By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position — whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

Democrats say that's a "counterfeit" resolution, charging it guts Murtha's thoughtful approach to the situation.

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, who is the lowest in seniority, recounted a message a Marine colonel wanted to send to Murtha.

She said he told her that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats booed and shouted her down, bringing the House to a standstill.

A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal.

I'm real excited. Woo Hoo.

Sure changes everything, don't it?

No one here yet has mentioned China.
[right][snapback]506924[/snapback][/right]

Politics as usual, but a pretty smart move on their part.

I tried to find how it turned out, and this is what I found:
http://www.11alive.com/specials/local/deci...x?storyid=72168
[right][snapback]506911[/snapback][/right]

Murtha had a thoughtful approach to the situation?  When did that happen? 
[right][snapback]506980[/snapback][/right]

He did use some pretty big words.  Maybe that's what they meant?

I'm actually watching C-SPAN now.  They've reconvened and it is absolutely hillarious
[right][snapback]506985[/snapback][/right]

I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.
[right][snapback]506989[/snapback][/right]

So Murtha suggests a withdrawal perhaps starting in six months at the earliest, and the Republicans demand an immediate vote for immediate withdrawal to see if the Dems side with Murtha, who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal?
[right][snapback]506996[/snapback][/right]

As though the past two presidential elections - hell, the friggin' primaries - have featured candidates with Churchillian oratory skills. 

Maybe that's the problem: American politicians don't slam a quart of scotch before giving a speech.  Maybe Congress needs a three drink minimum. 
[right][snapback]506995[/snapback][/right]

Unfortunately, all the headlines in the US and around the world said something along the lines of "Leading Democratic Congressman calls for Immediate Withdrawal".  So whatever Murtha was trying to say yesterday, he ended up saying something that caused a whole lot of damage.
[right][snapback]507000[/snapback][/right]

So Murtha suggests a withdrawal perhaps starting in six months at the earliest, and the Republicans demand an immediate vote for immediate withdrawal to see if the Dems side with Murtha, who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal?
[right][snapback]506996[/snapback][/right]

I'm real excited. Woo Hoo.

Sure changes everything, don't it?

No one here yet has mentioned China.
[right][snapback]506924[/snapback][/right]

Actually, starting immediately.  I don't know where this "six months" thing is coming from; Murtha never said that.  What he said was "before the Iraqi elections in December.  (And my source for that is the actual text of his statement, so if any of you idiots want to argue with me, look it up first.) 

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally think there's just a slight bit of difference between "December" and "six months from now".
[right][snapback]507011[/snapback][/right]

I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.
[right][snapback]506989[/snapback][/right]

I watched some of it and I'm amazed at what poor public speakers we have in Congress.
[right][snapback]506989[/snapback][/right]

So who's fault is that? The liberal media? Murtha himself for people not listening to what he said? I know it couldn't be The Republicans in the House for being completely disingenuous.
[right][snapback]507007[/snapback][/right]

If Murtha didn't understand how the media would report his statements, he's too out of touch to be in Congress.  These are the same people calling him a "hawk" when he's been publicly saying the war is "unwinnable" for at least 18 months.

Like he didn't think he was giving NYT, LAT, WP, and al-Jazeera the headline they were all dreaming about.....
[right][snapback]507190[/snapback][/right]

Of course he knew what he was doing and what he was saying. And he does want a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as it is feasible. What he doesn't want, and never said, is that all troops should come home immediately, which is what the GOP congressman put on the floor. That is something they knew he didnt say and didn't mean, they were just being pricks, regardless of anything the media said or did in its reporting. To blame this on the media is just embarrassing.
[right][snapback]507202[/snapback][/right]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?
[right][snapback]507208[/snapback][/right]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?
[right][snapback]507208[/snapback][/right]

Not arguing that it is or isn't, but watching this debate and vote on C-SPAN last night (I remember when I actually had a life), it was stated (although I forget by whom) and went unchallenged that the top US military leaders in Iraq either just have, or are about to, submit a plan to pull out.

I know you said "specific timeline," and we have no idea what their plan may or may not consists of, so we may very well be talking about apples and oranges, but it looks like Murtha's statement definitely shook someone up.
[right][snapback]507216[/snapback][/right]

A "plan" of sorts was given to Rumsfeld, but it's based on a lot of "what if" scenarios. "If "A" happens we could do this, if "B" happens we can do that" etc. It doesn't specify anything real specific.
[right][snapback]507218[/snapback][/right]

More of an outline then, eh? 

That's what I get for believing a politician might be truthful in a House debate.  

Sadly enough, I can't say I'm too terribly surprised...
[right][snapback]507219[/snapback][/right]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?
[right][snapback]507208[/snapback][/right]

There are numerous threads and other places to debate whether or not there should be a pullout soon, or phased withdrawl. He's entitled to his opinion. The point of this thread, however, was about the House vote and whether they were pricks for doing it or not.

And besides, do you really think that Murtha doesn't care about America's strategic interests? He's a pretty respected guy. I don't think he said what he said just to politic, or win an election or win friends. I think he really believes that this is in America's best strategic interests. He may be dead wrong (and even I, who was dead against the war and still am don't think we should start pulling out now, although I admit I don't know enough about what is really happening over there). But you really disservice Murtha, IMO, that you write "but who cares, right?" in your criticism of his stance.
[right][snapback]507271[/snapback][/right]

He's automatically your hero, because he's been on TV. How many people have heard of him before last week?

I thought so.
[right][snapback]507296[/snapback][/right]

You thought bullshitt. He's not my hero. I don't even agree with him, like I just said. Snippy for no reason much? All I said was that he seems to be a guy who cares about the nation's strategic interests. A lot of people calling for pullouts don't care and are saying stuff like that for political reasons. He just doesnt seem to be one of them, and you accused him of it.
[right][snapback]507332[/snapback][/right]

Thats right. He's not a hero.  He isn't Tedy Bruschi.
[right][snapback]507355[/snapback][/right]

CSPAN had Murtha's unofficial hit tally at 15
[right][snapback]507368[/snapback][/right]

How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber? 
[right][snapback]507372[/snapback][/right]

You thought bullshitt. He's not my hero. I don't even agree with him, like I just said. Snippy for no reason much? All I said was that he seems to be a guy who cares about the nation's strategic interests. A lot of people calling for pullouts don't care and are saying stuff like that for political reasons. He just doesnt seem to be one of them, and you accused him of it.
[right][snapback]507332[/snapback][/right]

And by even calling for a phased withdrawl over a specified timeline is not in the best strategic interests of the United States, but who cares, right?
[right][snapback]507208[/snapback][/right]

I'm in the camp that thinks until we have conditions favorable to the United States within Iraq, we should stay.[right][snapback]507449[/snapback][/right]

He didn't put together a Bill in a vacuum and just show up one day saying "look what I got". I personally think this was worked out by a cabal inside the capitol, and because of his stature, and background, he was chosen to carry the flag. If Ted or Hillary had offered up a troop withdrawl bid, I don't believe many would have given it much attention. Someone is going for the drama angle.
[right][snapback]507398[/snapback][/right]

From what I have read, it is both. Both are true. He formed his opinion and his stance independently. There is a clear timeline to it. He was in favor of the war but had reservations. He even thought Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq. He was a close friend of George the Elder who consulted with him weekly during the first Iraq war, but they both held strong convictions about not getting bogged down in Iraq. He started to get disllusioned quite some time ago but even went out of his way to say we shouldn't withdraw the troops. In the last several months he has soured even more. He went two months ago to Iraq and his plane had to be escorted by two Black Hawks and two more helicopters. He said the Generals he spoke to on the ground would say what the White House wants them to say in public but in private they told him things aren't improving on the ground with the insurgents. He's spoke out about "guerilla war" quite a few times since being a Vietnam Vet, one of his keen interests. He decided recently that this wasn't going to work and we cannot win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi public because of numerous reasons. He finally changed his mind recently when he decided that we're looked on by the majority as the enemy, and it isn't going to change.

When speaking to his colleagues and the Dem power brokers, they were looking for a guy just like him. Pelosi was the one that went to him in the cabal scenario you described, very recently. She wanted a second front to attack the White House on the war and they  were going to use his resolution to start that second front. He knowingly went along and knew before he said it that it would cause quite a stir. But he believes he's right and this is the best thing for us. That part wasn't politically motivated, and again, he doesn't seem the kind of guy that is always or even often doing things against the strategic interests of the military and country, or for personal gain or power trips.

So again, I think both things are true. He really believes this is right and is fighting for it. And simultaneously, the Dems are using him for their overall strategy against the White House and he's a willing participant.
[right][snapback]507512[/snapback][/right]

Hopefully at least 14 of them were against the annoying blonde in the beige suit sitting behind him who seemed to be the official Democrat applause starter.  Hopefully the last hit was against whoever was the Republican applause starter.

How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber? 
[right][snapback]507372[/snapback][/right]

OK, this is obviously a polarized issue. I'm in the camp that thinks until we have conditions favorable to the United States within Iraq, we should stay. A lot of folks mention "adequate troop levels". Once again, I just don't understand how puliing out brigade by brigade is going to make that situation any better for those still on fthe ground...but whatever. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

What about the idea of maybe trying to do certain things differently, and visibly? What about putting MORE people into Iraq, rather than using less? We're stretched thin, but it could be done. What about a targeted information-PR campaign within the country to help the guy on the street understand that some mistakes were made, but we are working hard to make things better for all.

Don't put all of this on the administration. Our military forces can't be re-trained or re-structured overnight tailored to whatever war they may have to fight. They have certain means of getting certain things done, and they use them - as they should. I don't think many people gave the ramifications of house to house bang down doors midnight searches much thought until just about everyone was pissed off. I don't even want to get too deep into the WMD search...more than one field commander knew he had sensitive sites along his advance, and was supposed to at least search if not secure them - but blew it off in the dash for Baghdad. There's literally dozens that we'll never know what was contained or worked on there, because everything had been looted before they were exploited.

I'm not "blindly following the administration" on this, the core idea of getting rid of Sadaam and effecting regime change is a good one, in terms of our interests. You need do little more than look at a map. All of this, right or wrong could have been avoided if Hussein played nice and did what he was supposed to do after Gulf 1. He didn't.
[right][snapback]507449[/snapback][/right]

Makes sense. I just didn't like the feel some seem to have that he is this lone crusader with impecable credentials and motives. If leaving Iraq tomorrow would leave us with an ally between Syria and Iran, I'd buy the first three rounds.
[right][snapback]507535[/snapback][/right]