With all the calls for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory), you would think that the House would have a close vote for withdrawal. It was 403 to 3, against withdrawal.
Since this was obviously some GW Bush trick, the Dems should immediately look for some ‘smoking gun’, while they also look for their spines.
To be fair, the withdrawl proposal was drawn up by the Republicans, and I’ve heard that it was hastily written, and did not have much in common with the plan put forth by Murtha. I happen to disagree that we would be able to leave Iraq stable and still get out in 6 months, but this episode was pretty obviously designed by the Republicans to discredit Murtha and anyone who would vote with him. I didn’t read the proposal, though - maybe the Republicans just wanted to get this “quick withdrawl” thing out of the way.
Nice.
It all proves that the spoken fanatic’s word is not what they really believe to be true or worthwile, but merely a tool to political gain, while at the same time sacrificing our troops position and safety in Iraq.
How can these poor retched fools complain about “the world views us” with behavior like this…?
Go liberal~! *
Are you guys really falling for this? What talking point political show did you get this from anyway, this was old news before the end of last week…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
(to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory)
…
[/quote]
Sorry, I haven’t been paying attention recently. Is that war still going on?
Didn’t you guys win that in a couple of weeks?
And didn’t you win it again after you caught Saddam?
And again after the vote?
And again after the Iraqi “government” got installed?
Man, this MUST be frustrating. How many times do you have to win this war? ? ?
But I’m sure victory is just around the corner now. I just FEEL it in my bones.
Murtha didn’t vote for withdrawl either.
It was a political stunt by Pelosi and it backfired on her. She got out foxed, again.
Dems don’t want to go on the record standing up for anything, in particular hot issues, that’s why they lose elections.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Dems don’t want to go on the record standing up for anything, in particular hot issues, that’s why they lose elections.
[/quote]
Yep. What would folks like wreckless do if they actually had to stand FOR something rather than taking the easy way out by bitching and craying about what the President does?
Being against everything is not leadership - and the voter’s know it.
Anyone who was paying attention knows Murtha did not suggest “immediate” withdrawal, which is what the stupid vote was about.
All this means is that everyone knows immediate withdrawal is stupid.
It does not mean that people do not want to withdraw from Iraq or that they won’t stand up for it if put forward in a realistic proposal.
What a bunch of party politics. Yech. It’s disgusting to watch.
For Immediate Release
November 17, 2005
Congressman Murtha calls for redeployment from Iraq
Actually he did say “immediate”. His words can be parsed a lot of different ways but the fact remains he called for immediate action to be taken. His actual resolution was much more partisan. For the last troops to be out in 6 months they would have to start immediately. There’s a lot of US iron in Iraq.
The bill, introduced by the Republicans was a reflection of what he called for. He didn’t vote for it.
The following is from Murtha’s congressional website.
“(Washington D.C.)- Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.”
Okay… the fact the word immediate is in the statement does not mean he says we should pull out immediately. No offense, but you did read what you posted right?
begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment
Beginning discussions is not the same as an immediate pullout.
but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops
I don’t think a helter-skelter withdrawal is what he is suggesting, though he does want out.
Then, the silly bill voted on was a sad caricature of his position, you certainly can’t blame anyone for voting against it and still wanting to work towards removing forces from harms way.
Put a bit of work into this…
[quote]vroom wrote:
“(Washington D.C.)- Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.”
Okay… the fact the word immediate is in the statement does not mean he says we should pull out immediately. No offense, but you did read what you posted right?
begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment
Beginning discussions is not the same as an immediate pullout.
but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops
I don’t think a helter-skelter withdrawal is what he is suggesting, though he does want out.
Then, the silly bill voted on was a sad caricature of his position, you certainly can’t blame anyone for voting against it and still wanting to work towards removing forces from harms way.
Put a bit of work into this…[/quote]
I did. Your just backpedaling and it’s not working. I’m not your lackey. It’s a quote from the man’s website. Look it up.
Your arguing intent vs. facts. To try and attempt to rationalize that you need to look more closely at the man. His record is clear on his feelings regarding Iraq. Based on his previous statements whyh do you think he means something less then to begin an immediate withdrawl?
What in the bill was inconsistent with his statement and what he asked for in his draft resolution? Did you read the preamble in his draft ,it is full of lies and falsehoods that have all been proven wrong? Pure partisan bullshit. You did actually read it before you commented on it didn’t you? It was great politics to call the Dems bluff.
Six months for a complete withdrawl of US forces. Based on your considerable military experience and various overseas deployments vroom…how long do you think it would take to get the last man out safely, in accordance with Murtha’s desire?
I think it would take longer then 6 mos which means you have to start now…or two months ago. He’s not talking about starting in 6 mos., he’s talking about being done with the withdrawl in 6 months.
Hedo,
The fact the man has trouble with the timeline doesn’t make everything you are claiming true.
It’s absolutely amazing to watch the vote, which was widely regarded as a republican foul up, now be spun into a success. Good luck with that.
At the very least, he wants to start the process of getting out of Iraq. On this we, you and I, are in agreement.
I will ask you an honest question though, and I’m not trying to be partisan and I’d prefer a non-partisan answer.
If things don’t improve at a reasonable pace, ever, when will it be time to get out? Surely there is some point, even though it should not actually be outlined in advance, that nothing is being gained by a continued presence?
I know that is a very tough question. It’s like buying a stock and then selling while it is down, instead of riding it further down. It’s not an easy thing to do.
[quote]vroom wrote:
“(Washington D.C.)- Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.”
Okay… the fact the word immediate is in the statement does not mean he says we should pull out immediately. No offense, but you did read what you posted right?
begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment
Beginning discussions is not the same as an immediate pullout.
but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops
I don’t think a helter-skelter withdrawal is what he is suggesting, though he does want out.
Then, the silly bill voted on was a sad caricature of his position, you certainly can’t blame anyone for voting against it and still wanting to work towards removing forces from harms way.
Put a bit of work into this…[/quote]
Vroom- I think that we are seeing some of the word games that we’ve discussed in the past. If I recall, Murtha wanted to withdraw troops in six months. Too soon IMO since the job wouldn’t be done by then.
-Bigflamer
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo,
The fact the man has trouble with the timeline doesn’t make everything you are claiming true.
It’s absolutely amazing to watch the vote, which was widely regarded as a republican foul up, now be spun into a success. Good luck with that.
At the very least, he wants to start the process of getting out of Iraq. On this we, you and I, are in agreement.
I will ask you an honest question though, and I’m not trying to be partisan and I’d prefer a non-partisan answer.
If things don’t improve at a reasonable pace, ever, when will it be time to get out? Surely there is some point, even though it should not actually be outlined in advance, that nothing is being gained by a continued presence?
I know that is a very tough question. It’s like buying a stock and then selling while it is down, instead of riding it further down. It’s not an easy thing to do.[/quote]
There is nothing in your previous post that you wisht to retract? Nothing?
I provided the entire post below for your convenience.
You were wrong. Not just by a little - your were wrong across the board. And you still want to back pedal and deflect, and call the right losers when it is you that was proved wrong.
Words mean stuff. Admit you wre wrong and save some face.
[i]Anyone who was paying attention knows Murtha did not suggest “immediate” withdrawal, which is what the stupid vote was about.
All this means is that everyone knows immediate withdrawal is stupid.
It does not mean that people do not want to withdraw from Iraq or that they won’t stand up for it if put forward in a realistic proposal.
What a bunch of party politics. Yech. It’s disgusting to watch.[/i]
Flamer, I think there was a disparity between the document Hedo posted and what was actually discussed on the floor.
I think Murtha was in too much of a hurry as well. However, on the plus side, it has spawned discussion of when and how a removal of troops could occur.
At the same time, I believe the republican bill that was soundly rejected by all was in more of a hurry than Murtha.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo,
The fact the man has trouble with the timeline doesn’t make everything you are claiming true.
It’s absolutely amazing to watch the vote, which was widely regarded as a republican foul up, now be spun into a success. Good luck with that.
At the very least, he wants to start the process of getting out of Iraq. On this we, you and I, are in agreement.
I will ask you an honest question though, and I’m not trying to be partisan and I’d prefer a non-partisan answer.
If things don’t improve at a reasonable pace, ever, when will it be time to get out? Surely there is some point, even though it should not actually be outlined in advance, that nothing is being gained by a continued presence?
I know that is a very tough question. It’s like buying a stock and then selling while it is down, instead of riding it further down. It’s not an easy thing to do.[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean by a Republican foul up? It was able politics and the Dems couldn’t muster 4 votes including Murtha’s. Why do you think that was a foul up?
An RT poll taken after the vote showed that 70% of the American public think the Dems are against the war for politcal gains. More telling is that 55% of self identified democrats believe the same thing. Not a good sign for the mid-terms.
As to your question if nothing was to improve, ever, at a reasonable pace, when would be the time to get out?
The easy answer is when defeat is immenent and our forces would suffer a crushing loss in the face of an overwhelming enemy. Since defeat by a rag tag bunch of criminals and murderers is not possible I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
That’s not partisan, that’s a tactical opinion. The enemy is overwhelmed, has no base to operate from, no sanctuary to stage and no ally willing to supply military support. Eventually the US and Iraqi forces will defeat them. They have no popular support, the basis of any irregular warfare.
The only chance of victory for the enemy is if the US gives up. We won’t. They should.
Now as to that stock. You have to ask yourself why you bought it? If the reasons didn’t change then a declining price is a buying opportunity to accumulate more shares at a better price. You should only sell if a fundamental reason changes your mind.
Experts telling you to sell your stock when the fundamentals haven’t changed are doing you a diservice, much like pundits and pols who call for defeat in the face of victory.
Here’s Murtha’s site. He doesn’t sugar coat his opinion, I’ll give him that.
www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/statement_051117iraq.html
The following was his “full prepared statement” referenced on his official website.
“I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a ?free? Iraq.”
Everyone can make their own decision but it doesn’t seem ambiguous too me.
Hedo,
You danced around the question by saying that things must improve… why don’t you answer the question as asked?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo,
You danced around the question by saying that things must improve… why don’t you answer the question as asked?[/quote]
I don’t think I said things must improve…you did. Your question, verbatim, is below.
vroom wrote:
If things don’t improve at a reasonable pace, ever, when will it be time to get out?
Hedo wrote:
The easy answer is when defeat is immenent and our forces would suffer a crushing loss in the face of an overwhelming enemy.
That’s a pretty clear answer. What about that is a sidestep? I only clarified that I don’t see that as being likely.
At the present rate, in a war of attrition, the insurgency doesn’t have much left. Only the media thinks it does.
I know what I wrote, you still haven’t bothered to answer the question.
[ edit: Hedo, if your answer is never, then I’ll accept your answer as reasonably clear… 
]