|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 1:38:05 GMT -5
Pullout rejected 403-3 By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 19, 2005 ** Part 1 of 2 **
The House last night overwhelmingly voted down a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as Republicans tried to draw a line in the sand after a week's worth of back-and-forth charges over the war. The resolution failed 403-3, with six voting present. Those voting for it were Democrats Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York. Republican leaders wanted to force Democrats to take a stand on whether they endorsed Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John P. Murtha's Thursday proposal to begin a six-month withdrawal from Iraq. Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, put a resolution on the floor for a vote urging "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." "We're going to let every member answer that, and I hope the message that goes back to our troops in Iraq is that we do not support a precipitous pullout," Mr. Hunter said before the vote. Other Republicans were more direct: "We'll put it to a vote, see if Democrats really want immediate withdrawal," said Rep. Jack Kingston, the Georgia Republican who represents the home base of the Army's 3rd Infantry. "Their hate for George Bush is so great they don't seem to care about the ramifications of reckless statements." An early test vote on procedural rules to start the debate passed 211-204, with six Republicans having joined Democrats and one independent in voting "no." Democrats were furious about the situation, calling the vote an attack on Mr. Murtha rather than a serious policy debate. "Whoever thought up this pipe dream should be ashamed of themselves. It brings incredible shame to this House," said Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat. For his part, Mr. Murtha, a decorated, retired Marine Corps colonel, said his goal was to let Iraqis know they must step forward and take control. "All of Iraq must know Iraq is free -- free from United States occupation." He spoke for about half an hour and read letters of support for him from the wife of an injured soldier and from Gold Star parents who lost a child in the war.
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 1:40:59 GMT -5
Pullout rejected 403-3 By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 19, 2005 ** Part 2 of 2 **
He received three standing ovations from the entire chamber. But Republicans countered with their own war hero, Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, who spent years in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam. He told of how POWs learned about the lack of support back home. "I know what it does for morale, I know what it does for our mission, and so help me God I will never let our nation make that mistake again." Democrats said Republicans were pulling a trick because the resolution on the floor was not the same as Mr. Murtha's. He had called for withdrawing in a safe and orderly manner, while the Republican resolution called for an immediate pullout. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, suggested the idea to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and the Republican conference yesterday morning and it met with a round of applause. He said the headlines after Mr. Murtha's call both in U.S. and overseas news services like Al Jazeera referred to immediate withdrawal, and those must be countered with a clear House vote. "The signal will be that we will clear up any ambiguity, that friend and foe alike will understand the elected representatives of the people of the United States say no to immediate withdrawal," he said. Some Republican members questioned putting a different resolution on the floor, but Republican leaders said they wanted to boil the issue down to its essence -- withdraw or remain. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who made his mark as the anti-war candidate in the 2004 presidential primary, said he would vote against the resolution because it wasn't serious. "They have no intention of taking us out [of Iraq]," he said. "This is trifling with the troops. It's playing with people's lives." At one point during the debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, Ohio Republican and the newest member of the House, said she had received a call from a veteran and member of Ohio's state legislature , who said to send a message to Mr. Murtha: "Cowards cut and run, and Marines never do." Instantly, two dozen Democrats shot to their feet and demanded her words be "taken down," a precursor to House punishment, because she insulted Mr. Murtha. Rep. Vic Snyder, Arkansas Democrat, said the use of Mr. Murtha's name and "coward" were in "too close a proximity" to let the matter go. Ms. Schmidt withdrew her words, but not before Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, seemed to be headed for a fight with Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican. Mr. Tancredo afterward said he had been arguing with another Democrat over some of the charges Democrats had hurled at Republicans during yesterday morning's budget vote, and said Mr. Ford must have thought the argument was about Mr. Murtha. "Say it to Murtha," Mr. Ford repeatedly shouted at Mr. Tancredo while he was being restrained by other members. Mr. Tancredo said he replied he wasn't talking about Mr. Murtha and told Mr. Ford to go sit down. "You guys are pathetic. Pathetic," Rep. Martin T. Meehan, Massachusetts Democrat, shouted. Those on both sides said they had never seen an atmosphere so charged. "When was the last time you heard the word 'coward' used on the floor," Mr. Snyder said. It's the latest escalation in a back-and-forth over Iraq -- both in the run-up to the war and in how President Bush has conducted it since the capture of Baghdad -- that has raged all week in Washington and across the Pacific, where Mr. Bush is right now. Earlier yesterday, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered Mr. Murtha's position, as Republicans chastised the Democrat for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment. "Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, during a weekly briefing that U.S. field commanders give to Pentagon reporters. Democrats and some Republicans defended Mr. Murtha as a patriot, even as many declined to back his view. "I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Also a Vietnam veteran, Mr. Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who challenged his war record. Mr. Murtha's fellow Pennsylvanian, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, said: "I have enormous respect for John Murtha and I have known him for more than three decades and he's very knowledgeable, and when Congressman Murtha says something people listen, including Arlen Specter." On Tuesday, the Senate defeated a Democratic push for Mr. Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Mr. Bush several times in the past week has emphasized the importance of staying in Iraq and lashed out at Democrats for accusing him of manipulating intelligence to justify the Iraq war, saying such "false charges" undercut U.S. troops in harm's way.
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 1:59:00 GMT -5
403-3! 403-3! 403-3! These people spent an entire day ripping one another apart with viscious words, dividing our country across partisan and political lines, and probably lowering the morale of our troops in Iraq and the confidence they have in our support here at home only to hypocritically vote to keep our troops there in the end! Hmmm.....Could it be that all the "talk" was just a way of making President Bush look bad? If not, then why in the world did they vote completely against their own argument in the first place? Exactly what did this worldwide grandstanding accomplish? Hopefully it revealed the truth, and the truth is that if you make an argument, you should likewise be able to back it up with your vote. Otherwise, shut up!
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 2:19:23 GMT -5
By the way, Mr. Murtha, you are indeed a patriot and a hero to this country for the decorations you received while serving in wartime. Nothing will ever take that away from you, and you deserve all the respect this country has to give. The criticism of you as a person, to suggest that you are a coward, is completely inappropriate and flat out wrong. There are no ands, ifs or buts about it. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just so happen to disagree with you on this one. It is your opinion that I am critical of, and not you as a person. However, it was indeed you who called for the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Sir, with all due respect, that requires a vote! So tell me, after all the contention, why did it wind up 403- 3? With God watching and the world awaiting, now is a good time to consider the cost and figure out exactly what it is we are doing and who we are, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 3:38:47 GMT -5
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain (*not at all directed towards Jack Murtha, but rather the many fools in his Democratic Party)
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Nov 20, 2005 10:39:30 GMT -5
I watched a lot of this happening on CNN, whent he vote happened. I noticed that the proposal that they voted on was not Murtha's proposal, which asked for a period to perpare for withdrawal. He did not ask for the immediate withdrawal. That's why they were next to no Democrats in support of the action. They were voting on a proposal that they knew no one really supported just to put the other party down. They should have put out Murtha's proposal out there to have a fair vote. All I think this was a political game and no one needs that, either put everything out there as it is or don't even approach it at all. I personally think no one in the Democratic party should have voted because the immediate withdrawal from Iraq is not only stupid but unfair.
Saying what I said I agree with quite a bit of what Murtha said. I'll try to find the quotes later. There needs to be a plan to withdraw because I believe a lot of the attacks in Iraq are because of the US being in Iraq. THere are definitely people in Iraq that are happy to have the soldiers there but there are lots of people that don't like them there and some who are willing to die and kill other people along the way to get the US out or to (in a way) embarrass the US with the attacks. I also saw him talking and I get the impression that he really cares about the troups.
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 11:07:11 GMT -5
Absolutely! I have no doubt that Jack Murtha loves this country and has everyone's best interest in mind when he says what he does. When a person like him shares what he thinks, we should all listen to what it is he has to say. And argument is good for all of us, because it is far too easy to get stuck in our own ways. The timetable for exiting Iraq, however, should not be based on those who hate us being there in the first place, but rather when WE decide that it is a good decision to do so. We've pulled out prematurely before, and the country went right back to what it was. There are too many more people who want us there to help them with what we started. What about their voices? Look, this thing will last awhile longer for sure. When will it end? When should it end? The answer is in one of two ways: either when the terrorists stop terrorizing (in surrender) or when we have defeated them (in fighting back.) The onus is not on us (the US) here. The peace will come when the evil is stopped. And thank you, Leona, for correcting my error that Mr. Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal. You are correct. Still, he's a smart man, and understands that timing is everything. He chose the time for a reason. I happen to question it.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Nov 20, 2005 11:20:13 GMT -5
Here is Murtha's Statement:
The Honorable John P. Murtha War in Iraq (Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”
For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.
We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.
Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.
I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Nov 20, 2005 11:29:59 GMT -5
I would be interested in seeing more specific elements of his plan. I think it could be a good thing, but I really don't know enough about it. I like how he is suggesting to change tactics because the tactics that have been used aren't working very well. There are lots of people dying, getting seriously injured, and losing loved ones. I realize this is still a war, but it's a different type of war. You can no longer win with guns and force (there will always be a terrorist ready to attack), there needs to be more. I think it is very important that an effort is made to get the Iraqis on their own feet and slowly relying less on the US forces (this is already happening but very slowly).
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 11:47:20 GMT -5
First of all, thank you, Leona, for setting the record straight on exactly what it is that Jack Murtha said. I am sorry for misstating him. Knowing now what he did state, I am even more convinced in my disagreement with his opinion. Huh? Saddam is out of the picture, over 90% of Iraq is liberated, a new leadership is in place, a constitution being worked out.....and things aren't going well? Tell that to my Iraqi friends here in Erie, PA. USA who sit on the edge of their seats awaiting the day when they can take their small children back to their homeland. A dream they all but forgot about until now. Hope is restored to them of seeing that dream come true, but I guess it's all just a "Flawed policy wrapped in illusion." Nothing but bullcrap to those in whom it means the most. Again, huh? So we spend more money on it, so what? We spend more money on a lot of things. And as far as this issue of intelligence, guess what. It's the same intelligence that was before the entire world. Everyone was duped, and it's exactly what Saddam wanted. He was playing chess with the world, and we got him in a checkmate. Too bad for him. Those are some very interesting numbers, Mr. Murtha. Now tell me this. How many women have suffered in government endorsed rape rooms in that time? How many children have seen their father's taken from them and never returned? And just what are the exact numbers on the hospitals and schools being built for these people today because of our liberating them? Still trying to negotiate peace with a terrorist? Bad idea, sir. And the soldiers who are over there know it all too well.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Nov 20, 2005 12:45:25 GMT -5
One thing is that Iraq wasn't a centre of Terrorism before the war but now it is. The suicide bombings in Jordan were done by Iraqis. So in a way I think they are losing the war. Yes, they got Saddam but they didn't find any WMDs (they still believed that there was WMD even though the inspectors from the UN didn't find any).
I do believe that the planning for the war wasn't intense enough. When I think of the fact that the war was declared over over a year ago. It's not over. This part of the war is different but it's still the same war. I don't think they thought through enough the plan for after they got Saddam. I think they didn't anticipate the fact that there would be so many people angered and willing to die in attacks to put the US down. I think they probably made errors in thinking about the Iraqis reaction (yes, there were citizens who would be happy to be freed but to think everyone or the majority would feel that way was wrong).
I think there's nothing wrong with spending a lot of money on intelligence. But I don't know where they got the information about WMD in Iraq from but it seems to me that it was either created to promote the war or based on old intelligence. I don't think he's saying that they are spending too much money on intelligence but the fact that the intelligence was misused (it doesn't matter how much money you spend on intelligence but if the intelligence is wrong it costs even more, you can't always trust the intelligence) and how sometimes you have to look at the intelligence figure out if it can be trusted. You can spend all the money you want on intelligence but if you don't look at it close enough to figure out if it can be trusted it can be worthless.
I don't think you can negotiate peace with a terrorist but you can make so decisions to lessen their anger and drive to put you under and therefore lower the attacks being done. I remember he said that the US forces have become the enemy. I don't know his plan for this one but you definitely are not going to solve the problem with more force. Using more force just gets more people angry and increases the number of people fighting against the US. This is a really sensitive issue I really don't know how to solve this, the soldiers probably have great ideas and I wish I could hear them talk honestly without any chance of punishment for saying what they think. I know that one general lost his job because he spoke against the White House's plans for the war.
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 13:14:54 GMT -5
Leona, you make a lot of very interesting and valid points. I completely respect your opinion. Exactly! We determined the location of this war because of its centrality to the region. And are we talking about the same UN who have a few corruption issues of there own to answer for here? Sorry, but no way. This isn't a 50- 50 thing here. It is overwelming the number of Iraqi people who support what we are doing. Try this...ALL of them! Bad guys get the news coverage. Why? Dirty Laundry, I guess. The issue at the time was never about the intelligence. The whole wide world agreed at the time. The issue was how to deal with it. We all got duped. Why question it now? It's exactly what Saddam wanted us to believe, and we did. The US chose to respond, while the rest of the world (or most of it) disagreed. So now the world stands ready to say, as is always so common, "see, I told you so." But they never said anything! They just disagreed with our response! If I am out somewhere with you, Leona, and a person comes up to us and threatens to hurt you, I am going to fight like hell to prevent it. I will not stop until you are safe. I could care less just much I anger the person. He must be stopped! I hold that position firmly. I am not at all interested in the bad guy here. And I'm not taking the blame for pissing him off.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Nov 20, 2005 13:19:43 GMT -5
I agree with you that you can't figure out things from the stats/numbers. I think a lot of the anger was intensified after there were reports of torture in US controlled prisons and there wasn't immediate denial. The military in Iraq is seen as an available target by the surrounding terrorists. I think the US also should have done alot more when the earthquake happened. It was an opportunity to get in a lot of good books in the Middle East but they didn't take it. A must right now needs to be supporting the Iraqis and the people from the Middle East (not only by defending them but making rebuilding a priority and showing in other ways that they care about them as people, it needs not only to come from the soldiers, who are already doing that, but also the government) that's how Terrorism is going to be slowed down, if they can't get more recruits.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Nov 20, 2005 13:44:50 GMT -5
Just because part of the UN had some corruption issues doesn't mean all the people working for them were corrupt. I believe the inspectors didn't find any WMDs. It was the "Food for Oil" part with the corruption but I believe these inspectors had nothing to do with that.
I don't know if you are totally ignoring this poll, which I believe was done by a British news service and published in the Washington Post. The Poll might be a bit off but I believe not all the Iraqis want them there. They might have supported the US when they first came in but now I think a lot of them want the US to leave. I think there are probably a lot of people who come up to the soldiers to show their support, but if you don't support someone you aren't going to go up to them and say it.
At the time I remember the reaction in Canada is that we believed that Iraq had WMDs but we wanted the inspectors to do their job and were quite upset with the US government when they announced the War in Iraq without yet finding any WMDs and not letting the inspectors finish their job. It probably wouldn't have mattered if they didn't use it as a reason for the war but they did.
Absolutely agree with you. But what I am trying to get at here is that we need to stop the Terrorism at the root not the leaves of the tree. If we prevent them from getting more recruits soon the terrorism will die out or lessen enough that there won't be nearly enough power behind them to do a lot of destruction. By killing the separate terrorists that attack won't change anything. A tree has a lot of leaves and you are never going to catch every single one of them. We have to find a way to get these people who could be future recruits to be on our side.
|
|
|
Post by shavonfan on Nov 20, 2005 16:53:37 GMT -5
Good point. So, what you are telling me is that I am supposed to only judge the UN by a handful of corrupt people within it, and not the whole thing, yet also expect the whole wide world to judge the USA for anything and everything that it does as a whole and not just a part. That's what the world is saying, Leona. And that is why no matter what we do it will always be wrong to everyone else. Okay, so after thirty five years of living in fear of speaking their true minds, these Iraqi people are supposed to just freely express exactly how they feel about freedom and those who are freeing them (The US, of course.) If I was from Iraq, I would have reservations about it, because most of the world hasn't decided yet if they know the difference between right and wrong, and if they have their way will convince us to give up the effort. I have watched TV reports of Iraqi people in the streets being interviewed before this war started. They shared nothing for fear that Saddam would punish them. That fear is still there, and won't go away for some time to come. An undecided and uncommitted world to their support doesn't help. I will never forget the number of times that we tried to do an investigation and were not permitted inside to do one. A decision had to be made, and one was. No need to second guess now, just live with it. Saddam deserves no sympathy. He had every opportunity to clear himself. He didn't. His loss. Militant terrorist Islamists are going to do what they do whether we incite them or not, Leona. They believe they receive a reward in heaven for destroying Satan. They believe we are Satan. So, it's not a matter of converting them. It's not a matter of changing their opinion of us. It's a matter of defeating them. This did not begin on 9/11. There were at least twelve other attacks dating back about twelve years. Finally, and I emphasize the finally, we responded. The world thinks we didn't give them enough time. I think we waited too long. As far as those on the sidelines who are forming an opinion about who's side to take, all I can say is that if it's all that hard to figure out, well, hey, Judas walked with Jesus for three years too! What an unfortunate end for him in the end!
|
|