Redstate

In response to John Murtha's resolution calling for cut-and-run in Iraq, the House leadership has decided to put the Democrats on the record.

So they will be voting on Murtha's resolution then?

This is a bait and switch ploy.  Murtha's resolution does not even come close the the "immediate withdrawal" the Republicans are introducing.  Murtha is not calling for cutting and running and clearly calls the the maintaining of troops in the area.

This is just politics on the Republican leaderships part.  To bad, we got real issues to discuss, but our politicans have failed us again.

I read over Murtha's resolution and it doesn't sound like the same thing that is being brought forth tonight.  I would hope that the party that is saying we shouldn't politicize this isn't just doing that.

if nobody votes for this resolution, does that mean nobody will be accused of calling for surrender any more? :)

Because I don't think anyone is going to vote for it, aside from perhaps the usual suspects.

If Republicans believe that Murtha's resolution is awful and the American people will punish anyone who votes for it, they should bring it up for a vote, instead of bringing up a Republican substitute and trying to claim "this is the Democrat resolution."

Personally, I think it's a boon for the Democrats if this leads people to understand that the withdrawal position is not equivalent to "load all the troops on a plane tomorrow."

I just got done watching Wolf Blitzer trying to spin this new vote off as a Republican collapse or something. He had some black guy on who was explaining how this last week will help the Dems politically. Jesus, it's people like this that make me wanna go postal!!! We're in a war and this is what they care about. The sad thing is the MSM continues to spin it like they are  voice of reason. BS!!!!!!!!!!! Lets have this vote and see who is who!

This is getting ridiculous, what happened to the GOP who completely dominated?  This Murtha response ploy doesn't even pass the smell test.  Nobody's buying what the GOP is selling these days, and that's unfortunate.   The party needs to take a deep breath and think things through...otherwise 2006 is not gonna be pretty.

between demanding immediate withdrawal and refusing to set a timetable. According to polls, most Americans sit there. The Republican leadership seems to ignore it with this vote.

This is not Murtha's resolution. he called for

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

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.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republicans are asking for this:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces

in Iraq be terminated immediately.

And they are calling it Murtha's resolution. It's not.

And Jean Schmidt from Ohio (the one that beat Hackett) just relayed a message from a Marine insinuating that Murtha is a coward. What great leaders the GOP are being these days.

This is not Murtha's resolution, this is a sham political hack job by the GOP house leadership.  If they want to do the right thing, they would debate and vote on Murtha's resolution and not this joke of a two sentence resolution they are debating now.

if I were a House Democrat, I'd attend the vote and vote no. I'd imagine that would be a pretty easily defended vote, considering the ridiculous all-or-nothing language the leaders decided to use. No one but the fringe and a few congressmen looking for attention are in favor of immediate and total withdrawal.

My understanding, admittedly mostly from dKos, is that this version was introduced by Hunter and is not the same. I'd vote against either version personally but this seems like political gamesmanship. If you want the Dems on record on Murtha than why not just re-introduce his version?

So, a Democrat puts forth a resolution, calling for the very thing that the left blogosphere has been pounding over and over and over again, and the Republicans send that resolution to a floor vote, and that's ridiculous?

If nobody is buying what the administration is selling, and you're so confident in your position, then why are all the libs on this site so up in arms about this vote? Let's get the critters on the record about where they stand?

Only someone who was a lot less confident of their position than they are willing to let on would call giving the Democrats a chance to vote on their actual position a "stunt" or a "slander of the person who wrote the bill."

The bottom line is that there are a lot of Democrats who'd like to leave the door open, in case things turn out rosy, for them to go back and say, "Yeah, we were there all along - we never advocated withdrawal." The GOP would like to close that door, and I think it's totally fair for them to do so.

First, here's Murtha's original resolution:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

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.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Now, here's the resolution that Republicans are voting on tonight:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces

in Iraq be terminated immediately.

I and a lot of Democrats support 1.  We don't support 2.  

What Democrats show up will almost certainly vote "present".  That is the only way they can assert that the vote is a sham.

The Democrats continue to exhibit a split personality on the Iraq war: they say one thing and do another.

So, yes, get them on record with a vote.

It's not only a Time for Declaration, but a Time for Therapy.  They need a cure.  The more they vote (or skip votes), the more the public will see what they stand for.

The obvious solution for Dems is to simply ignore the vote.

Let the Republicans vote it down unanimously, with no votes for it except for perhaps Ron Paul.

It will be seen for what it is, a rather silly (read desperate) political ploy, yet the vote will remain in the congressional record.

And if, by around June of 2006 we have say, 70% or more of Americans calling for an immediate withdrawal, which is not at all inconceivable, you've got that vote to toss around during the mid terms.

His resoultion said to withdrawl as soon as practicable and this one says immediately. These are decidely different resoultion and it is an obvious strawman from the Republican leadership. Of course none of it matters becuase other than poltiical junkies most people are paying no attention what so ever to resoultions on the friday evening before Thanksgiving.

If anything it is more proof that our biggest budget drain is the operations of congress itself; they should save us all the money and turn off the lights and go home.

is that the GOP is not asking the Democrats to vote on Murtha's bill. They are asking them to vote on a flawed, bad interpretation of Murtha's bill. It's very simple.

CNN, MSNBC and Fox, it's Murtha's resolution. If it's not, I stand to be corrected.

So, a Democrat puts forth a resolution, calling for the very thing that the left blogosphere has been pounding over and over and over again, and the Republicans send that resolution to a floor vote, and that's ridiculous?

As others have pointed out, the resolution being debated was put forth by a Republican, and it is not Murtha's.  If the GOP put Murtha's up for a vote, that would be different.

of a strawman debating tactic as is possible.

The left blogosphere = the Democratic Party

The left blogosphere = something that doesn't make moderate/conservative Democrats like me cringe/vomit/run in fear

Setting a timetable for withdrawal = immediate withdrawal

Since there is a short break in the proceedings I can pause in updating over at NoEndButVictory.com, I have to say this:

I can't be the only one who thinks that massive votes against this resolution will, themselves, be a demonstration that the House is NOT for immediate withdrawal.

Maybe that's all this is about.

It's

not

the

same

resolution.

What part of this are you having trouble with?

I and a few other people on this thread just did correct you, I think. I think we all here know that the MSM is guilty of corner-cutting. They are saying that the GOP resolution today = Murtha's resolution yesterday. It doesn't, and we all just gave you the texts.

Outstanding, and this is long overdue.  Stand up and be counted and let the nation see on which side of history you stand.  It's a simple act of discipline, courage, responsibility and accountability.  If you feel the troops so be withdrawn, so be it, have the courage to vote and be counted for history to see and judge.  

This action by the House is a breath of fresh air after the parade of cowardice in the GOP Senate and their failure to band together, take a stand and be accountable, whether on judicial nominees, budget items, ANWR, illegal immigration, or the War.  

I would be interested if Murtha was one of the Dems that voted to pul the plug on Vietnam in 1975.  The irony and ignominy has come full circle.

And you guys say we control the media.  sigh

but I've been following the liveblogging, and I read that one of the Republicans referred to this as the "Democrat resolution," and one of the Dems leaped up with a point of order to ask who introduced the resolution under debate, and the Chair responded that it was Rep. Hunter's resolution.

I personally have no problem if the Democrats go on record against a flat-out, drop your guns and run withdrawal (the way Saddam's army used to do it).  It's true, some of folks at dkos won't like it, but I'm frankly not even sure that instant withdrawal is a majority position over there.

I would have no problem with Murtha's resolution coming to a vote.  I'd be interested to see where things stand on that.

However, the point remains that Murtha called for immediate withdrawal....

Still wrong.  Murtha's calling for withdrawal at "the earliest practicable date".

says the story they're moving to the wire now will make it clearer that it is NOT the same resolution. Don't know what Fox's source is.

As Section 3 of Murtha's bill goes without saying, I don't feel it needs to be included in the "compromised GOP version" of the bill.  So let's look the only point of substance being ommited:

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

So are you saying that this totally makes or breaks what Murtha is saying?  Withdraw all of our forces from Iraq, but without mentioning keeping a few marines in Kuwait it's apples and oranges, nothing resembling the original bill?

Typical False Outrage, as only Democrats can do...

Well, the libs on the site can try to downplay this all they want, it's still a great move.  Shame on the conservatives here who think this shouldn't be done because it's gasp political!  Guys, sometimes we have to play politics to win.  The dems have a lot of people on their side who want us to pull out.  If the dems won't even show up to vote that they feel this way, it's going to frustrate and discourage their base.  This vote certainly doesn't hurt us.  And ya, it's not the exact wording Murtha used.  It's still essentially the same spirit.  In fact, it's closer to what a lot of liberal activists want than what Murtha said.  I say this is a great move.

Murtha's version has too many "Whereas" in it. The GOP version is clean and clear. You want to 'Cut and Run' or not?

they have the strength of lie, the bravery ambush and the convicition of cowards, when it ocmes to actually backing up their cheap sleaze.

We whould push back and watch them fold like =the empty suits they are.

You'll notice, for example, that the word "immediately" doesn't appear in the first resolution.

Seriously...the Republican version is downright laughable. As in, I'm sitting here laughing at how stupid a move this is. And wondering what they think they're going to get out of a vote on the equivalent of "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! ARE THEY OUT YET? ARE THEY OUT YET? WE SAID NOW!"

before Thanksgiving? before the end of the month? what would it take for everyone to pack their stuff up and drive to Basra?

I agree that the two resolutions are not dramatically different.  But there is something of a difference between "immediate" and "earliest practicable."  

I wonder why the Hunter resolution didn't just adopt Murtha's language.  Did it not sound cowardly enough?

to vote that they feel that way because they don't feel that way. It's amazing how difficult this is to understand.

The GOP is either desperate, foolish or just plain stupid! I'd say put both resolutions to the test and have everyone vote as they will. No need to try and lie by passing an apple as an orange. I know folks on both sides are upset and agitated, but blatantly lying about this resolution is silly. Duncan Hunter should call up his resolution and the Murtha should call his up for a vote..I'd be surprised to see how many folks switch from No to Yea or vice versa on both votes

I happen to think that the far-lefters who want us to withdraw tomorrow need a stiff dose of reality, too.  Whatever they think, politically it's not gonna happen.

Politically, I'm not so sure this is a genius move.  The Democrats are slowly coalescing around a "leave according to some reasonable time frame" position while the GOP risks being portrayed as the "stay in Iraq indefinitely" party.  (I recognize many folks DO want to stay in Iraq indefinitely; however, you'll want a better sound bite than that for the next election.)

If this vote helps the public consciousness distinguish between the "reasonable" position and the crazy position of pulling out tomorrow, I think that may play out as advantage: Dems.

Pep rallies either. "What do you mean they are cheering for their team, offering support... all while they should be at their desks studying!"

As an Viet Nam veteran it is difficult for me to understand why another Viet Nam veteran would undercut our grand children as we were undercut.

But Murtha's opinion is his opinion. He will be permitted to harm our troops in the field by exercising his First Amendment rights.

For those who are having a problem with the simple proposal that apparently will be the subject of the vote let me weigh in as a lawyer.

The operative language of Section One of Murtha's resolution is:

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.

This is actually simpler for Murtha's supporters than his proposal. Technically to vote for Murtha's proposal you would have to agree with all of the "Whereas" clauses above the operative sections. You also need to agree to the rapid deployment force.

Simply taking the intent of Section one and voting on it allows any one to vote for it for any reason. You don't have to agree with the "Whereas" clauses or the rapid deployment force in Section Two.

We Viet Nam veterans very much want to see which of our representatives are like the cut-and-run congress of the late 60s and early 70s.

We are also the veterans who supported the Swift Boat Vets financially and otherwise.

Bring on the vote!

Allan Yackey

I'm looking a little closer at Murthas and now see the "the earliest practicable date" part.  However, what does this mean?  As soon as we can get everybody on the plane?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "the earliest practicable date" is essentially what the administration is saying as well: We leave when we can do so without leaving the job half done.

I say call up both as is and let the chips fall as they may

on Mark Kilmer's diary last night, and I would rather see the Senate do it, but I'll take it for starters:

"This must not stand!  By: The Rebel  

It's not what Republicans in general must say now.  It's what President Bush must do now.  He must take to the airwaves upon his return from Asia and hit Murtha and his ilk right between the eyes.  He needs to lay down three markers before the American people. First, he should call Murtha's and the Democrats' PR bluff and demand that the Senate devote substantial debate to Murtha's cut and run policy, and then also demand that Frist call for an up or down vote.  No amendments, nothing but a yes or no to the question "Should the United States immediately withdraw all its armed forces from Iraq?"  Let's put all these Senators on the record.

Second, he must tell the American people, as well as the Congress, that as long as he is the president, we will never cut and run from our commitment to the Iraqi people.  He needs to tell Murtha to visit Iraq again, this time speaking directly to the Iraqi people, and ask them whether our continued military action is in their best interests.  Let's ask Murtha what he thinks would now be in the best interests of the Iraqi people and how he would achieve it.

And the third marker the President must lay down is the most important.  He must tell the Congress that any attempt to scuttle a special appropriations bill re: funding the war effort, will be met head on.  He must tell the American people that we made that mistake once over 30 years ago, and that we will not make it again.  He can go into as much detail on that as he thinks appropriate.  You know the appropriations issue will be the next battleground.  The issue needs to be pre-empted now.

This response must be made by the President, not by McCain, Frist, Warner, Lott or any of the other useful idiots.  I won't hold my breath waiting, however."

Murtha's resolution was as much a political ploy (and play for attention) as this vote is. And just as meaningless.

"immediately" means turn and go. Earliest practicable means as soon as it can be accomplished.  In practical terms, this means safe, intelligent, planned withdrawal, that will take into account the stability of the country, minimum timelines, etc. One is intentionally dumb in order to be a silly game of chicken, the other is a debatable point and policy.

is it is exactly the same wording but the demohacks are trying to say it is different because the poltrron Murtha has tried to withdraw his cheap slime.

I think the intent is clear, regardless of the definition of "the earliest practicable date".  If you're mad at the GOP for not remembering to say Simon Says, I stand by my false outrage charge.

I don't see what the problem is with voting no. Let Murtha and Barbara Lee vote yes. I don't think it will be so very difficult for voters next year to distinguish between a vote against immediate withdrawal and support for a timetable of withdrawal or, indeed, basic opposition to the administration's stay-the-course policy.

That phrase sounds like a fudge to me.  But if I had to guess I would say the intended meaning is a whole lot closer to "as soon as we can get everybody on the plane" than "as soon as Iraq is a stable and thriving democracy."  

So I think the differences between the two resolutions are overblown.  

Regardless, the impression I get from the live blogging at NOBV is that this is all bit of a farce.

This is a big Republican lie.  An attempt to smoke out the so-called hypocrisy of the left.  No the only thing this maneuver smoked out is the lying dirty tricks the Republicans play to avoid giving the American people an honest debate.

Don't say that on the floor, you'll get hooted down by the Massachusetts delegation. Just ask Jean Schmidt.

I didn't notice the "hereby terminated" before. That makes it effectively the same. I'm still laughing at the terseness of the Republican resolution, though. Nobody could possibly vote for that. They know that, and apparently think that getting the Democrats on record against that will be the same thing as getting the Democrats on record as opposing a timetable. I think that's stupid. Voters can tell the difference, even if the GOP leaders think they can't.

Or maybe "the earliest practicable date" means "When the Iraqi army is strong and stable enough to police Iraq on their own without the aid of US forces"....Gosh, sound familiar?

Do you think it would be

1. A bunch of "no" votes on a resolution that you say is the same as the Murtha resolution, but they say is not?
   
2. A bunch of "yes" votes on the Murtha resolution itself?

I very much doubt this is what Murtha meant.  

Pls do so and honestly tell yourself if they are the same instead of guessing

Acceptable:

"This is a big Republican lie.  An attempt to smoke out the so-called hypocrisy of the left."

Unacceptable:

"No the only thing this maneuver smoked out is the lying dirty tricks the Republicans play to avoid giving the American people an honest debate."

I banned you once. You asked nicely. This is your bare last warning.

If you think the addition or subtraction of a word or two, which would mean being out in 24 hours vs. being out in a month somehow produces a result other then "cut and run", then whatever helps you sleep at night.

You're right, in homes all across America, voters are sharing your laugh-fest over if Murtha really wanted to leave by dawn, rather then a few weeks later, and how substantially different this would be, and what the results would be.  Yep.

Okay, let's look again at the Democrat resolution, and discuss it with respect to the Republican.  I'll be brief.  It seems the meat of the arguement is over the following:

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.

Where the one side is saying this is not calling for "immediate withdrawal".  Actually, it terminates "the deployment of forces in Iraq."  That pretty clearly says immediate without using the word.  It is only the redeployment that can wait for the "earliest practicable date."

The Republican resolution softens the statement to establish only a sense of the House, rather than a immediate termination.  Why would this cause such heartburn to the Democrats calling for withdrawal?

It's never happened to me, but I am always worried that my disagreement with most people here on this issue will get me banned for ideological reasons, despite my support for many Republican issues. It's good to see that as long as I'm civil, I shouldn't get any warning notices. :)

Neither do I.  But I also don't feel that it is any sort of a timetable.  It's only a few notches different on the scale then immediate pull out.  If Murtha or any other Democrat wants an orchestrated exit following a specific timetable, how about introducing that?  Otherwise, let's stop fussing over the differences in "the earliest practicable date" and "immediate".

Voters let us know their feelings on "nuance", as I recall.

There isn't one between refusing to set a timetable and immediate withdrawal...unless you call that setting a timetable...which is in effect immediate withdrawal.  You can say what you want, but saying that we will draw down troops in say Jan 2007 is no different then Nixon's plan to get the US out of South Korea.  All it will accomplish is for the insurgency to wait until 2007 when we withdraw troops and then topple the Iraqi gov't which is unable to protect itself because we withdrew before they were trained.

From a Fox News poll on 11/08 55% want troops to stay in Iraq to finish the job (down from 58%).

I will note that a CNN poll that breaks the question down into 4 options (Withdraw now, withdraw in 12 months, stay until finished, send more troops) looks like 19%/33%/38%/7%...which implies that 52% would support a timetable to withdraw in the next 12 months or sooner.

You can look at these results at http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I'm very curious to see what the result of this vote will be.  It is very possible that the Democrats will have to show their hand.  Problem is, the Republicans will also have to do the same.  Very dramatic.  This will be a watershed.

The Murtha resolution likely would have split the Democratic caucus.  This version will not.  Who benefits thereby?

It does provide fodder for talking heads to opine "well, the bills were really both the same," but I doubt many people will have the patience to sit through that particular meta-argument.

The original resolution is predominantly propaganda, and is in itself a stunt.  I would suggest the apoplectic left should be happy with the clear wording of the second choice which is apparently going forward.

"Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";"

What the heck was the vote for a constitution?  Have you looked at oil output lately?  What a hack.  

"Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;"

Why not?  Have you proved this to be true?  Just you opinion parroting the opinion of your overlords, Moore and Soros and gang.  Total propaganda.

"Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;"

So what?  Do you want to throw that investment away?  Idiot.

"Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;"

Are you going to piss their sacrifices away too?

"Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,"

Duh, and the American people are not anymore?

"Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;"

Prove it.

I can't go on this ticks me off so much.  

This is acceptable?

Acceptable:

"This is a big Republican lie.  An attempt to smoke out the so-called hypocrisy of the left."

Wow, I haven't been using near enough wiggle room.  Although I did come close to being warned by streiff once.

of the left" It is true, actual, certified, verified and continuing hipocrisy. It is the result of a complete absense of a moral compass. How else can you explain an anti-war, pro-abortionist?

All this liberal whining makes me sick...

Unless you are John Kerry, you are either for it or against it.  What is wrong with bringing an immediate withdrawl to a vote?  If you want to bring 'em home, say so.  If not, vote that way.

I love that the House GOP is back on the offensive.  Brilliant move.    

I don't know when the "earliest practicable date", but I sure as heck know it's not "immediately".

For example, if we do get the Iraqi troops sufficiently trained by 2007, then the difference means everything.

Let's assume we have a resolution that says "we will withdraw the troops by Jan 2007, if and only if the Iraqi troops are sufficiently trained."  Would you have a problem with that?  Because realistically, any bill setting a "timetable" is going to look a lot like that.  Short of the fringe which says "let's leave tomorrow," I doubt many people are in favor of setting a date in stone.

Although the language was over the top, the sentiment was ok to express.

I'm not as nice as Leon. streiff usually isn't as nice as I.

I've looked a the two and I can't find much difference except the removal of a zillion self-serving "Wheras's".

I've read the comments on both sides and I'm struggling to find a difference between:

• "... hereby terminated..." and
  
• "... terminated immediately..."

Unless the resolution is in some language other than conventional English, 'hereby' means upon passage of the Murtha resolution --- which in English means 'right now'. On the other hand the second resolution calls for immediately, which my dictionary defines as 'right now.'

Forget the nonsense about "...redeployed at the earliest practicable date..."; unless the Democrats have invented a matter transporter the troops clearly can't be out by the time the resolution is passed. On the otherhand they seem to have their 'Wayback' machine running overtime to try to rewrite what they said two years ago.

--------------------

"The earliest practicable date" is NOT the same as "immediately."  However slight the difference in wording, the GOP's cut-and-run resolution is not the same as what Murtha submitted.

Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid.

"How else can you explain an anti-war, pro-abortionist?"

Someone who sees the innocent human life lost at war as a tragedy and the abortion of a fetus as the destruction of a non-human entity.

Never supported the swift boat vets and never will...didn't support Kerry either but I thought the job they did on him was a hack job.  Maybe we should just start analyzing the service jackets of all of the vets who aren't republicans like Murtha.  Maybe they have phony decorations also. I've always thought Murtha was an honorable guy.  Even if he is a Democrat, he's always been a hawk.  I'm wondering how many of the guys posting on this site that Murtha is a "poltroon" and a "coward" have even served a minute in combat let alone in the armed services period.  Before you start calling someone like Murtha such despicable things maybe you should sign up and do a tour.  Then talk to me about how cowardly he is!

"... earliest practicable ..." refers to the redeployment, not the deployment which according to Murtha's resolution would be ended 'hereby' i.e. immediately upon passage of the resolution. Clearly the troops couldn't be out be midnight under either resolution.

we should have political gamesmanship. Especially after the incredibly sincere and serious debate waged by the Democrats for the past couple of months.

I ALMOST DIDN'T HEAR YOU THERE!

PS. Wipe the spittle off your face.

PPS. I'm sorry that you feel the need to play by the Democrats rules.

PPPS. I'm really sorry that you feel that not playing by the Democrats rules automatically makes 'us' dishonest.

PPPPS. I'm really sorry that you'd like to continue down the path that the Democrats have led us to for their political gain. A path sure to contain the bodies of wounded, maimed and dead soldiers who's battle was lost not because they didn't fight hard enough.. but because of silly intellectual arguements of how to say WHEN we plan on 'Cutting n' Running'.

pass the weed, turn up Hendrix and lets get our butts out of 'Nam, errr, I mean Somalia, oops, Iraq, thats right, Iraq.

are the Republican's going to show. The only interesting thing on the R side will be how the RINO's vote.

about resolutions, I just had a thought, which I am sure will be immediately be shot down as politically naive, but here I go. :)

Why doesn't the new government in Iraq call for a vote among the Iraqi people on whether or not the US should stay? Wouldn't that solve all this once and for all?

If they want us to stay, then President Bush has a rock solid mandate. If they want us to go, well, the people have spoken.....

A Democrat representative should not have to swallow that ungarnished little Republican turd.  It should be properly sandwiched between boilerplate and a band-aid to be more palatable.

The R version actually gives the Dem's that aren't noted rabid communists an out. The Murtha version is potentially disastrous for some of them.

The Murtha version is potentially disastrous for the country if a lot of Dem's vote for it.

The Murtha version is potentially disastrous for the country and the Bush presidency if all of Dem's vote for it or worse a few Republican's vote for it.

The problem is that the public is having very strong doubts about the war.  Both House Dems and Republicans are supporters of the war effort.  So, I guess it depends on what the narrative in the media turns out to be.  But my sense is that Congresspersons who support a continued presence in Iraq will come out looking rather poorly.  This goes for both Dems and Gops.

The new Iraq is not a pure democracy.  It is a representative democracy.  The people have elected representatives.

If the duly chosen representatives of the Iraqi government wanted us to leave, that would indeed be politically relevant.  My understanding is that they do not.

If Murthas EXACT language was passed, and lets call it like it is, take out the all the WHEREAS and lets get down to brass tacks, if these three parts were passed:

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.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

If that was approved, you very same people would be screaming AFTER the vote that Section 1 meant IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!  Why not cut the bull and just say it?  Just like Harry Reid is spinning that Frist's amendment was  a great victory for the Dems and now Repub's have no confidence in Bush.

You people are more and more pathetic.  You have no backbone in Iraq, and you have no backbone in saying what you believe.  Hunters amendment lays it on the line for you and you refuse to tell the American people what you believe.  For crying out loud, how many Dems are screaming exactly that:  GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!  Kucinich? Jackson Lee? Waters?  McDermott?  Nadler?  I can name 20 more.

But notice, not one has voted for it.  Not one.

You're gutless, intellectually dishonest, and are hurting this country.

You just said that the withdrawal position is not equivalent to "load the troops on a plane tomorrow." Exactly what is it equivalent to, then? I could summarize the Republican withdrawal position as follows: "load all the troops on a plane as soon as they finish the job." What's the Democratic objection to that?

That Fitzmas anticipation day really was the low point for the Republicans.  They seem to be finding their sea legs again.

is also being sold a set of goods by the MSM and up until now hasn't been countered by many Politicians including the POTUS/VPOTUS (do i get credit for the first utterance of VPOTUS? pronounced vee-potus).

This is just an extension of the Republican 'fightback' the POTUS started last week.

...would be that it's contingent on something they fear - success.  They will settle for nothing less than a humbling defeat for Bush...even if it costs the country dearly.  

Schmidt should not have called Murtha a coward.  She should have the Marine come down and call him a coward.  Better yet, have a planeload of Marines come down and call all the Dems cowards.

By squelching this innane political dissent of the Dem's.

. . . . like "the earliest practicable date" is a lot different from "immediately".

Just stripped of the crap.

I wish things in Iraq would turn out rosy...I wish we had the stones to send and additional 400,000 troops to Iraq and actually win this war.  

We set out to create a stable arab democracy in the middle east, a worthy and wonderful goal.  In order to accomplish this we had to conquer a nation, I have no problem with that..but if you're going to conquer an entire country do it correctly.  Get in with overwhelming force, destroy all opposition, declare martial law, secure the borders, shoot anyone who opposses you, set-up a transitional (puppet) regime, integrate the Iraqi army in keeping the peace, and get out.  

We do not have enough troops in Iraq...this vote and all the questions around it are stupid, and simply further exposes a weakened GOP.  Bush must either do what it takes to win, despite what the political consequences will be, or leave.  

Let's see how many dems take the Cindy stance. Let's just see. This will be funny. I always thought the clear GOP strategy should be to make the dems choose between the whacks and the mainstream of the country on three issues:

Abortion, racial quotas, and practicing Christianity.

This is a brilliant why to split them over Iraq. I hope it works.

Really? What is the difference? Why isn't the shorter resolution just a restatement of a portion of the longer resolution (namely by deleting the whereas clauses?)

What does "earliest practicable date" mean?

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

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.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

I think practicable in this context means feasible; leaving the Marines and the call for security and stability through diplomacy seems to back this idea up.

Not exactly cut and run, but i do see the points about that here.

Either proposal seems a bit lacking to me, and would require filling out with planning - which should be expected by the proposers.

and with all due respect to the US Marines, but the United States has military forces other than the Marines :-) And some of them are even pretty good.

with a show of hands in Congress as to who favors an indefinite deployment.  In fact, I think it would be a downright great idea.

but I'd like to hear one of our resident Lefties say it, too.

An Army Officer who learned the CORRECT lesson from Viet Nam, he has this to say to Jack Murtha

Remember how we, you and I, heard the same defeatist garbage from the same institution in which you now hold office back in that distant war that everyone likes to compare this one too? Remember how it felt? It's no different now than it was then for those fighting and dying in a foreign land for a cause they believe in.

Yet, there you are, spouting the same sort of crap we heard when we were in that young man and his comrades position.

Do yourself, the country, and especially our military a favor and show the resolve and support we begged for during that time. Make "never again" a reality for once in your pathetic political career. Show some backbone, some moral courage.

There is no "peace with honor" when you leave before the job is done.

See the job through to the end despite the obstacles and challenges.

Just once.

And yes, if it's important, I wore this country's uniform for 28 years as an infantry officer. I believe as much in the oath I took then as I do now. More importantly, I remember the feeling that my country had abandoned me as if it were yesterday, and I vowed if it ever tried it again, I'd speak up loudly and often.

It would be nice to believe you too remember that, and you too had made that sort of a vow.

But apparently, or at least so it seems, you've forgotten what it was like then. The emptiness in the pit of your stomach as you realize the cause you and so many of your comrades, some of whom had died for it, was simply too uncomfortable for those at home in Congress to bear anymore.

Funny, that ... you talk about being upset that men who've never worn the uniform are criticizing you, yet you feel no apparent problem with pulling the rug out from those in combat by all but declaring their mission has failed ... just like the '70s. Our military certainly doesn't seem to feel that way, if the young soldier with the 101st's email is any indication.

Yes it's pretty sad to see someone who actually knows what it was like, what it feels like in your gut when you hear people like yourself say what you've said, do it anyway.

Sad indeed.

It causes me to worry about America's future if you are indicative of what it can expect from it's "leadership".  

I figured that's the currently effective resolution which led to war in the first place. That hasn't been repealed or reversed by legislation, yet.

do you have a hard time telling the truth?  Unless you are mentally challenged, which I am not implying, we all know what MUrtha is saying:  GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!

What is the problem with saying it like it is for you?  I dont understand your thought processes.  Are you are going to stand there and tell me that if Murtha's EXACT language passed the next quote out of Pelosi's mouth would be, "the message is clear, we are leaving tonight."  If you dont think so, you should come to FL, I have some prime vacation land I would love to sell you.

Whereas Congress and the American People are about to be shown Iraq to be a success;

Whereas I voted with one other person to reinstate the draft last year and got my 'whereas' handed to me and didn't like it;

Whereas the check from my communist front group? I called and they told me "what I've done for us lately";

Whereas I never got a ticker-tape parade from when I served in Vietnam;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency and worse yet the insurgency has become the target of Iraqi citizens;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq.. and are demonstrating in France nightly in protest;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of Iraqi's in the Sunni Triangle feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that winning in Iraq is not in the best interests of Democrats in the United States of America, the Insurgents of Iraq, or Muslim Dictators in the Persian Gulf Region;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

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... preferably yesterday.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region but out of the range of Iraqi scud missles, kamikaze boat attacks from Yemenese or Sudanese militants or Iranian nuclear rockets.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy by handing over these duties to the UN. The UN's track record speaks for itself having been involved the Congo, Saddam's Iraq, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Kosovo, Somalia and the Israeli invasion of Palistine.

For the same reason we have Congressional votes rather than plebiscites.

So, the left-wing is now saying that Murtha is NOT calling for an immediate withdrawal???

Then why does the first paragraph of my front page story in the NYTimes this morning say: "