind of twilight zone the news agencies are living in because the actual situation on the ground is extremely different from what is being reported. The problem is the media mantra, "if it bleeds, it leads." Our news agencies are giving us all of the bad news and none, or extremely little, of the good, making it appear as though we're losing, when we are in fact succeeding tremendously.

 

(side note: there are two factors at the root of 99% of the problems - they are the Saudi Royal Family and Israel. If you don't address those problems you are just cutting heads off hydra....)

So the anti-semitism of Islamic nations has nothing to do with it...it's just Israel's fault? That argument doesn't hold water. The fact that many of the world's Muslims are hacked off by the fact that the nation of Israel exists or even that there are any Jews left living on planet Earth doesn't give them license to kill innocents.

 

Its a harsh country, in a harsh region, with lots of antagonistic ethnic groups... which is why its similar to all other such countries in having harsh rulers. But we don't invade them.

Frankly, I think some of them (Iran, to name just one) could use a good invasion. Jimmy Carter really screwed that nation up - the Shah wasn't perfect, to be sure, but he was definitely preferable to Khomeini, or the current administration there. Whether we will invade is another matter entirely...but even in the absence of an invasion, a good revolution would do Iran some good.

[El Sitherino]

I'd like to remind you once again to avoid posting inflammatory comments.

Anti-Israel != Anti-Semite.

[TK-8252]

Here you openly contradict yourself..."You know Saddam didn't support terrorists...he may have supported those terrorist, but so does every other anti-semetic nation in the Middle East" is no argument - other Middle Eastern nations who support Palestenian terrorism are just as guilty on that count.

 

The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

[rccar328]

I'd like to remind you once again to avoid posting inflammatory comments.

Anti-Israel != Anti-Semite.

Whether anti-Israel is synonymous with anti-semite or not, many of the Arab terrorist groups, as well as Iran, have endorsed the elimination of Israel not only out of nationalistic/state policy issues, but because there Jews in Israel. Not all anti-Israel sentiment is anti-semitic, but much of it is, and that is what I am referring to.

 

The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

No, they didn't; Al-Qaida did. And Saddam both harbored and aided Al-Qaida terrorist and leaders.