Dovie, you know they called Murtha a coward because they can't stand the idea of discussing what he had to say.
It's really a shame that Jean Schmidt got elected over Paul Hackett, but it did free him to run against Mike Dewine for the Senate. (And both Col. Hackett and Sherod Brown are leading Dewine in all the polls. Hopefully it will continue, because we are poorly represented in the Senate as it stands now.)
Actually it was worse, they were too coward to call him a coward so they put her up to make a fool of herself doing so, and of course she has been rightly rediculed as would have any of the GOP elders had they had the guts to do it themselves.
It sounds like she was ill treated by her leadership. And her attacks on Congressman Murtha will not help the dicey re-election prospects of Sen. Santorum, who is running against a Democrat who politically is a lot like Murtha. Are we seeing a political party self-destruct?
Dovie, you know they called Murtha a coward because they can't stand the idea of discussing what he had to say.
I believe what he had to say was covered in that 403-3 vote on the Senate floor.
Ezzie, read the post again you dimwit. The resolution the voted on wasn't the resolution that Murtha proposed. "Republicans, who are forever whining about Democrats "playing politics," submitted a different resolution!"
And it was voted in the House, not the Senate (403-3 vote in the Senate? When they have but 100 members?)
Wow! Politicians playing politics! Who would have thunk?
Remember that next time you whine about dems doing it... and obviously it worked, b/ Ezzie beleives that Murtha's resolution was rejected, when in fact Murtha's resolution was not even put forward for a vote.
The differences between the two aren't that striking. Murtha's version calls for them to redeployed at the earliest practical date, the GOP's version leaves that out. Murtha's Section 2 and 3 are just filler.
Sorry, I meant House floor.
I'm trying to find it... I saw an article 2 days ago that took exactly what you said and debunked it. Hmmm...
403-3 in the senate LOL (what with all the multiple personalities...)
Yay! Found it: Here.
Murtha:
1 - Let's leave *as soon as possible*
2 - We'll leave Marines to keep things peaceful
3 - And we'll use diplomacy to solve any remainng trouble
House Republicans
1 - Let's leave NOW
2 - NOw NOW NOW
Not that striking? Who's zooming who CWY?
Ezzie, your article is idiotic. Murtha's resolution says: "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. "
Earliest. Practicable. Date.
Not "immidiate" Earliest. Practicable. Date.
The key points are the ones taken from Murtha's own website.
both resolutions call for US troops to be withdrawn, for ending the war.
Immediate/ earliest practicle date is just a matter of semantics, as even if Congress approved the GOP version, any withdrawal would take a couple of months.
Murtha wants US troops out of Iraq. Period.
He said it himself, that US troops the cause of the "insurgency"
ROFL
It's not semantics.
Murth said one thing (three things actually), and the House voted on something else altogether!
Come on CWY, you'r enot usually so foolish. Has the GOP really become so hard to defend?
Earliest. Practicable. Date.
Oy, Db - just for you: DovBear vs. Truth.
I don't care about 2 and 3- it's just fluff...
Murtha wants US troops out of Iraq, the GOP version of his bill would do just that.
CWY - you'd like my post as well. Murtha himself said he'd have the troops home within 6 months - that would require immediate withdrawal; and the Times and others were understanding and reporting his statements as immediate - until the Republican proposal. Then their words switched to "swift".
Ezzie, you are an idiot. If it was the same resolution, why was it changed? Why did it take three days to vote on? Shouldn't they have just voted on it right away, using the original language?
Sometimes you are so stupid it makes me weep.
don't care about 2 and 3- it's just fluff...
Murtha wants US troops out of Iraq, the GOP version of his bill would do just that.
Murtha wanted them out when it was practicble, and he wanted Marines to stay behind to keep the peace.
The GOP said PULL THEM OUT NOW, EVERYONE, NOW.
That's irresponsible, and we all know it, and it isn't what Murtha proposed.
Just for kicks...
Today the House voted on Murtha's resolution. The vote?
403-3 Against.
Murtha was one of the 403.
Link:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/...005/
roll608.xml
>Murtha wanted them out when it was practicble, and he wanted Marines to stay behind to keep the peace.
No he wants to keep the Marines to be deployed in the region. That doesn't mean leave them in Iraq, most likely in a carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf.
Earliest practiable date means as soon as logistically possible. In other words, ASAP!
Can we not ignore the fact that sudden interest in the GOP for any suddent psontaneous withdrawal is in direct response tothe president's plummeting approval rating causing their fear of losoing control of the house and senate next year?
Today the House voted on Murtha's resolution. The vote?
403-3 Against.
Romach, that wasn't today, and it wasn't Murtha resolution. That's the resolution the GOP leadership put forward. It isn't what Murtha proposed or wanted.
Earliest practiable date means as soon as logistically possible. In other words, ASAP!
So why did the thugs change the wording? Hmmmmm?
Use your brain.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: DovBear thinks it would be irresponsible to withdraw troops "immediately." But it would be perfectly okay to withdraw troops "when it is practicable." So had the Senate voted to withdraw troops in, say, six months, would that be responsible? When does DovBear think it would be "practicable" to withdraw troops? If the war is a mistake, why in God's name would it be irresponsible to withdraw troops "immediately"? Murtha was perfectly clear in his statements that he seeks to withdraw troops as soon as possible -- i.e., let's set a time frame to get out of Iraq as fast as we can.
Everyone who favors an "immediate" withdrawal knows that, practically speaking, it would still take several months. Practically speaking, there is little difference between the two resolutions.
Uh huh. So why change the language?
Answer that. If its the same resolution WHY CHANGE THE LANGUAGE?
Yelling won't make your question stronger. What's wrong with the resolution as it was proposed...
>WHY CHANGE THE LANGUAGE?
because it's a stronger use of words, that more clearly identifies the position of those who think the war was and is a mistake, and therefor every additional second that we are there is a risk to our troops.
WHY CHANGE THE LANGUAGE?
Easy: to emphasize that, when it comes to good policy, Murtha's proposed resolution to withdraw in six months is synonymous with an immediate withdrawal. Murtha's resolution invariably sends the message that America prefers to surrender and give the insurgents a victory rather than kill them.
To call for ANY withdrawal -- either immediately, in six months, or in two years -- before the insurgents are defeated is equally foolish. It simply sends the message that the terrorists need only wait us out and that America lacks the will to destroy them. That will only encourage more terrorism, and send a message to Islamic extremists the world over that America is a paper tiger whose policies can be influenced with simply more suicide bombings. It is a recipe for more and greater terrorism.
Changing the language of the resolution highlights the fallacy of talk of any withdrawal, and that is what the GOP leadership wanted to emphasize. Instead of asking, "Why change the language?," DovBear should attempt to answer, "Why exactly is it somehow more responsible to withdraw in six months (Murtha's proposal of when it would be 'practicable') than it is to withdraw 'immediately' (the GOP proposal)?" The answer is that it's not. They are both wrong-headed proposals, and for exactly the same reason. Changing the language highlights that fact.
Withdrawal of forces from Iraq must be linked with progress on the ground in defeating the insurgents and building Iraqi security forces. Anything less will encourage, not reduce, terrorist outrages.
Republicans really do eat their children. They get their newest member to make a fool of herself by attacking Murtha, and now Bush and Cheney have both defended Murtha:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051...o_pr_wh/
us_iraq
If I were a Republican member of congress I'd start watching my back.
To top it all off... Murtha's website finished with:
IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
CAPS his. Hard to understand that other than... it's time to bring them home.
Republicans really do eat their children. They get their newest member to make a fool of herself by attacking Murtha, and now Bush and Cheney have both defended Murtha
Democrats really do eat their children. They get their most credible military Congressman to make a fool of himself by calling for an immediate withdrawal, and now Hillary Clinton (who will almost certainly be the next president) has defended staying in Iraq.
Seriously, Charlie, you're better than this piffle.
The fact the the GOP changed the language of Murthas proposal shows conclusivly that what they proposed it not what Murtha proposed. They changed the labguage for the purpose of embaressing him, and for the purpose of suffocating debate of Murtha's ideas.
Don't be dense.
The fact the the GOP changed the language of Murthas proposal shows conclusivly that what they proposed it not what Murtha proposed. They changed the labguage for the purpose of embaressing him, and for the purpose of suffocating debate of Murtha's ideas.
Don't be dense.
Politics? In Congress? My Heavens!
Ok, before we talk about whether or not what they did was good or bad, we need to agree that they did something. Thank you Moishe for taking the first step.
(and I have to say, I am not sure that they did anything "wrong" but we need to at least be clear that they did something, and that they did it for the purpose of weakening or embarrasing Mutha's position. There were no noble intentions behind the language change.)
More, some GOPers said that Schmidt had no idea that Murtha was a Marine. Small microbes on Mars were aware of that fact by the time the House met to discuss that "sense" of Congress.
She drove me up a TREE with those remarks. I am definitely going to send all I can to her opponent in 2006.
Thank you Moishe for taking the first step.
My pleasure. Of course, being neither a Republican nor someone convinced that George Bush is the ideal philosopher-king, I don't really have a dog in this fight, so my concession doesn't carry the value of some of these other folks.
I do support the war, though, and I'm not sure what Murtha thinks will happen to prevent another 9/11-sorta thing if we let Iraq fall apart. Short- and long-term, that is.
I am quite happy to recognize that most of the Democrats' (with the exception of John Kerry, who seems to stand for nothing other than the opportunistic regurgitation of the latest anti-Bush headlines) objections seem sincere, though. I just disagree with their assumptions. Nothing firmly provable, just my impressions of how the world works.
(and I have to say, I am not sure that they did anything "wrong" but we need to at least be clear that they did something, and that they did it for the purpose of weakening or embarrasing Mutha's position. There were no noble intentions behind the language change.)
Wow. Shocking admittance.
Nobody is arguing that they did it to weaken or belittle Murtha's position. The question is if they were justified in doing so - you said above that they were not, I and others argued they were. It's politics, and an important point to make - immediate withdrawal is a terrible idea.
Was it nobly intended? Not really - it was results-oriented. Make the point as clearly as possible, as in: "This is what he wants. Do you think that's good?!"
Ezzie - you were arguing that they hadn't done anything of significance. Don't change your view now.
I'm still arguing that.
DovBear writes: "The fact the the GOP changed the language of Murthas proposal shows conclusivly that what they proposed it not what Murtha proposed. They changed the labguage for the purpose of embaressing him, and for the purpose of suffocating debate of Murtha's ideas.
"Don't be dense."
You completely missed my point. Yes, they changed the language, and they did so in order to emphasize the logical fallacy to which Murtha's proposal would lead and hence to discredit him. That is not the issue.
The issue is: why does Murtha's original proposal deserve to be taken any more seriously than the GOP version? Why is Murtha's proposal somehow more responsible? Please answer this question.
The fact that Murtha is a Vietnam veteran and a highly respected member of Congress does not mean that anything he says ipso facto is right. The burden of proof still remains with his supporters to demonstrate that committing to withdrawing from Iraq within six months (which is Murtha's own statement of when it would be "practicable") will be a positive step.
If committing to withdrawing from Iraq "immediately" is irresponsible, there is no logical reason that committing to withdraw within six months is somehow more appropriate. Both are wrong because they hinge on pre-set timetables and not progress on the ground; hence, they are both equally disastrous propositions.
Commenting by HaloScan
