So when the Reps say "ok, here's your bill, Murtha"

And Murtha get's up and says "um, no. It has nothing to do with what I've been asking for"

How sleazy would they have to be to go through with it?

11/18/2005 10:13:17 PM

wait i thought the GOP forced the vote.... is that not right?

11/18/2005 10:14:39 PM

^they did

11/18/2005 10:15:12 PM

Yeah. Forced the bill that supposedly reflected what Murtha wanted.

To call a bluff that he never made.

11/18/2005 10:15:20 PM

so this isnt backfiring on the dems as the talk show hosts have been saying then? i dont have cable so my info comes from the likes of savage... which is obviously not a good source

11/18/2005 10:15:56 PM

can someone summarize all this. im lost

11/18/2005 10:16:11 PM

Yeah, the local guy on WPTF was about to cream himself over this, but from what I see so far it's not going so well.

Sowwy Republicans.

11/18/2005 10:17:12 PM

republicans are keeping the dems on their heels by playing dirty partisan tricks

same shit, different direction

11/18/2005 10:17:51 PM

Rove: bwahahaaha. They want to get out? Let's push through a cut-and-run bill through the house.

Murtha: I didn't want to cut and run. Read the damn resolution I made. Oh, and I'm a really really likable, smart old guy.

Republicans: Oh. nvm.

11/18/2005 10:19:12 PM

i like this so who do you think will win the pr war, the gop with they want to cut and run, or the dems with we want a discussion?

11/18/2005 10:22:35 PM

you know the best part of this

they gave themselves a pay raise today

11/18/2005 10:22:37 PM

really holy shit...

11/18/2005 10:22:56 PM

^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5425321,00.html

Quote :

"The cost-of-living increase for members of Congress - which will put pay for the rank and file at an estimated $165,200 a year - marked a brief truce in the pitched political battles that have flared in recent weeks on the war and domestic issues. So much so that the issue was not mentioned on the floor of either the House or Senate as lawmakers worked on legislation whose passage will assure bigger paychecks."

imagine that

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 10:25 PM. Reason : no debate on a pay raise]

11/18/2005 10:23:58 PM

Quote :

"With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike."

11/18/2005 10:24:47 PM

And there we go.

Murtha just pwnt the hell out of this entire thing.


Has the other side spoken yet?

11/18/2005 10:25:07 PM

The dems gave Murtha all of their time for him to use as he may. Good move by the dems.

11/18/2005 10:26:06 PM

what fool actually submitted the resolution?

11/18/2005 10:26:10 PM

Quote :

"SHE CALLED MURTHA A COWARD: Republican Congresswoman Jean Smith called Jack Murtha a coward this afternoon, unworthy of the Marines, on the House floor. Money quote: The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel. "He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. She later withdrew her remarks from the record. But those words linger as a reminder of what these Republicans have become. For the record: Murtha served 37 years in the Marines, and has Purple Hearts to his name. He visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed every week. Three years ago, he won the Semper Fidelis Award of the Marine Corps Foundation, the highest honor the Marines can confer. Every time you think these Republicans can sink no lower, even after their vile smears against Kerry's service last year, they keep going. They make me sick to my stomach."

via Andrew Sullivan

11/18/2005 10:28:32 PM

i'm thinking she'll have a fun couple of months in 2006

11/18/2005 10:30:13 PM

it always makes me sad when they do a wide shot and there are so many people not in the chamber

11/18/2005 10:33:46 PM

Ahah, this guy

is a steaming turd

11/18/2005 10:34:42 PM

^rob simmons?

11/18/2005 10:38:05 PM

safely

successfully

soon

pick 2

11/18/2005 10:39:32 PM

^ahah, gg

11/18/2005 10:40:08 PM

i've closed my streaming window and am going to bed

i hope the world doesn't collapse on the house floor tonight while i slumber

11/18/2005 10:41:58 PM

oh shit

pwnt

^ You just missed the best part.

A Dem got up and because Reps have been referring to this resolution as Murtha's resolution, asked the president if they were debating Murtha's resolution or Hunters (Rep) resolution.

Then craziness insued when the president said it was a topic for debate.

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2005 10:46:21 PM

You just missed a huge lie.

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 10:46 PM. Reason : poor woodfoot]

11/18/2005 10:46:22 PM

where is this streaming vidoe
can we get access to this?

11/18/2005 10:49:01 PM

Haha, red tie guy's a dick

11/18/2005 10:49:45 PM

so does anyone know? about the whole streaming video?

11/18/2005 10:50:25 PM

check C-SPAN's website

11/18/2005 10:50:45 PM

Quote :

"I am not making any kind of "with us or against us" statement. I am talking about pure logic."

Uhm, nah, you're not. Cuz Murtha's argument is that what you presented as the only two available options aren't. You're saying the options are:

1) Withdraw before Iraq is stable;
2) Fight till Iraq is stable.

He's saying your second option isn't an option. You choose to absolutely mischaracterize his entire position instead of making a coherent argument against it. He says that you can continue to smoke your favorite plant and in your mind see images that you find pleasant but the practical consequences of "fighting till Iraq is stable" is that it's getting progressively more unstable. He says his assessment is confirmed by the increased casualties among the American troops as well as various polls of the Iraqis showing that American presence is fueling the insurgency.

In that respect if you care so much about the stability of Iraq, you should be supporting immediate withdrawal. You know, calculus I, section "decreasing functions".

11/18/2005 10:51:00 PM

This is really some of the most hishonest crap I've seen on the house.

A guy just basically argued that because some newspapers interpreted Mertha's resolution as a request for immediate withdrawal, it was a request for immediate withdrawal.

And how dare he publicly demand an immediate withdrawal.

This right here has made me decide to not vote for McCain, regardless of who runs against him, if he remains in the Republican party.

11/18/2005 10:56:10 PM

^^

OK, so let me ask you this:

Did you read my post?

I think I said something along the lines of:

"If you disagree with the Republicans point of view about practicability, then you may as well argue for immediate withdrawl."

So what exactly are you disagreeing with me about? I mean, I quite obviously agree that Murtha is saying that the second option isn't an option. I am just drawing the logical inference that if you agree with Murtha, then you must also find immediate withdrawl agreeable. Just like you.

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 10:56 PM. Reason : foo]

11/18/2005 10:56:13 PM

I think two things are evident.

1. It's really gay to clap to every self evident statement. It's a House session, not a Comedy Central special.
2. If the goal was for Democrats to take a "stand", it failed miserably. The whole thing turned into a circle jerk where people will vote on whether or not they hate American soldiers.

11/18/2005 10:58:25 PM

So are the Republicans arguing against their own resolution?

11/18/2005 11:00:56 PM

^^

Well, one good turn deserves another. I mean, Murtha was just using his "respected position" to play the PR game. Why can't Republicans?

And I still want to know how Murtha's view of "practicable" is any different from "immediate," but that's more a question for Gamecat at this point.

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 11:01 PM. Reason : foo]

11/18/2005 11:01:09 PM

yeah, lol

They're clearly outraged at the bill they proposed

11/18/2005 11:01:45 PM

They're retarded.

11/18/2005 11:05:41 PM

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 11:10 PM. Reason : bleh]

11/18/2005 11:07:49 PM

sam johnson's talking about how "any murmur" of withdrawal undermines our troops' morale.

UM, didn't your boys propose a bill asking for a withdrawal?

this is ri-goddamn-diculous

11/18/2005 11:08:20 PM

It is not Murtha's resolution.

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2005 11:10:18 PM

^

Yea I noticed, you'd think CNN would keep up with the story.

Although I can't really see a logical difference between "immediately" and "at the earliest predictable date," except that one plays better in the press.

11/18/2005 11:11:08 PM

nm

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2005 11:11:12 PM

Im just pissed that I have to wait till monday for the daily show if its even on next week.

11/18/2005 11:12:08 PM

Quote :

"So what exactly are you disagreeing with me about? I mean, I quite obviously agree that Murtha is saying that the second option isn't an option. I am just drawing the logical inference that if you agree with Murtha, then you must also find immediate withdrawl agreeable. Just like you."

Well, in principle yes. And I'd bet most of Democrats do. But the President may say, well, here's what's doable and it would not solve the problem in its entirety but it would clearly help the Iraqis. Like train so many units (note "so many") or build so many bridges, or build so many schools. And then we say we've done all we could and can leave. Personally, I could live with that.

Plus, you seem to confuse "practical" with "theoretically possible". I think what a lot of people find unacceptable is the absence of any articulated plan. To achieve victory isn't a plan. Any plan must be a list of steps (that are subject to revision, sure) including how to measure intermediate progress. Even if you come to me and propose a goal that is theoretically achieveable but you clearly have no understanding of how to achieve it, then I'll choose a suboptimal alternative. In which case again, you could yell as much as you want about how I chose not to make everybody happy - the reality would be I chose the truly practical over your wishful thinking.

11/18/2005 11:12:40 PM

Anyone listening to the C-span radio callers?

11/18/2005 11:14:47 PM

Quote :

"Like train so many units (note "so many") or build so many bridges, or build so many schools. And then we say we've done all we could and can leave. Personally, I could live with that."

Well, ok, but that's basically just the same thing as withdrawl for the purposes of this discussion. Obviously the contention is the mass deployment of troops; we have plenty of troops around the world doing various tasks like that in various countries.

Quote :

"I think what a lot of people find unacceptable is the absence of any articulated plan. To achieve victory isn't a plan."

OK -- but I still don't see what you're disagreeing with me about, or what this has to do with what I was saying earlier.

11/18/2005 11:17:01 PM

1. Not necessarily. If a particular military operation is required to wipe the organized insurgency somewhere in a remote area, that it's fine, too.

2. What I'm disagreeing with is your premise that a call for a withdrawal is equivalent to "letting Iraq go to shit". And you're implicitly implying that calling for "staying the course" is somehow not letting Iraq go to shit. If your goal is simply to exercise in pure logic, fine. I'm not very much interested in that. I'm more interested in practical consequences of each choice. And I think disregarding the reality and a stupid insistance on continuing without any strategy whatsoever is, as a practical matter, much more of a sign to let Iraq go to shit than waking up, smelling the coffee and then optimizing over the existing alternatives.

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ?]

11/18/2005 11:29:07 PM

Quote :

" Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 11:17 p.m. EST (04:17 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official. Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year. The proposal comes as tension grows in both Washington and Baghdad following a call by a senior House Democrat to bring U.S. troops home and the deaths of scores of people by suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities. "

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=366317

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 11:31 PM. Reason : http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=366317]

11/18/2005 11:30:35 PM