Republicans force strawman Iraq pullout bill to vote

[bascule]

That's some mighty shady politicking...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/politics/18cnd-mili.html?hp&ex=1132376400&en=521ea30b567c07c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - House Republicans are attempting to split the ranks of the Democrats tonight by offering a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately. The Republican-controlled House is expected to defeat the measure in a vote that the Republicans hope will leave the Democrats in disarray.

 

Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a retired Marine colonel and one the House Democrats' most influential members on military matters, called on Thursday for pulling out the 153,000 American troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date," which could be six months, saying the United States forces had become a catalyst for the continuing violence in Iraq. Mr. Murtha did propose keeping some forces in the region.

 

Republicans denounced Mr. Murtha's proposed resolution on Thursday as playing into the hands of terrorists. But the House Republican leadership sought today to tamp down the furor Mr. Murtha's proposal has touched off by forcing a vote this evening on their own resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.

 

Republicans said this tactic could help prevent Mr. Murtha's call for withdrawal from gaining momentum during the two-week Congressional recess that begins on Saturday.

 

"We'll let the members debate it and then let them vote on it," said Republican Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, the acting majority leader.

 

A emotional and sometime raucous debate over the resolution is going on this evening on the House floor and a vote is not expected before 8 p.m.

 

While some 70 liberal Democrats who support ending American military involvement in Iraq have praised Mr. Murtha's plan, many of his other party colleagues appeared conflicted. To a member, Democrats said they respect the counsel of Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and retired Marine colonel who has earned bipartisan respect over three decades in Congress a champion of the American service member.

 

But many senior House Democrats including Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, the ranking member of the House Armed Service Committee, have distanced themselves from Mr. Murtha's resolution, saying a phased withdrawal over time is a more prudent course of action.

 

The vote tonight may force many Democrats to stand by Mr. Murtha or go on the record against his proposal. But Ms. Pelosi urged House Democrats to vote with the Republicans against the resolution being considered tonight, according to The Associated Press.

 

Tonight's vote will likely only stoke an intensifying partisan debate on Capitol Hill over the Bush administration's handling of the war, including how it used prewar intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 

Democrats, including Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, as well as Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, defended Mr. Murtha on Friday, and cited examples of what they said were faulty intelligence.

 

Some members of the House and Senate, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying bout a quagmire there. They have been staking out new positions on the war that has grown increasingly unpopular with the American public, resulted in more than 2,000 American military deaths and cost more than $200 billion.

 

The House action comes just days after the Republican-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Mr. Bush to describe a timetable for withdrawal. Underscoring unease by both parties about the war, though, the Senate then approved a Republican statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the Iraqi government to take over more security duties in the country and allow United States to begin withdrawing.

 

A day after Mr. Murtha's comments, an Army commander in Iraq countered the position of the usually pro-military congressman. "Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Mr. Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders routinely give to Pentagon reporters.

 

Speaking from a American logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Colonel Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."

 

Even as Republicans sought to make political hay from Mr. Murtha's plan, Democrats defended him as a patriot. "I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said today. Mr. Kerry, also a Vietnam veteran, was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.

 

Mr. Kerry has proposed a phased exit from Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in Iraq.

[cosine]

Haha I love to see swift-boating become a term that characterizes underhanded and lying smear campaigns.

[Douglas]

That's some mighty shady politicking...

Any shadier than when Reid invoked rule 21, demanding a closed session??

[Sisyphus]

Either way it's just avoiding the real issue. Democrats have been utterly incompetent in holding the administration accountable for lying us into a war, and this is largely just a stupid stunt to try to do that indirectly, and, as usual, the Republicans have easily out-politicked them.

[Douglas]

lying us into a war,

That's an opinion, of course ??

[bascule]

Any shadier than when Reid invoked rule 21, demanding a closed session??

 

Umm, yes, substantially. What exactly was shady about that?

 

Rather than hold a vote on Murtha's bill, they decided to write one of their own and force it to vote, which received a whopping 3 yes votes and was otherwise struck down unilaterally.

[john5746]

Either way it's just avoiding the real issue. Democrats have been utterly incompetent in holding the administration accountable for lying us into a war, and this is largely just a stupid stunt to try to do that indirectly, and, as usual, the Republicans have easily out-politicked them.

 

Yes, I can just see in the next presidential debates - Oh, you voted not to withdraw from Iraq before you voted for it. - Flip/Flop.

 

Just as a vote to give the President the authority to invade Iraq automatically became a vote that supports what he did with that authority. Bush rushed to war, not the senate or congress.

[bascule]

Just as a vote to give the President the authority to invade Iraq automatically became a vote that supports what he did with that authority. Bush rushed to war, not the senate or congress.

 

Not to mention the issue of who granted Bush the authority to remove Saddam from power...

[Douglas]

Umm, yes, substantially. What exactly was shady about that?

REID SAYS

 

"I demand on behalf of the American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted,"

[bascule]

REID SAYS

 

"I demand on behalf of the American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted' date='"[/quote']

 

And... ?