The Honorable John P. Murtha

[Rodeo]

Hey, Flint's a better man, what can I do?

After all, he DID say "maybe" when suggesting that Col. Murtha had a horrific mental disease. That's not an attack, everyone knows that.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
The Republicans nailed him yesterday though...forced a vote on the very thing he was pushing for...pulling all troops out of Iraq now. Of course it got defeated by a wide margin as even the Democrats couldn't vote be on record to pull all troops out now. Hung him out to dry bigtime...nice political move if you ask me...call their bluff.

Uh, no. He was looking for a withdrawal with a plan. The Republicans put up a completely different simplistic type question-"shall we leave immediately". Even Murtha voted against it.
Just showed the petty acrimonious side of Republicans to me.

[Rodeo]

The "counterfeit" Murtha Resolution -- as much in common with the original Resolution as Parkay has in common with butter. They’re both yellow.

That Nathan's dad, who appears to be a bright and reasonable person, fell for it tells me a lot about why the Republicans keep using these dishonest (and shameful) tactics. They work, except for those that pay very close attention.

(I’m sure there are a lot of people that believe that Parkay really does taste like butter too)

[Nathans_Dad]

Sorry guys, check your sources again...the following quote is from Murtha's own website:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

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.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

IMMEDIATE redeployment is not a timetable folks...it is IMMEDIATE redeployment. He wants all troops out before the DECEMBER ELECTIONS which is exactly the proposal the Republicans put up for a vote.

[Beethoven]

I wonder how much longer until they say he never really earned the bronze star? Mul?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Beethoven
I wonder how much longer until they say he never really earned the bronze star? Mul?

You know it. By the end of December, this guy will be completely destroyed....

It's one of the republican traits.

They even do it to their own.....McCain, Powell, etc. Hell, even Jack Ryan was told to leave.

IMO, they're nothing but backstabbers.

[Nathans_Dad]

Come on, Steve? Rodeo?? No reply to my cut and paste from his website? Are you gonna admit you were wrong about what he asked for in his speech? Nothing? Throw me a bone here...

[cool_chick]

What does his website have to do with the wording of his bill? From what I understand, it was for a 6 month withdraw plan.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by cool_chick
IMO, they're nothing but backstabbers.

Talk about painting everyone in the party with a REAL WIDE brush. CC, lets slow down a whole bunch here...

Steve, "Immediate withdrawal" does not even come close to "withdrawal with a plan," so lets everyone stop acting so surprised when the falsehoods that are posted are jumped upon.

We all know that the Democrats never go after someone who says that they are not doing the correct thing. Not like Hilary and the WH travel department or the thousands of documented cases of this happening.

Give me a forking break guys and gals, this happens on both sides of the fence every day.

Joe A

PS From his website, dated 17 Nov, noted "for immediate release" just in case you guys did not see it in Nathans Dad's post, here it is again:

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.



http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Talk about painting everyone in the party with a REAL WIDE brush. CC, lets slow down a whole bunch here...

That's how I view your party. Sorry, but I do. I'm talking on politician level, they are nothing but a bunch of backstabbers.

Some of their party members are no better...not all....not even many...but some are....

[cool_chick]

And Joe:

What does his website have to do with the wording of his bill? From what I understand, it was for a 6 month withdraw plan. THE BILL is the topic of discussion here....

[Nathans_Dad]

He didn't author a bill, it was a joint resolution. Here is the timeline of events:

1) Democrats put forward a resolution requiring a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. It is defeated in the Senate.
2) Republicans put forward another resolution requiring the administration to move towards withdrawal and update the Senate every 90 days. It passes.
3) Murtha makes a SPEECH on November 17th (the text of which is on his website, some of which I cut and pasted) calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
4) Republicans put forward another resolution calling for immediate withdrawal, knowing it could not possibly pass but FORCING Democrats to either support Murtha (and put themselves up for massive criticism for not supporting the troops, pulling out of Iraq early, etc) OR hang Murtha out to dry. As I understand it, even MURTHA didn't vote for the resolution. Democrats say it wasn't the same as Murtha's idea and they are somewhat correct in that Murtha called for a rapid response unit and a "over the horizon" Marine force. The Republican resolution simply called for the complete and immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The way I see it, Murtha got up in front of the Senate and made an extreme speech to try and push forward the Iraq War rhetoric. Unfortunately for him and the Democrats their bluff was called.

[Joeaksa]

CC, Have no idea what the bill said but he would not have posted something on his personal website that is opposed to the bill. Murtha put out on his own website that he wants a Immediate Withdrawal, and published it for all to see. Its hard to fight with what the man himself is publishing on a govt website. You mention bill in your post but this thread is about Murtha and his speech.

As for your comment about "your party"... well my dear, when it gets to the point where someone in one party is saying that everyone on the other party is anything, it might be time to sit down and review things. A "blanket" statement like that is bound to be incorrect as there is no way that it will cover everyone in any party.

I could say that all Democrats are spinless creatures and pushing an agenda trying to is closer to Disneyland than reality but it would be as false as your comment about Repubs being backstabbers. All of almost any group aint gonna wash...

Joe A

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
He didn't author a bill, it was a joint resolution. Here is the timeline of events:

1) Democrats put forward a resolution requiring a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. It is defeated in the Senate.
2) Republicans put forward another resolution requiring the administration to move towards withdrawal and update the Senate every 90 days. It passes.
3) Murtha makes a SPEECH on November 17th (the text of which is on his website, some of which I cut and pasted) calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
4) Republicans put forward another resolution calling for immediate withdrawal, knowing it could not possibly pass but FORCING Democrats to either support Murtha (and put themselves up for massive criticism for not supporting the troops, pulling out of Iraq early, etc) OR hang Murtha out to dry. As I understand it, even MURTHA didn't vote for the resolution. Democrats say it wasn't the same as Murtha's idea and they are somewhat correct in that Murtha called for a rapid response unit and a "over the horizon" Marine force. The Republican resolution simply called for the complete and immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The way I see it, Murtha got up in front of the Senate and made an extreme speech to try and push forward the Iraq War rhetoric. Unfortunately for him and the Democrats their bluff was called.

Well eventually the admin will have to be held accountable. Or maybe a plan will be formulated in 2008, when he's gone. Because at this rate, this war will never end. It's not working now. Either put in tons of troops and do something, or pull out. The current "plan" equates to nothing more than a lifetime of battle in Iraq.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Joeaksa


As for your comment about "your party"... well my dear, when it gets to the point where someone in one party is saying that everyone on the other party is anything, it might be time to sit down and review things. A "blanket" statement like that is bound to be incorrect as there is no way that it will cover everyone in any party.

Joe A

Ok, I'll give you a handful of your politicians don't fit that bill.

But in my lifespan, all I've seen is republicans turn on their own. And it sickens me.

[nostatic]

"Play it by ear" isn't a plan?

Hmm...back to the drawing board...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Well eventually the admin will have to be held accountable. Or maybe a plan will be formulated in 2008, when he's gone. Because at this rate, this war will never end. It's not working now. Either put in tons of troops and do something, or pull out. The current "plan" equates to nothing more than a lifetime of battle in Iraq.

You know, I have to agree with you more than I could disagree with any of the above. You see, Democrats and Republicans can agree.

It needs to end and the sooner the better. Any admin will always be held accountable, or as much as is possible in todays world.

Is Clinton being held accountable for starting the fight with the terrorists? Remember he is the one who tried to kill Bin Laden, and failed, slightly pissing him off towards America. Now Bush and his group are paying the price for this failure. It will not take until 2008 for a plan to be worked out. No one wants to see the killing continue so something will have to be worked out and shortly.

Its 0600 here in this part of the world and word is just coming out of another 50 or so killed by bombs in Iraq on Saturday, with over 40 of them being civilians. It will benefit everyone involved to end this mess. Its not Vietnam and will never be of the same scope, but its not good either and needs to be taken care of and soon.

JoeA

PS is there a knife in your back in this post? All Repubs backstabbers? Might rethink that statement sometime...

[cool_chick]

Yes, just about all republican politicians are backstabbers. Sorry, but it's true.

And one can't hold a former president accountable for happenings today, just like you can't hold a former CEO accountable for what's happening in the company today. When Bush retires, accountability will lie on the new president.

He wanted the job, he needs to take responsibility just like the rest of us do in our careers.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Joeaksa

Is Clinton being held accountable for starting the fight with the terrorists? Remember he is the one who tried to kill Bin Laden, and failed, slightly pissing him off towards America. Now Bush and his group are paying the price for this failure. It will not take until 2008 for a plan to be worked out. No one wants to see the killing continue so something will have to be worked out and shortly.

we could go back further too. Who set Bin Laden up in the first place? No administration is without blame for something.

I know there will be a "plan" because mid term elections are coming up in a year. Look for something to be offered up right before the campaigning starts in earnest...figure March or so. The Repubs are somewhat on the defensive after the last election...or at least know that they have to act. The Dems will likely be their usual idiotic selves and just poke holes in the flawed Repub plan rather than being constructive or offering a realistic alternative.

[Nathans_Dad]

Calling for a timetable or any other form of withdrawal at this time is exactly what we DON'T need. Do you think the terrorists in Iraq will just lay down their bombs and head home if they hear the US is pulling out in 3 months, 6 months, a year or whatever? NO. They will see weakness and step up their attacks. I agree with Senator McCain who said "Our exit strategy is VICTORY."

2,000 US Servicemembers dead is certainly a heavy toll to pay, however it is NOTHING compared to the over 116,516 American soldiers killed in WWI, the 300,000 lost in WWII, the 58,000 in Vietnam, or the 36,940 killed in Korea. The best way to assure those 2,000 soldiers died in vain is to pull out of Iraq before it is stable and allow it to disintegrate.