Bush the Uniter: 403 to 3 Against Withdrawing Troops
"A disgrace" said Nancy Pelosi referring to the Republican "stunt" (well, okay-- just stunt) to put the resolution to a vote.
from Ace of Spades
No, Nancy. The disgrace is that your caucus offers proposals like this in an unserious way, merely to damage the President and undermine the effort to win this war, without any real desire to vote in favor of them.
The Democrats say this was a sham proposal, because Murtha didn't call for the "immediate" termination of operations in Iraq. Well, actually, he used exactly that word in press conferences. In his actual resolution (or bill?), he used the language "at the earliest practicable date," but that's dogfood. Bush also wants to get out "at the earliest practicable date," consistent with victory, a clause missing from Murtha's Cut and Run Bill.
I want to get out "at the earliest practicable date." So, I would imagine, does every poster here. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it all depends on what "practicable" practices. "Practicable," as far as victory, or "practicable," as far as a simple matter of the logistics necessary to safely bug out? (And on that point: Do the Democrats really imagine the Republican proposal imagined the unsafe evacuation of our troops?)
Murtha's proposal seeks to obscure what exactly he means, and he shouldn't be allowed to do so. The American people have a right to know precisely what a proposal means, even if the antiwar left would prefer to keep such trifling details vague.
Still, the GOP might have done a better job of making this resolution more closely track with Murtha's, by specifiying what Murtha left deliberately left out -- "at the earliest practicable date, regardless of whether or not victory has been achieved, and regardless of of whether or not Iraq will be immediately destabilized by the withdrawal and descend into civil war and state-sponsored terrorism." That's what the Murtha bill means, even if it is politic enough not to actually say so.
The Democrats are complaining that this resolution, with its direct and blunt language about "immediate termination," does not fairly reflect the substance of the Murtha proposal. Bullshit. It represents the meaning of the proposal perfectly; it's just not phrased in disingenuous, obscurant language.
Thanks for the "Bush the Uniter" headline to an anonymous poster.
You anonymous guys really should post under a name, even a false one, just so everyone can get to know you. Even if you post as "Fartsy McStinkers," at least having a name will allow everyone to get to know the Fartsy McStinkers doctrine.
Not really. But the Democrats and French are so closely aligned on this -- we cannot afford an American victory; true courage is displayed by rank cowardice -- that we might as well make it official. Republicans represent the interests of big American corporations; Democrats represent the interests of big French corporations.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically








You found us out...EB you are absolutely right....if you look in our family trees, you will find all us democrats and or liberal have some French in our family trees. The only reason we are in this country is to avoid the guillotine we would deservedly get at home in France.
Comment by Howard Pierre Dean— 2005/11/19 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
Murtha was grandstanding as are most democrats in regards to Iraq. The Republicans had the guts to call his bluff.
The Deomocrats actions are harming us, our troops, and Iraq. It emboldens the terrorists while lowering the morale of our troops.
Comment by seawitch— 2005/11/19 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
You think Murtha would know better having been in combat when there are people who don't support you. I used to believe they were doing this to make political hay, but it's gotten so bad that I really think they do want us to fail.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 06:31 AM — (Reply)
There are plenty of democrats who would prefer failure in Iraq to further their political agendas.
Comment by American Crusader— 2005/11/22 @ 02:21 PM — (Reply)