The Republicans presented a resolution that essentially says "We want to leave Irag right this second." No one is going to vote yes to that.
That isn't brave, it's just a blatant misstatement of Murtha's proposal.
Why is no one disgusted by these politics? Putting up a resolution you don't agree with only to vote against it, pretending that it is the position your opponents are taking (when none of them agree with it, of course).
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
back to DUH for you!
I DO know that there ARE a lot of people who said that we just cut out right now. This will at least show that the Democrats don't agree with that.
This IS politics. If the DIMS don't want to get out now than should we tell the terrorists when we would be willing to leave?? That's the VietNam quagmire!!! I say if we quit and run, do it NOW before we sacrifice more good men for the sake of worthless politicians and the anti-American left. And by-the-way, go our and buy some personal protection. You're going to need it of we leave Iraq now.
Its called politics. It is sometimes nessessary to further your ideology. In this case, it is to help counter the intentional undermining of our war efforts.
Wow, you didn't take long to begin posting did you?
Why is no one disgusted by these politics?
Because we have seen and heard so much the past few years that this is nothing compared to the filthy politics being played by the democrats. If it exposes their hypocrisy I have no problem with it-especially politicians who voted to send my brother to war and now want to back out because they stick their finger in the wind and see which way the polls are going and are afraid of their political asses. Disgusted? You havn't seen anything yet.
Kind of like putting a bill out to re-instate the draft right before a Presidential election so the media can do a blitz to state that there's a threat that the draft might be re-instated?
Hmmmm.
Murtha said in his speech that we should leave now. He also said that we couldn't win any more, and that nothing we did there would help anymore. He didn't say that after 6 more months we would have accomplished all we could do, he said the boys are dying now in vain.
The only reason he mentioned 6 months was that he thought it would take that long to get all the troops out.
The house resolution tonight says "as quick as is practical", and it turns out that to get 160,000 troops and all the equipment out will take about 6 months.
Murtha's "plan" involved putting all a reactionary marine force "nearby", that could be sent back in if needed. That is just a few thousand troops, and would have nothing to do with the removal of the majority of the troops.
In fact, Murtha's "plan" was not much of a plan, and now he has to pretend this WASN'T his plan. If we asked to vote on HIS plan tonight, he would say his plan isn't ready, but they would have it in early 2006, just like all their other "plans".
The "redeployment" was just for the expeditionary force, and he didn't even say where they would be.
Here's the fact. If we "redeployed" like Murtha wanted, the terrorists would simply run up to Afghanistan and attack us there. And then they'd run down to Kuwait and attack us there. And they'd come after the reaction force wherever IT was.
When they got tired of that, they'd run over to Israel and take them out.
Murtha's plan essentially was that he thinks 1000 deaths a year is too high a price to pay fight the terrorists.
I just watched a rerun of Murtha's speech on CSPAN. He's convinced we need to leave and the earlier the better. Why would he want to wait? It would take a few months before the last American would board a helicopter from the roof of the American embassy. It will take a little while to construct some towers so the MSM will have a place to film from while thousands of Iraqi's are left to be hunted down and killed.
Murtha said we should "redeploy." He suggested to Kuwait. He went on to say something like if it gets too bad the Marines can just run up the road and straighten it out.
He sounded pretty tired and hysterical to me. I'll just say that he feels genuine pain for the wounded and talked a lot about battle fatigue. He's been a point man on veterans issues for a long time. But, he seems and sounded like a PTSD victim who has just had enough. I saw a hint of 'losing it' about him.
He referred to his visits to Anbar province and the casualty rate increasing. The casualty rate is increasing because we are carrying the fight to the enemy and killing them where we find them. We are not merely patrolling the roads like ducks in a shooting gallery and providing targets to the terrorists.
During the last year of the Civil war the Union army under U.S. Grant suffered nearly daily battles with horrific casualties once the Army of the Potomac and headed south in pursuit of the Confederate army. Battles included the meat grinders of the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, and Petersburg before finishing up at Appomattox.
There were a lot of Copperheads who couldn't face it, called Grant a butcher, and wanted to negotiate a peace even while Grant was standing on the throat of the Confederacy.
It appears the Democrats are terrified that we might win. Why? We are in no military jeopardy, the casualty rate is barely above the normal accident rate, and we spank the enemy in every encounter.
I believe the Iraqi army can be trained to defend their country. It takes time and I think the conditions are such that we should wait awhile longer and see what happens.