Murtha Res. Update
Right now, the House is debating rules for the upcoming vote on what the GOP is calling the "Murtha" resolution. But the GOP's version is not Murtha's resolution, which below the jump.
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 percent of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas, polls also indicate that 45 percent 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.
Regarding the "It's not really Murtha's Amendment"-
The key words are "terminated immediately" and "hereby terminated" which mean the same thing. And that's the way the media played it this morning. Murtha's 'fighting from the borders spin' in his amendment is just that - spin. It would still require attacks within Iraq if it were to be successful. And you just watch the hell that would break out there if Murtha was successful. He and Pelosi meant to make a statement against the Administration and against the troops trying to take advantage of the poll numbers - stop trying to cover for him.
Murtha's a partisan coward, regardless of his medals. And it pains me to call a Vet that. He is advocating surrender, just like in Vietnam. I wonder if he feels responsible for the 800,000 dead, the millions in re-education camps, and the millions of boat-people that were the direct result of Congress getting involved in running the last major war. I hope so, because he's going to be responsible for alot more than that now if he and the Dems are successful with this. But I guess that is OK with people like Murtha and Pelosi - an American life is worth so much more than a life of any other nationality. And the Democrats claim the moral high ground?
Please forward this to Murtha if you can.
You can't seriously be pretending that's the only difference.
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";
The GOP can't afford a debate on whether the war has been waged badly, and whether securing the region would require enough more troops to require a draft. Hence the desperate deception about this being "Murtha's Resolution".
Patrick Casey needs to take a course in legislative drafting. The operative words are "Resolved...the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."
Casey must not be a strict constructionist.
First, WHEREAS clauses are not operational. Thus, whether they are included is not relevant.
Second, I don't really understand the objection to this not being "Murtha's" resolution. All I read in the newspaper this morning is that Murtha called for our troops to come home immediately. Here's the New York Times from this morning: "The partisan furor over the Iraq war ratcheted up sharply on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as an influential House Democrat on military matters called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and Republicans escalated their attacks against the Bush administration's critics."
Is Ramu saying the Times lied?
But more importantly, do the Democrats want our troops to withdraw immediately or not? It's a simple question.
First, WHEREAS clauses are not operational. Thus, whether they are included is not relevant.
Of course they're relevant. They explain the reasoning behind the conclusion.
Second, I don't really understand the objection to this not being "Murtha's" resolution.
The objection is that it's not his resolution. It was written and proposed by a Republican.
All I read in the newspaper this morning is that Murtha called for our troops to come home immediately.
I don't doubt in the slightest that that is all you read. Next time read further.
Here's the New York Times from this morning: "The partisan furor over the Iraq war ratcheted up sharply on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as an influential House Democrat on military matters called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and Republicans escalated their attacks against the Bush administration's critics."
You're reading an abbreviated version of the story. Perhaps you're just seeing the snippets that happen to fit a particular agenda, from web sites desperately trying to keep the wheels from coming off the GOP wagon as it careens out of control?
Is Ramu saying the Times lied?
He might point out that you're being very selective in your account, if he doesn't mind belaboring the obvious.
But more importantly, do the Democrats want our troops to withdraw immediately or not? It's a simple question.
It's not a simple question. The attempt to make a decision as significant as this a "simple question" is an attempt to replace deliberation with knee-jerk reactions. Go back to Murtha's resolution:
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";
Ask yourself why the GOP doesn't want to debate this point, or any of the other points raised, but wants instead to use challenges to the patriotism and courage of anyone who tries to raise such questions to push through a resolution whose description is fraudulent.
If they weren't afraid of a vote on Murtha's resolution, they'd have a vote on Murtha's resolution not some other resolution written by a Republican.
BTW, kudos to hotline for stating the plain truth: "But the GOP's version is not Murtha's resolution".
Instapundit has an update that backs down from this, quoting a comment that calls it "the Duncan Hunter resolution":
http://lkmp.blogspot.com/2005/11/unserious.html
That said, however, I do not like the Duncan Hunter resolution "...that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
It is not serious. It demeans the House. It totally politicizes the debate. It is a ploy and a rather weak one at that.
Insty quotes even more of it. Heh.