Murtha's Death Blow: End of Bush & GOP Running for Cover

[Ivan Seeking]

When they turned on Murtha they killed themselves.

I think that's it. Bush is dead and the Republicans are running for cover. It's time to clean house!

 

[Smurf]

what on Earth are you talking about?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

THE WAR OF WORDS OVER IRAQ INTENSIFIES
An influential Democrat who served in Vietnam calls for a pullout, rankling the GOP

By BENNETT ROTH
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The congressional debate over the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq escalated Thursday when a House Democrat with a reputation as a hard-nosed defense hawk called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"It's time to bring them home. They've done everything they can do," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Murtha's appeal drew a sharp rebuke from top House Republicans, who accused him of embracing a cut-and-run strategy.

"They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Murtha, a 73-year-old decorated Marine veteran who served as an intelligence officer in Vietnam, is widely respected by his colleagues on military matters. His stance has the potential to influence others in Congress who are nervous about falling public support for the war. [continued]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3469480

They really screwed up when they attacked Murtha. He is extremely tight with the top brass in the Pentagon.

 

[Skyhunter]

what on Earth are you talking about?

John Murtha

Murtha has been known as a hawkish Democrat, who supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The Bush Administration sharply criticized Murtha's comments, Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that it is "baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." Congressional Democrats took offensive on such comments being directed to a Vietnam vet. Murtha's comments forced a heated debate on the floor of the US House of Representatives on November 18, where Democrats and Republicans sparred on the issue of withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

For his stance on the war in Iraq some Republicans have called him a coward

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.

Except that due to his impeccable history and tight bonds with the military, they only discredited themselves; and not just in principle but in fact.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Their gutter tactics and smear campaigns won't work this time.

 

[Pengwuino]

what on Earth are you talking about?

A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.

This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".

 

[Archon]

A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.
This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".

This depends on your definition of "surrendering." If by surrender you mean something along the lines of "I surrendered the book to Martha, and she thanked me profusely," then I would probably point to the vast increase in terrorist activity in Iraq since the invasion and say that Bush has already surrendered Iraq to the terrorists. Of course, Bush hasn't formally surrendered to the terrorists in the sense that Germany surrendered at the end of World War II. But nobody is calling for him to do that. In other words, I want you to define surrender. Then I want you to surrender to reality and stop trying to spin every bit of anti-Bush information that comes your way.

And murderers? Can you give me some numbers comparing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by American troops to the number of Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists since the beginning of the conflict? I would appreciate it. While you're at it, I would love to see that list of the other 57 times the democrats have said that. Good luck.

 

[Skyhunter]

A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.
This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".

I thought Evo was trying to clean up this kind of tabloid posting.

Surrender to terrorists?

Hand over Iraq to murderers?

That is hyperbole that is off the scale.

 

[Pengwuino]

Lets see

Current objective: establish a democracy and supress terrorists.

Democrat plan: leave, give Iraq to murderers (unless your definition of someone who sets off a bomb infront of a police station to kill policemen and civilians is something other then a murderer or terrorist)

That is like saying France didn't surrender when Germany took over its government. Oh and Archon, you might want to check the numbers yourself as you'll be unpleasently surprised at how many people have died at the hands of terrorist. Of course... the media rarely hypes such numbers up because it may just sound like terrorists are bad people if such numbers are talked about too much. 50 police dead here, 10 government officials dead there... oh who cares, we can get more subscriptions if we advertise the 2 dead US soldiers.

 

[Skyhunter]

Their gutter tactics and smear campaigns won't work this time.

As I stated in Are the tides changing

Using divisive tactics when the majority disagrees with you is political suicide.

 

[Pengwuino]

Using divisive tactics when the majority disagrees with you is political suicide.

Thats why we could soon be seeing the end of hte Democratic party. They attempted to undermine the majorities vote by stopping Bush's judges which infuriated the public.

 

[BobG]

Thats why we could soon be seeing the end of hte Democratic party. They attempted to undermine the majorities vote by stopping Bush's judges which infuriated the public.

I'm not sure what you mean -- a majority of Americans support Bush? Or are you talking about some time in past history? And if talking about past history, how will that infuriate Americans today?

Edit: By the way, that's not exactly a slam. It's a political reality. If you read the Constitution, the President doesn't actually have much power to impose his personal policies. His main power is his image as leader of the nation. Without the poll numbers, defying him has no consequences.

 

[BobG]

When they turned on Murtha they killed themselves.
I think that's it. Bush is dead and the Republicans are running for cover. It's time to clean house!

I think saying an attack on Murtha kills Bush might be overstating the case a little.

All in all, Murtha's comments, the Republicans 'symbolic, non-binding' bill proposed solely to put Democrats on the spot, and the debate in the House today have been a good thing. Congress is actually talking about things important to the nation. The debate was pretty exciting - they stopped short of actual violence, but it was very rowdy with a few lows like Schmidt's comment that cowards cut and run - marines don't cut and run (Murtha is a retired Marine Colonel. Schmidt later apologized and asked that her comment be withdrawn), but a lot of highs from both sides, as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.

Btw, what would be wrong with, "we respectfully disagree", or, "we believe he is terribly wrong..."? Or, how about, "we are not worthy to lick the dirt on your shoes"...okay, they probably wouldn't say that...

 

[klusener]

John Murtha's stunning comments calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq made the front page of newspapers around the country this week. It was particularly astonishing because the veteran Pennsylvania congressman is anything but a publicity seeker or a media hog. You won't, for instance, find him on the House floor opining on every subject under the sun.

But his counsel is widely sought. A decorated Vietnam War veteran -- one who has spent more than three decades on Capitol Hill as a behind-the-scenes power broker -- his thoughts and pronouncements on military matters and defense policy are respected on both sides of the aisle.

During the 2004 vice presidential debate, when he was asked what he could do about the "deeply divided electorate," Dick Cheney acknowledged that it was a "disappointment," and went on to say that things used to be different. "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee."

No longer. Following Murtha's blistering attack Thursday on the Bush administration's war policy, he was asked about comments from the president and vice president calling it "irresponsible" for Democrats to criticize the war. This was Murtha's response: "I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

Similarly, in 2004, when Murtha first began to question the conduct of the war, Republicans in the House harshly criticized him. Then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay called Murtha's remarks a "calculated, craven political stunt." Unbowed, Murtha fired back at the former pest exterminator: "When I was in Vietnam, you were killing bugs."

Murtha's most recent comments have once again thrust him into the spotlight. But Murtha's initial election to Congress was national news as well. Following the death of a 24-year Republican incumbent in 1973, Murtha won a special election in February of the following year -- at a time when the Nixon administration was becoming overwhelmed with revelations about the ongoing Watergate investigation. Murtha won by only 122 votes (becoming the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress), but it was a harbinger for Republican troubles in the 1974 midterm elections. He has won comfortably ever since.

Murtha has been a reliable pro-labor lawmaker during his time in the House. He voted in favor of going to war in Iraq in 2002 and also supported the first Gulf War in 1991. He backs drilling for oil in Alaska but has voted no on the Bush tax cuts. He also opposes abortion rights and supports the death penalty. And that fits the character of his aging, culturally conservative district, the 12th, situated in southwest Pennsylvania, and his hometown of Johnstown.

...

The second bolded quote is a classic.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5018733

 

[kat]

403 noes
3 ayes
on the resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

 

[BobG]

403 noes
3 ayes
on the resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

And let me guess. Hunter, the Republican that initiated the bill, also voted against it.

The vote was irrelevant, since the bill was a symbolic statement rather than a serious proposal. It's purpose was to pre-empt Murtha's proposal and to put Democrats on the spot. It was worded so that approval would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do, but it's insertion in place of Murtha's proposal would look like a resounding defeat of Murtha's proposal to the general public.

It's kind of a lowball tactic, but that's okay. The heated passions on both sides about the Iraq war are a big improvement over last Spring's priorities.

 

[Skyhunter]

And let me guess. Hunter, the Republican that initiated the bill, also voted against it.
The vote was irrelevant, since the bill was a symbolic statement rather than a serious proposal. It's purpose was to pre-empt Murtha's proposal and to put Democrats on the spot. It was worded so that approval would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do, but it's insertion in place of Murtha's proposal would look like a resounding defeat of Murtha's proposal to the general public.
It's kind of a lowball tactic, but that's okay. The heated passions on both sides about the Iraq war are a big improvement over last Spring's priorities.

You mean like emergency, middle of the night, this time only special legislation to distract us from Tom Delay's problems?

Oh wait, that wasn't the reason. It was so that Bill Frist could demonstrate his ability to diagnose a brain dead patient from a video tape.

 

[russ_watters]

A Republican clone of Murtha's proposal was brought to a vote and was voted-down nearly unanamously. So all that says to me is that Democrats talk, but aren't willing to stand-by their convictions: If Murtha is right, why didn't the Democrats vote for the proposal? The Republicans called their bluff and the Democrats didn't have the stones to stand by their beliefs.

Hypocrites and weaklings, the lot of them.

 

[Skyhunter]

Murtha's proposal was brought to a vote and was voted-down nearly unanamously. So all that says to me is that Democrats talk, but aren't willing to stand-by their convictions: If Murtha is right, why didn't the Democrats vote for his proposal? The Republicans called their bluff and the Democrats didn't have the stones to stand by their beliefs.
Hypocrites and weaklings, the lot of them.

It was not Murtha's proposal.

It was a strawman, and he voted against it as well.

It was nothing more than an underhandeed manuever so that they could make statements like yours with no real basis in reality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, you really can't tell the difference between a Republican stunt and an actual vote? Why would anyone vote to pull out with no plan.

No wonder you supported Bush.

 

[Astronuc]

Lawmakers Reject Immediate Iraq Withdrawal

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated.

"To cut and run would invite terrorism into our backyards, and no one wants to see troops fighting terrorism on American soil," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Friday night after the House, as planned, rejected a GOP-written resolution for immediate withdrawal.

The vote, held as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break.

Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure. That included Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the Democratic hawk whose call Thursday for pulling out troops set off a nasty, personal debate over the war.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.

Why does the Republican leadership make such idiotic statements as Hastert did? Bush's belliegerent policies have been an open invitation to terrorists to strike at the US. A stable government in Iraq will not change that. However, it is unlikely Iraq will be stable anytime in the forseeable future, thanks to Bush!

IMO, Iraq is certainly like Vietnam all over again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IMO, Iraq is certainly like Vietnam all over again.

Yep, that was hard to see coming, huh.

We were only in Nam for what...nearly twenty years? What irony that two men who dodged service to avoid going would start another Nam.

 

[Astronuc]

Eyes wide shut! Closed minds and parochial myopia.

Actually I spent time with some Nam Vets back in the 70's. They new Vietnam was a lost cause, despite what the politicians in Washington said.

I also had a Vietnamese colleauge who was pretty conservative. He mentioned that, while people in the South were not thrilled with Ho Chi Minh, the majority of the South Vietnamese wanted the US out.

But paranoia about communism and desire to impose one nation's aberrant (or otherwise erroneous) ideas (delusions) on another seemed to be the order of the day.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yep, that was hard to see coming, huh.
We were only in Nam for what...nearly twenty years? What irony that two men who dodged service to avoid going would start another Nam.

And smear those that did serve.

What gets me is the people here with military backgrounds agree with these chickenhawks.

I guess it is a blind loyalty to the military. Sorta like religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.

Did you happen to catch what he really said?

This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".

I didn't predict his downfall, I said he's already dead.

You're 0 for 2.

Edit: The thing that many people obviously don't understand is that he was speaking for many at the Pentagon. When they attacked Murtha, they attacked those for whom he was speaking - the Army and Marine brass at the Pentagon. Note also that he said the security of the United States is at stake. Our military is crippled by Bush's abuse of power.

 

[BobG]

A Republican clone of Murtha's proposal was brought to a vote and was voted-down nearly unanamously. So all that says to me is that Democrats talk, but aren't willing to stand-by their convictions: If Murtha is right, why didn't the Democrats vote for the proposal? The Republicans called their bluff and the Democrats didn't have the stones to stand by their beliefs.
Hypocrites and weaklings, the lot of them.

Bush says we'll stay in Iraq until the insurgency is defeated. If the Democrats proposed a non-binding bill stating the US was generally of the opinion that every city in Iraq should nuked, would the Republicans vote for it?

While I don't agree with Murtha's proposal, it was not the same as the bill the Republicans introduced.

Murtha's proposal was a phased withdrawal of troops beginning immediately with a strike force held in Kuwait to respond to any crisis that might arise from the troops' departure. I think the need for the strike force to respond would be almost assured.

The Republican's bill wasn't to withdraw the troops or to initiate any other action. It was a bill stating that Congress was generally of the opinion that every military unit in Iraq should be removed immediately. Since it was a bill to state Congress's opinion rather than to initiate action, no plan was necessary and no plan was included (the Republicans weren't irresponsible enough to propose a bill that would initiate any action - what would they do if it somehow were approved?)

What it does do is take pressure off Congressmen headed home for the holidays. Having Murtha's proposal getting air time and being pressured to state their opinion wouldn't have been easy - especially if question two was the alternate plan to Murtha's. Even if Murtha's bill was eventually defeated (which almost certainly would have happened), it would be a victory for those wanting a plan for the Iraq problem to be spelled out - at this point, the debate was more important than the outcome. This is why the debate over procedures was just as heated as the debate over the bill. If Democrats could extend the allotted time for debate past the amount of time left in the last day of Congress, the bill would have served no purpose for Republicans and would have been withdrawn.

The way things went down, the average person reads an oversimplified headline of Murtha's proposal, then sees a bill for immediate withdrawal almost unanimously defeated. All settled, no major issue for Congressmen to struggle with over the holidays. It may seem just like politics as usual, but that's because it is.

The important thing is that the issue is becoming unavoidable for Congress - you can only buy so much time with the usual political games before having to deal with the problem head on.

 

[Astronuc]

Some perspective on the the Iraq situation.

Iraq
John Crawford: The Accidental Soldier
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4783583

Fresh Air from WHYY, November 11, 2005 · With two credits to go before college graduation, John Crawford was called to active duty and sent to the front lines in Iraq. Crawford had joined the Florida National Guard in order to pay his tuition -- and didn't expect to go to war.

His new memoir is The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell: An Accidental Soldier's Account of the War in Iraq. It was written partly while on active duty and partly back in the United States after he returned.

'Just Another Soldier' Revives a Banned Blog
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4953949

Fresh Air from WHYY, October 11, 2005 · The war in Iraq has been one of the most-documented conflicts in history, with reports and photos reaching a worldwide audience from embedded reporters, satellite imaging, Web video feeds -- and often, e-mails and blogs set up by soldiers themselves.

While serving in Iraq, Army National Guardsman Jason Christopher Hartley kept a blog of his experiences -- until his commanders forced him to shut it down. Now back from Iraq, Hartley has incorporated his blog into a new memoir: Just Another Soldier: A Year on the Ground in Iraq.

The book combines Hartley's impressions formed while his Guard unit served in Iraq with his approach to the war and the military today. His perspective is a unique one: In September of 2001, Hartley was called to duty to help secure the perimeter of the World Trade Center after the terrorist attacks brought down the buildings.

A Utah native, Jason Christopher Hartley now lives in New Paltz, N.Y., where he remains a member of the New York Army National Guard.

Kayla Williams: 'Love My Rifle More Than You'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4814647

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 25, 2005 · Kayla Williams is a former U.S. Army soldier who served in the Middle East as an Arabic interpreter. She recounts her decision to enlist and her experiences during the Iraq war in a new memoir, Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army. Williams was a sergeant in a military intelligence company of the 101st Airborne Division.

 

[Skyhunter]

While I don't agree with Murtha's proposal, it was not the same as the bill the Republicans introduced.
Murtha's proposal was a phased withdrawal of troops beginning immediately with a strike force held in Kuwait to respond to any crisis that might arise from the troops' departure. I think the need for the strike force to respond would be almost assured.
The Republican's bill wasn't to withdraw the troops or to initiate any other action. It was a bill stating that Congress was generally of the opinion that every military unit in Iraq should be removed immediately. Since it was a bill to state Congress's opinion rather than to initiate action, no plan was necessary and no plan was included (the Republicans weren't irresponsible enough to propose a bill that would initiate any action - what would they do if it somehow were approved?)
What it does do is take pressure off Congressmen headed home for the holidays. Having Murtha's proposal getting air time and being pressured to state their opinion wouldn't have been easy - especially if question two was the alternate plan to Murtha's. Even if Murtha's bill was eventually defeated (which almost certainly would have happened), it would be a victory for those wanting a plan for the Iraq problem to be spelled out - at this point, the debate was more important than the outcome. This is why the debate over procedures was just as heated as the debate over the bill. If Democrats could extend the allotted time for debate past the amount of time left in the last day of Congress, the bill would have served no purpose for Republicans and would have been withdrawn.
The way things went down, the average person reads an oversimplified headline of Murtha's proposal, then sees a bill for immediate withdrawal almost unanimously defeated. All settled, no major issue for Congressmen to struggle with over the holidays. It may seem just like politics as usual, but that's because it is.
The important thing is that the issue is becoming unavoidable for Congress - you can only buy so much time with the usual political games before having to deal with the problem head on.

And people will do just like russ did and say it was Murtha's proposal that was defeated. I would like to think russ just made a mistake, but there are many in the media who will spin it this way.

I agree that this little stunt won't get them very far before they have to confront reality. I have already contacted my rep's and let them know that I am aware of what happened.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This was just a stunt and it means nothing beyond one day of press. The fact is that we will now get an exit strategy. .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, the war has now cost close to $1000 for every person in the US.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

or, about $2100 per household
http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf

But not everyone is unhappy

Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits
25 July 2005

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html

 

[Astronuc]

Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits
25 July 2005

I wonder how much went to executive bonuses. There will probably be a tidy sum of money tucked away for Cheney when he leaves office.

And the families of the dead get what? And the wounded vets get what departing gifts from Iraq? :grumpy:

 

[Skyhunter]

This was just a stunt and it means nothing beyond one day of press. The fact is that we will now get an exit strategy. .

I hope it is something better than the last Republican proposal. :yuck:

Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq “at the earliest practicable date.” It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Not at all unreasonable.

As opposed to;

The Republican alternative: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10097801/