House GOP Seeks Quick Vote on Iraq

[Ghost of BiB]

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.

507202[/snapback]

 

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?

[Alaska Darin]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?

507208[/snapback]

Shhh. We're talking about feel good liberal crap, not actual "cause and effect" stuff.

[Campy]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?

507208[/snapback]

Not arguing that it is or isn't, but watching this debate and vote on C-SPAN last night (I remember when I actually had a life), it was stated (although I forget by whom) and went unchallenged that the top US military leaders in Iraq either just have, or are about to, submit a plan to pull out.

 

I know you said "specific timeline," and we have no idea what their plan may (or may not) consist of, but it looks like Murtha's statement definitely shook someone up.

[Ghost of BiB]

Not arguing that it is or isn't, but watching this debate and vote on C-SPAN last night (I remember when I actually had a life), it was stated (although I forget by whom) and went unchallenged that the top US military leaders in Iraq either just have, or are about to, submit a plan to pull out.

 

I know you said "specific timeline," and we have no idea what their plan may or may not consists of, so we may very well be talking about apples and oranges, but it looks like Murtha's statement definitely shook someone up.

507216[/snapback]

 

A "plan" of sorts was given to Rumsfeld, but it's based on a lot of "what if" scenarios. "If "A" happens we could do this, if "B" happens we can do that" etc. It doesn't specify anything real specific.

[Campy]

A "plan" of sorts was given to Rumsfeld, but it's based on a lot of "what if" scenarios. "If "A" happens we could do this, if "B" happens we can do that" etc. It doesn't specify anything real specific.

507218[/snapback]

More of an outline then, eh?

 

That's what I get for believing a politician might be truthful in a House debate.

 

Sadly enough, I can't say I'm too terribly surprised...

[Ghost of BiB]

More of an outline then, eh? 

 

That's what I get for believing a politician might be truthful in a House debate.  

 

Sadly enough, I can't say I'm too terribly surprised...

507219[/snapback]

 

Technically it's a plan...it just describes different courses of action based on expected or anticipated scenarios - exactly as it should. It does NOT say "x guys will leave y date, no matter what".

[Kelly the Dog]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?

507208[/snapback]

There are numerous threads and other places to debate whether or not there should be a pullout soon, or phased withdrawl. He's entitled to his opinion. The point of this thread, however, was about the House vote and whether they were pricks for doing it or not.

 

And besides, do you really think that Murtha doesn't care about America's strategic interests? He's a pretty respected guy. I don't think he said what he said just to politic, or win an election or win friends. I think he really believes that this is in America's best strategic interests. He may be dead wrong (and even I, who was dead against the war and still am don't think we should start pulling out now, although I admit I don't know enough about what is really happening over there). But you really disservice Murtha, IMO, that you write "but who cares, right?" in your criticism of his stance.

[Ghost of BiB]

There are numerous threads and other places to debate whether or not there should be a pullout soon, or phased withdrawl. He's entitled to his opinion. The point of this thread, however, was about the House vote and whether they were pricks for doing it or not.

 

And besides, do you really think that Murtha doesn't care about America's strategic interests? He's a pretty respected guy. I don't think he said what he said just to politic, or win an election or win friends. I think he really believes that this is in America's best strategic interests. He may be dead wrong (and even I, who was dead against the war and still am don't think we should start pulling out now, although I admit I don't know enough about what is really happening over there). But you really disservice Murtha, IMO, that you write "but who cares, right?" in your criticism of his stance.

507271[/snapback]

 

He's automatically your hero, because he's been on TV. How many people have heard of him before last week?

 

I thought so.

[Kelly the Dog]

He's automatically your hero, because he's been on TV. How many people have heard of him before last week?

 

I thought so.

507296[/snapback]

You thought bullshitt. He's not my hero. I don't even agree with him, like I just said. Snippy for no reason much? All I said was that he seems to be a guy who cares about the nation's strategic interests. A lot of people calling for pullouts don't care and are saying stuff like that for political reasons. He just doesnt seem to be one of them, and you accused him of it.

[Chilly]

You thought bullshitt. He's not my hero. I don't even agree with him, like I just said. Snippy for no reason much? All I said was that he seems to be a guy who cares about the nation's strategic interests. A lot of people calling for pullouts don't care and are saying stuff like that for political reasons. He just doesnt seem to be one of them, and you accused him of it.

507332[/snapback]

 

Thats right. He's not a hero. He isn't Tedy Bruschi.

[Wacka]

Finally a brilliant move by the Republicans. The dems have been harping for us to pull out. The Republicans said OK, lets see you vote for it. The dems didn't even have the backbone to vote for what they have been harping on for several years. Plus it made them work late when they were trying to book out of town for their two week vacation.

[/dev/null]

Thats right. He's not a hero.  He isn't Tedy Bruschi.

507355[/snapback]

 

CSPAN had Murtha's unofficial hit tally at 15

[Taro T]

CSPAN had Murtha's unofficial hit tally at 15

507368[/snapback]

Hopefully at least 14 of them were against the annoying blonde in the beige suit sitting behind him who seemed to be the official Democrat applause starter. Hopefully the last hit was against whoever was the Republican applause starter.

 

How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber?

[/dev/null]

How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber? 

507372[/snapback]

 

How can they be so fat? Because once elected there is such a thing as a free lunch.

a billable free lunch

with contributions

plus pension

 

And, on an unrelated note. i'd like to take a moment to say :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: to whichever mod deleted my one word post of "Picard" in this thread. I wasn't trying to start another Kirk v Picard thing, but was actually making a political reference to pointless debates

[Ghost of BiB]

You thought bullshitt. He's not my hero. I don't even agree with him, like I just said. Snippy for no reason much? All I said was that he seems to be a guy who cares about the nation's strategic interests. A lot of people calling for pullouts don't care and are saying stuff like that for political reasons. He just doesnt seem to be one of them, and you accused him of it.

507332[/snapback]

 

He didn't put together a Bill in a vacuum and just show up one day saying "look what I got". I personally think this was worked out by a cabal inside the capitol, and because of his stature, and background, he was chosen to carry the flag. If Ted or Hillary had offered up a troop withdrawl bid, I don't believe many would have given it much attention. Someone is going for the drama angle.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?

507208[/snapback]

 

Yeah, it is right up there with going to war without a plan on how to return power to the Iraqis or how to remove ourselves from the situation. I could go on, but we all know the punchline. Both are equally asinine, but right below this administration's failure to support the troops with proper equipment and proper deployment levels. We love our troops, tax cuts are a special kind of love.

 

The fact is, the Republican party, with its failures in planning and support (not to mention what led up to it), has lost the right to wrap itself in a flag on this one and cite long-term national interest on this (and I am a Republican), seeing as this administration created the current situation.

[Ghost of BiB]

OK, this is obviously a polarized issue. I'm in the camp that thinks until we have conditions favorable to the United States within Iraq, we should stay. A lot of folks mention "adequate troop levels". Once again, I just don't understand how puliing out brigade by brigade is going to make that situation any better for those still on the ground...but whatever. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

 

What about the idea of maybe trying to do certain things differently, and visibly? What about putting MORE people into Iraq, rather than using less? We're stretched thin, but it could be done. What about a targeted information-PR campaign within the country to help the guy on the street understand that some mistakes were made, but we are working hard to make things better for all.

 

Don't put all of this on the administration. Our military forces can't be re-trained or re-structured overnight tailored to whatever war they may have to fight. They have certain means of getting certain things done, and they use them - as they should. I don't think many people gave the ramifications of house to house bang down doors midnight searches much thought until just about everyone was pissed off. I don't even want to get too deep into the WMD search...more than one field commander knew he had sensitive sites along his advance, and was supposed to at least search if not secure them - but blew it off in the dash for Baghdad. There's literally dozens that we'll never know what was contained or worked on there, because everything had been looted before they were exploited.

 

I'm not "blindly following the administration" on this, the core idea of getting rid of Sadaam and effecting regime change is a good one, in terms of our interests. You need do little more than look at a map. All of this, right or wrong could have been avoided if Hussein played nice and did what he was supposed to do after Gulf 1. He didn't.

[Mickey]

I'm in the camp that thinks until we have conditions favorable to the United States within Iraq, we should stay.

507449[/snapback]

 

Name those conditions and how many of them need to be met for us to declare victory and go home. For bonus points, describe how each will be measured.

 

I have asked one version or another of that same question several times in several threads of several people who all have the same take as you, that we can't leave until "victory" or "defeat of the insurgency" or "when the Iraqi's can protect themsleves" or when we have "conditions favorable to the United States".

 

I think it is the fundamental question in Iraq and it is the one that nobody is willing or able to answer.

 

This is what we should be talking about, not the political tactics of either party trying to out manouver eachother on the war issue.

[Adam]

Maybe we should apologize for the Revolutionary war while we're at it too.

[Kelly the Dog]

He didn't put together a Bill in a vacuum and just show up one day saying "look what I got". I personally think this was worked out by a cabal inside the capitol, and because of his stature, and background, he was chosen to carry the flag. If Ted or Hillary had offered up a troop withdrawl bid, I don't believe many would have given it much attention. Someone is going for the drama angle.

507398[/snapback]

From what I have read, it is both. Both are true. He formed his opinion and his stance independently. There is a clear timeline to it. He was in favor of the war but had reservations. He even thought Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq. He was a close friend of George the Elder who consulted with him weekly during the first Iraq war, but they both held strong convictions about not getting bogged down in Iraq. He started to get disllusioned quite some time ago but even went out of his way to say we shouldn't withdraw the troops. In the last several months he has soured even more. He went two months ago to Iraq and his plane had to be escorted by two Black Hawks and two more helicopters. He said the Generals he spoke to on the ground would say what the White House wants them to say in public but in private they told him things aren't improving on the ground with the insurgents. He's spoke out about "guerilla war" quite a few times since being a Vietnam Vet, one of his keen interests. He decided recently that this wasn't going to work and we cannot win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi public because of numerous reasons. He finally changed his mind recently when he decided that we're looked on by the majority as the enemy, and it isn't going to change.

 

When speaking to his colleagues and the Dem power brokers, they were looking for a guy just like him. Pelosi was the one that went to him in the cabal scenario you described, very recently. She wanted a second front to attack the White House on the war and they were going to use his resolution to start that second front. He knowingly went along and knew before he said it that it would cause quite a stir. But he believes he's right and this is the best thing for us. That part wasn't politically motivated, and again, he doesn't seem the kind of guy that is always or even often doing things against the strategic interests of the military and country, or for personal gain or power trips.

 

So again, I think both things are true. He really believes this is right and is fighting for it. And simultaneously, the Dems are using him for their overall strategy against the White House and he's a willing participant.