Bring 'em home

[Disagreeable]

Finally a Democrat has the guts to call for our troops to come how now (well, within six months). And not just any Dem. A Marine, a long time hawk on this war. He was well respected in the House until he spoke out, now the Bush Bunch is bashing him.

Excerpts; more at the link below; my emphasis.

'"It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."

"Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that 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."

"First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform."

"His voice cracked and tears filled his eyes as he related several stories of visiting wounded troops, including one who was blinded and lost both his hands but had been denied a Purple Heart because friendly fire caused his injuries.

"I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart," said Murtha, who has two."

He's right. Our military has done all they can do. They deserve better than the Bush Bunch. Generals on the ground say we can't defeat the insurgency with guns, it will take political agreements to defeat them. The Shiites have no reason to make political agreements with the Sunnis as long as the US has their back. That's why we see the Shiites running torture facilities as in my other post.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_9;_ylt=AsIVVgcuw7Amxoy.4qn8K70UewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, Dis.....did you see this? :lol2:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=57331#57331

 

[Disagreeable]

Yes, I did see that. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that you don't know the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives. And for not knowing that the Iraq withdrawal plan voted down in the House last night was a Republican plan submitted just to be voted down. Republicans are playing politics while American soldiers die. That makes you happy?

 

[Red Robin]

Dis, can the democrats then be persuaded to vote against their convictions for political cover or gain??? Is that what you are saying. I would vote my conviction regardless of the cost in a matter this important. Surely the Dems wouldn't vote to leave the troops in place if they thought we should bring them home....unless they aren't really driven by convictions but rather are driven by political gain.

 

[Disagreeable]

Dis, can the democrats then be persuaded to vote against their convictions for political cover or gain??? Is that what you are saying. I would vote my conviction regardless of the cost in a matter this important. Surely the Dems wouldn't vote to leave the troops in place if they thought we should bring them home....unless they aren't really driven by convictions but rather are driven by political gain.

I don't understand your question. My point to X is that the Republican leadership in the House rewrote Murtha's proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq, brought it to the floor (because they're the majority and leadership, they can do basically whatever they want), just so it could be defeated. X was foolish enough to belive NewsMax. Now she's trying to come up with some spin to get the egg off her face.

 

[Red Robin]

Dis, can the democrats then be persuaded to vote against their convictions for political cover or gain??? Is that what you are saying. I would vote my conviction regardless of the cost in a matter this important. Surely the Dems wouldn't vote to leave the troops in place if they thought we should bring them home....unless they aren't really driven by convictions but rather are driven by political gain.

I don't understand your question. My point to X is that the Republican leadership in the House rewrote Murtha's proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq, brought it to the floor (because they're the majority and leadership, they can do basically whatever they want), just so it could be defeated. X was foolish enough to belive NewsMax. Now she's trying to come up with some spin to get the egg off her face.

Well Dis, my grammer isn't the best. My sentence structure could use help but I think you understand my point. Only 3 representatives (dems) in the house voted to bring the troops home. Is there only 3 that would like to bring the troops home ???? Are the other Democratic reps afraid to take a stand to cut and run ??? Do they really have convictions (either for bringing them home or against) or are they for whichever action gives them the most political traction or cover?

 

[Disagreeable]

Dis, can the democrats then be persuaded to vote against their convictions for political cover or gain??? Is that what you are saying. I would vote my conviction regardless of the cost in a matter this important. Surely the Dems wouldn't vote to leave the troops in place if they thought we should bring them home....unless they aren't really driven by convictions but rather are driven by political gain.

I don't understand your question. My point to X is that the Republican leadership in the House rewrote Murtha's proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq, brought it to the floor (because they're the majority and leadership, they can do basically whatever they want), just so it could be defeated. X was foolish enough to belive NewsMax. Now she's trying to come up with some spin to get the egg off her face.

Well Dis, my grammer isn't the best. My sentence structure could use help but I think you understand my point. Only 3 representatives (dems) in the house voted to bring the troops home. Is there only 3 that would like to bring the troops home ???? Are the other Democratic reps afraid to take a stand to cut and run ??? Do they really have convictions (either for bringing them home or against) or are they for whichever action gives them the most political traction or cover?

No, I didn't understand your question. Here's what Murtha wanted to vote 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 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."

Obviously that's not a cut and run policy. It recognizes some US responsibility in Iraq and the region.

Here's what was voted on last night:

'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."

This is a cut and run policy. Personally, I would have voted for it if I had a vote. But it had no chance for passing and both parties knew that. The Republican liars kept referring to it as the "Murtha" plan, hoping that Americans wouldn't know the truth. We can see that X was fooled. Were you? Dems are not solidly behind pulling troops out now and for sure weren't voting for this. Polls are split on the prospect of pulling out now, but I think if things haven't improved a great deal by this time next year, we'll see much stronger support.

 

[Red Robin]

This is a cut and run policy. Personally, I would have voted for it if I had a vote.

I think they proposed the whole idea (Democrats using Murtha) to make Bush look weak. Politics of this nature make me sick. That is what you get when you elect officials excluding their character from the selection process. They could care less if we stay, leave , surrender or are victorious so long as they look like they are for what ever the polls say is popular or they can discredit the administration. The majority voted to go to war, they all act like now they were fooled (not that bight maybe) and they want their vote back . They vote last night not to bring them home.....They have no convictions . One thing I'll say for you Dis, I think you believe what you write. More than I can say for 3/4 of our politicians from both parties.

 

[Disagreeable]

This is a cut and run policy. Personally, I would have voted for it if I had a vote.

I think they proposed the whole idea (Democrats using Murtha) to make Bush look weak.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but I saw the man make his pitch at the press conference. He's not a "slick" politician. He's a Marine who feels that our soldiers and Marines have done their job. Several Generals on the ground in Iraq have said we can't defeat the insurgency with guns, that it requires a political agreement between Iraqis. With the Shiites are torturing and starving Sunnis in secret prisons, that's not likely to happen. He addresses those facts in his proposal. Dems don't have to do anything to make Bush look weak. He is weak. If he told us tomorrow that Iran should be invaded because they were sending weapons into Iraq, who would believe him? The Army is still having problems recruiting, even though they've increased the bonus, raised the age limit, and shortened the length of enlistment. I understand that re-enlistments are down, too. Every day that the insurgents stand their ground with the US military, is a bad day for this country. It gives hope to those who hate us.

Politics of this nature make me sick. That is what you get when you elect officials excluding their character from the selection process. They could care less if we stay, leave , surrender or are victorious so long as they look like they are for what ever the polls say is popular or they can discredit the administration. The majority voted to go to war, they all act like now they were fooled (not that bight maybe) and they want their vote back . They vote last night not to bring them home.....They have no convictions . One thing I'll say for you Dis, I think you believe what you write. More than I can say for 3/4 of our politicians from both parties.

Who are you to claim our representatives don't have "character?" If they vote your way, they have character? If not, they're characterless scum? The Senate majority voted to give George W. Bush the right to defend our country however he saw fit, not specifically to go to war. He used flawed, twisted, skewed intelligence to make his case to Congress and the American people. If you want to continue to blame everyone but Bush, go ahead. But as more and more facts come out in the Plamegate invesigation and now the investigation that Rumsfield's aide might have presented flawed intelligence, you'll find it a difficult task. And if politics make you sick, chew on this: A freshman Congresswoman called Murtha a coward on the floor of the House, this Marine, who was wounded twice in the service of his country! And now some House Republicans have suddenly called for an ethics investigation of Murtha. That's a gross misuse of power.

 

[Red Robin]

You are vulturizing my post but avoiding the initial argument. I had my foot on your thin little vegan neck. I shouldn't have let you up. Why did all the democrats vote to leave the troops in theater????? They need to vote to bring them home (yes , right now, today) or shut up! Cowards. They are afraid of the heat they would get from guys like me.

 

[Disagreeable]

You are vulturizing my post but avoiding the initial argument. I had my foot on your thin little vegan neck. I shouldn't have let you up. Why did all the democrats vote to leave the troops in theater????? They need to vote to bring them home (yes , right now, today) or shut up! Cowards. They are afraid of the heat they would get from guys like me.

Not to be rude, but you never had your foot on my neck and I do eat meat, especially beef. So insult all you want, it don't make it true. I answered your questions. Not all Republicans voted for this Republican sham. Does that make them cowards, too? General Casey has a plan pulling troops out of Iraq next year. Is he a coward, too?

Democrats voted against the resolution for various reasons. First, it was a sham. It was a lie. The Republican leadership in the House called it the "Murtha" resolution, but it wasn't. I posted his resolution and what was brought up for a vote. His was a reasonable outline of getting our troops out and still supporting democracy in Iraq. The Republican proposal was a cut and run proposal and they knew no such proposal would be approved. They are playing games with our soldiers' lives. As I said, if I had a vote, I'd probably have voted for it. Guess that's why I'll never be a politician.

 

[Anonymous]

As I said, if I had a vote, I'd probably have voted for it.

But I thought you said you were mainstream? Only three elected representatives out of 435 voted for it. We have to assume that they were representing their constituency. So.....it's only you, those three Democratic kooks in Congress, and the majority of their constituents that are mainstream? Now I'm glad I'm not mainstream. LMAO