erynthered Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w112413S14.DTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal. I have a plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I'm real excited. Woo Hoo. Sure changes everything, don't it? No one here yet has mentioned China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I'm real excited. Woo Hoo. Sure changes everything, don't it? No one here yet has mentioned China. 506924[/snapback] China Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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: http://www.11alive.com/specials/local/deci...x?storyid=72168 506911[/snapback] Murtha had a thoughtful approach to the situation? When did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Murtha had a thoughtful approach to the situation? When did that happen? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. 506995[/snapback] No, I'm saying this was worse. They sounded like high schoolers petitioning the school board to have the prom moved somewhere..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I'm real excited. Woo Hoo. Sure changes everything, don't it? No one here yet has mentioned China. 506924[/snapback] I, for one, am calling for an immediate pullout from China in six months! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts