Rodeo the 6 month comment came AFTER he proposed the joint resolution because his original speech simply said IMMEDIATE. Afterwards in a news conference he said that it probably would take 6 months to get everything out even if we started now.

The answer to your question is that there was nothing in his resolution about a 6 month timetable. It simply said immediate redeployment consistent with the safety of our troops (which is in my original cut and paste lest you accuse me of leaving something out of the quote).

Bottom line he was grandstanding. I'm sure he is a nice guy and probably did this, in part, because he wants to protect the troops. Only problem is he is 180 degrees WRONG and he got called on it. If you like what he said and think that it's a good idea to immediately pull out then get mad at the Democrats who cut and ran instead of defending him.

BTW, why the hell did the thread get hijacked to talk about who thinks who is backstabbing? That is a totally unprovable and unwinnable discussion.

I didn't know this forum was some sort of game in which there is a "winner" and a "loser."

Shrugs.....

Inclusive, sensitive...right...

except for Michael Steele whom they call Uncle Tom and Simple Sambo while pelting him with Oreos at a debate....

I hate it when facts get in the way of ideology...

Well there's racists everywhere, and that is most certainly not party-specific.

Edit: It's the same thing as the idealogy that republicans have "morals" then Newt goes out and gets some strange on the side....

Lack of morals isn't party-specific either.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joeaksa
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.


Joe and Rick, I had not read the statement, but just had heard some commentary. My error. But I could see the redeployment as an aggressive transfer of responsibility to the Iraqis and pull our troops out of harms way. Isn't that what everyone could agree upon?

(I've been busy all day in the garden and installing my engine)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stevepaa

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa 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. Joe and Rick, I had not read the statement, but just had heard some commentary. But I could see the redeployment as an aggressive transfer of repsonsibility to the Iraqis and pull our troops out of harms way. Isn't that wgat everyone could agree upon? (i've been busy all day in the garden and installing my engine)

Steve, I agree that we need to get out of Iraq at sometime in the future, but the last thing we need to do is to do it as a kneejerk reaction and as well give the terrorists a schedule of when we are leaving!

Give them a timetable and they will lie back and do nothing, making everyone feel that they are beaten. A week or two before we get everything out they will come back strong and kill as many of our people as possible while we do not have the forces to effectively fight them at that time.

We need to do it on our terms, with the military and not the politicians making the timetable and plans.

JoeA

PS Murtha has been playing games like this for a while and the military is not enamoured with his comments...


John Murtha Urged Iraq Pullout Last Year
Friday, Nov. 18, 2005 11:06 a.m. EST

The press is pretending that Rep. John Murtha had been a longtime, staunch supporter of the Iraq war right up until yesterday's "shocking reversal," when the Pennsylvania Democrat abruptly called for an immediate U.S. pull out.

In fact, Murtha began advocating a cut-and-run strategy way back in May 2004 - after U.S. forces had been in Iraq just a little more than a year.

Standing at the time next to San Francisco-based House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi - who was last seen defending her city's decision to ban military recruiters from public school property - the allegedly pro-war Murtha proclaimed that the Iraq war was "unwinnable."

"We have to either mobilize or get out [and] I don't know that we have the will to mobilize," he declared 18 months ago.
Peacenik Pelosi was delighted at the time - showing off her new catch as if Murtha was a prize-winning poodle.

"He is one of the most recognized experts on defense in the country," she boasted. "And no one has worked harder to meet the needs of our troops."

Of course, one of the troops' most compelling needs is support of their mission on the home front. And Murtha very publicly yanked his support a long time ago.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/18/110747.shtml

Steve I can agree that our troops should come home as soon as Iraqi troops are ready to take over. That might be in a year or two years or 5 years, I don't know. What I do know is that if you pull out while the Iraqi military is unable to control the insurgency and the government falls then all the blood lost over the last 2 years is for nothing.

I understand Rodeo's point in that our presence is causing more muslims to become more fundamentalist and radical. Yes that is an issue but it is an unavoidable one.

Again, if we pull out now, Iraq will be 100 times worse than it ever was under Hussein.

It really floors me that the country that was able to stomach and win WWI and WWII with 150 TIMES the loss of life cannot seem to handle 2 years of war in Iraq. What's the difference? I think the soldiers are generally the same, they are still 18-20 somethings who got sent over there and are doing the best they can. The main difference, IMO, is the media. Ever watch those old WWII media clips? Notice how they are all upbeat and showing our troops as heroes? Now go turn on CNN and watch the media fascination with the running body count. I swear, it leads the news every day "2 more soldiers killed in Iraq, bringing the total to 2,085...tonight at 10, 1 more soldier dies, that makes 2086!" No wonder the American people are tired of this war...

At the very least, we need a solid timetable on when Iraq will be able to stand on it's own. A timetable, a project plan........bottom line.....

When has that ever mattered? And I'm being serious. The politicians use the troops like chess pieces to undertake their political agendas. Didn't MacArthur want to keep going in WWII?

In reality the commanders in the field also have a fairly narrow vision when it comes to the overarching question. They are, however, in the best position to determine what is "safe" and how that might be achieved, at least locally.

umm...in case you didn't know, the government had almost full control over the media during WWII. In addition, there were great "boogie men" that Hollywood could point their sights at (ever watch Looney Tunes from the era?). And the country and the world were very different places back then.

Ok, to close out the issue of the Murtha substitute resolution, here's Ezra Klien's write-up. Notice the significant difference in language between the two. I particularly like how the Repubs used "large type" to try to fill a whole page.

If you happened to be strolling through DC last night and heard a strange sound that could best be described as the howling of rabid wolverines slowly circling the drain of their final fate, it was because the House Republicans were engaging in a fine bit of grandstanding that took them to yet a new low.

It started with Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha’s resolution, which was a page long and, following an explanatory preamble, made the following recommendations:

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

Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and 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 GOP then entered a revised resolution, which, in fairness, tried to be a page long through the clever use of large-sized fonts, and reduced Murtha’s idea to a mere three lines:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Here's the Murtha Resolution. I could not find the text of the substitute, but I'll assume that Ezra Klien is not lying.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on _____________________

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

I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

Thank you, but that is really not much of a compliment.

When will you ever stop giving your interpretation of what I say instead of quoting me? That would be much more honest....unless that is not your intent.

Here ya' go (second time):

Happy? Feel good about what you said? Feel good about yourself? Feel like you really moved the ball for your "side"?

And you would prefer to let these guys determine when it's best to leave?

My point exactly. Although, you'd most likely be surprised to know exactly just how wide their range of information is. These are the guys best suited to tell us, "Mission accomplished!", not a bunch a suits on Capital Hill, nor a bunch of protestors marching through the streets.

Randy

Ok Rodeo, so besides what Ezra Klein says (who obviously isn't a Democrat or anything...) what about your post is different from what has already been said?

Nostatic: Obviously the government had control over the media during WWII. It's also obvious that our media has a fascination with body counts and covering the "ugly" side of war which has a detrimental effect on morale. I'm not saying that I'm for government censorship, but our nation's ability to wage and win wars has been hampered by the media in our last 3 major conflicts (I'm speaking of Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, in which we are 0-2 and a big ? on Iraq).

Oh, and just to prove my point a little further, please point to the line in the resolution that calls for a 6 month timetable or whatever spin the Democrats are putting on that resolution. It doesn't. It says "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."

HEREBY: (formal) by means of this.

In other words...RIGHT NOW. IMMEDIATELY.

I was surprised by Randy's only response to an attack on a fellow decorated combat Marine by a spineless freshman republican representative from Ohio. Rep. Jean Schmidt, "That cowards cut an run, Marines never do." She claims she was told to rely this message to Murtha.
I don't care what the circumstances are, one doesn't speak to combat veterans in this manner. The republican party in this country is a work of art and getting better every day.

Doesn't it feel better to tell the truth?

It seems she was relaying a message from another, more decorated military man. Which side do you recommend Randy take...the wrong one...because it would please you?

It is funny! The party of surrender is suddenly concerned about insulting veterans...LOL!! Like surrender is not the ultimate insult.

Clinton, enlighten me. Where and when did I make this response you speak of? Or is this just your weak attempt at earning your Liberal Media Junior Reporter Merit Badge?

Randy