Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position — whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

 

Politics as usual, but a pretty smart move on their part.

 

I tried to find how it turned out, and this is what I found:

 

Democrats say that's a "counterfeit" resolution, charging it guts Murtha's thoughtful approach to the situation.

 

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, who is the lowest in seniority, recounted a message a Marine colonel wanted to send to Murtha.

 

She said he told her that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

 

Democrats booed and shouted her down, bringing the House to a standstill.

http://www.11alive.com/specials/local/deci...x?storyid=72168

Posted
Murtha had a thoughtful approach to the situation?  When did that happen?  :lol:

506980[/snapback]

He did use some pretty big words. Maybe that's what they meant?

 

I'm actually watching C-SPAN now. They've reconvened and it is absolutely hillarious

Posted
He did use some pretty big words.  Maybe that's what they meant?

 

I'm actually watching C-SPAN now.  They've reconvened and it is absolutely hillarious

506985[/snapback]

I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.

Posted
I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.

506989[/snapback]

 

As though the past two presidential elections - hell, the friggin' primaries - have featured candidates with Churchillian oratory skills.

 

Maybe that's the problem: American politicians don't slam a quart of scotch before giving a speech. Maybe Congress needs a three drink minimum. :lol:

Posted

So Murtha suggests a withdrawal perhaps starting in six months at the earliest, and the Republicans demand an immediate vote for immediate withdrawal to see if the Dems side with Murtha, who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal?

Posted
So Murtha suggests a withdrawal perhaps starting in six months at the earliest, and the Republicans demand an immediate vote for immediate withdrawal to see if the Dems side with Murtha, who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal?

506996[/snapback]

Unfortunately, all the headlines in the US and around the world said something along the lines of "Leading Democratic Congressman calls for Immediate Withdrawal". So whatever Murtha was trying to say yesterday, he ended up saying something that caused a whole lot of damage.

Posted
As though the past two presidential elections - hell, the friggin' primaries - have featured candidates with Churchillian oratory skills. 

 

Maybe that's the problem: American politicians don't slam a quart of scotch before giving a speech.  Maybe Congress needs a three drink minimum.  :lol:

506995[/snapback]

No, I'm saying this was worse. They sounded like high schoolers petitioning the school board to have the prom moved somewhere.....

Posted
Unfortunately, all the headlines in the US and around the world said something along the lines of "Leading Democratic Congressman calls for Immediate Withdrawal".  So whatever Murtha was trying to say yesterday, he ended up saying something that caused a whole lot of damage.

507000[/snapback]

So who's fault is that? The liberal media? Murtha himself for people not listening to what he said? I know it couldn't be The Republicans in the House for being completely disingenuous.

Posted
So Murtha suggests a withdrawal perhaps starting in six months at the earliest, and the Republicans demand an immediate vote for immediate withdrawal to see if the Dems side with Murtha, who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal?

506996[/snapback]

 

Actually, starting immediately. I don't know where this "six months" thing is coming from; Murtha never said that. What he said was "before the Iraqi elections in December. (And my source for that is the actual text of his statement, so if any of you idiots want to argue with me, look it up first.)

 

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally think there's just a slight bit of difference between "December" and "six months from now".

Posted
Actually, starting immediately.  I don't know where this "six months" thing is coming from; Murtha never said that.  What he said was "before the Iraqi elections in December.  (And my source for that is the actual text of his statement, so if any of you idiots want to argue with me, look it up first.) 

 

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally think there's just a slight bit of difference between "December" and "six months from now".

507011[/snapback]

No, the actual text of his "speech" said before the election they would be "put on notice" that we were leaving. His own resolution said that a smooth withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date" would take at least six months. And we would keep a force in the region. I shouldnt have said "starting" in six months, it was to take six months, starting at the earliest practicable date, which he specifically said would be with the safety of the forces taken into question.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111802530.html

 

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_...051117iraq.html

Posted
I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.

506989[/snapback]

 

I think it might have to do with the fact that most of their speeches are given after hours when everybody has gone home and the chambers are empty, for the benefit of the C-span cameras. A lot less pressure!

 

IMO it is criminal that the cameras are not allowed (or is this an urban myth?) to scan the chambers and show that there is nobody listening, let alone debating...

Posted
I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.

506989[/snapback]

..and in the White House.

 

Some lawyers try cases, those who can't apparently run for congress. :lol:

Posted
So who's fault is that? The liberal media? Murtha himself for people not listening to what he said? I know it couldn't be The Republicans in the House for being completely disingenuous.

507007[/snapback]

If Murtha didn't understand how the media would report his statements, he's too out of touch to be in Congress. These are the same people calling him a "hawk" when he's been publicly saying the war is "unwinnable" for at least 18 months.

 

Like he didn't think he was giving NYT, LAT, WP, and al-Jazeera the headline they were all dreaming about.....

Posted
If Murtha didn't understand how the media would report his statements, he's too out of touch to be in Congress.  These are the same people calling him a "hawk" when he's been publicly saying the war is "unwinnable" for at least 18 months.

 

Like he didn't think he was giving NYT, LAT, WP, and al-Jazeera the headline they were all dreaming about.....

507190[/snapback]

Of course he knew what he was doing and what he was saying. And he does want a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as it is feasible. What he doesn't want, and never said, is that all troops should come home immediately, which is what the GOP congressman put on the floor. That is something they knew he didnt say and didn't mean, they were just being pricks, regardless of anything the media said or did in its reporting. To blame this on the media is just embarrassing.

×
×
  • Create New...