NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday, a conservative Democrat, Congressman Murtha, a man who supported the Iraq War resolution unreservedly, rose before the House of Representatives and offered this resolution:
Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:

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
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.Pay special attention to that bolded part, because today on the floor of the House, the Republican leadership introduced this resolution--and I'm posting it in its entirety.
H.Res. __

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.
Now, when Murtha made his speech and put forward his resolution, it was no surprise to anyone who watches politics in the US that he was immediately attacked. Scott McClellan said that he was in league with Michael Moore and wanted to surrender to the terrorists (again, look at the bolded part of the Murtha resolution).

But since that wasn't enough, the Republican House leadership put forth their own version of the Murtha resolution, an irresponsible version, and are now calling it the Democrat resolution. Remember--this was put forward by the Republican leadership, not by any member of the Democratic party. This is a Republican resolution that calls for an immediate withdrawal and makes no provisions to leave troops in the area or try to help Iraq rebuild through diplomatic means.

The Republican House of Representatives--Iraq is nothing more than a political playtoy for them.

This is why politicians shouldn't lead in the country...

This is why politicians shouldn't lead in the country...
You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.

The real problem is political parties.

You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.

That might be a good idea for congress. A very good idea. Start getting some new blood, in tune with the times, into the legislature.

You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.

Yeah I agree, then our government might be representative.

Apparently, there's an up or down vote on withdrawing the troops
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DV51A80.html

You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.

I would be against such a practice until we can fix the US education system.

You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.
That's actually the smartest thing I've ever heard - problem is now, how to keep the draft from being rigged.

You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.

A good idea in many ways.

After all, we already trust a similar system - jury duty - to decide whether you or I go to jail or prison... is not the governing of the country an equally important matter?

That's actually the smartest thing I've ever heard - problem is now, how to keep the draft from being rigged.

Another good point.

You know, I'm starting to think that we'd be better off if we treated Congress and the White House like we did the draft--everyone gets a number, and if your number gets called, you have to do two years and then you get to go home.
I think I compared it to jury duty once, but the idea is the same. It's too damned attractive to be a politician.

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.
Practicable by who's standards? Because if your going by the standards of politicians, than no thanks. I'll listen to what the troops and commanders who are there say.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Which won't be able to do anything but attract 50,000 insurgents to their positions, and get them all killed. There is a reason we have our troops spread out. But I guess someone who hasn't ever been to Iraq wouldn't know that.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
Ya, lets just sit down with Zarqawi and see if we can pound out a deal.


This guy is an armchair General, and while I find the recent comparison to Michael Moore uncalled for and untrue, but I wouldn't object if he were compared to the stupid guy who stands over the mechanics shoulder telling him he doesn't know how to fix a car.

In essence, I think he's got good intentions, but I would have good intentions trying to fix a 747, but it doesn't mean it would fly.

Apparently, there's an up or down vote on withdrawing the troops
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DV51A80.html
Just to be clear--and I noted it in my original post--the vote described in the article you posted is not the same as the resolution put forward yesterday by Rep. Murtha. The one put forward today by the Republican leadership is irresponsible and betrays their lack of concern for the Iraqi people.

Just to be clear--and I noted it in my original post--the vote described in the article you posted is not the same as the resolution put forward yesterday by Rep. Murtha. The one put forward today by the Republican leadership is irresponsible and betrays their lack of concern for the Iraqi people.
How? They just want to know where everyone stands. hence the simplicity of the res.

Just to be clear--and I noted it in my original post--the vote described in the article you posted is not the same as the resolution put forward yesterday by Rep. Murtha. The one put forward today by the Republican leadership is irresponsible and betrays their lack of concern for the Iraqi people.

You forgot to mention that it is also a brilliant political move. One that even surpasses the Dems putting the Senate into closed session a couple of weeks ago. And the proposed resolution is "non-binding."

How? They just want to know where everyone stands. hence the simplicity of the res.
There's a significant difference--the Murtha resolution does call for troops to remain in the area, does call for continued diplomatic efforts in rebuilding Iraq, and does not call for an immediate withdrawal of forces. The Republican resolution is a cut-and-run resolution. It is irresponsible, plain and simple.

You forgot to mention that it is also a brilliant political move. One that even surpasses the Dems putting the Senate into closed session a couple of weeks ago. And the proposed resolution is "non-binding."
It is, but only because the Republicans can expect the lazy-assed media not to draw a distinction between the two, and to pass this off on the Democrats in the House.

There's a significant difference--the Murtha resolution does call for troops to remain in the area, does call for continued diplomatic efforts in rebuilding Iraq, and does not call for an immediate withdrawal of forces. The Republican resolution is a cut-and-run resolution. It is irresponsible, plain and simple.
The Murtha Res. suggests a half assed approach that the commanders on the ground feel would get soldiers killed. It is the type of thing that people do when they have no better ideas, and it is dangerous.

We are doing just fine as is. Let the troops do their job. We now have over 200k Iraqi troops over there, and the training they have is better every day. Impatience is a deadly thing. It's a war, and people will die. No one in congress can change that.

What they can change is the results we will get in the end. Do we want over 2000 dead soldiers and an instable government that can't protect itself and its citizens, or over 2000 dead soldiers and a government that will continue to fight the terrorists when we leave?

It's a simple question. Which one sounds like the better result?

snip

For a group that is pretty much monolithic in it's view of "if you haven't been there, you don't know!" they put a whole lot of faith in a bunch of Republican old white men who have never "been there," aside from carrying a turkey from one side of the room to the other.

Murtha at least saw time in battle.

http://www.house.gov/murtha/bio.shtml

U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha has dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. He had a long and distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, retiring from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990; and he has been serving the people of the 12th Congressional District since 1974, one of only 131 people in the nation's history to have served more than 30 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and one of only 224 Members of Congress who have served 30 or more years.

Congressman Murtha is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is ranking member and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective.

In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67, receiving the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

But hey, he's never served turkey to the troops!