WP: House Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote

[jbooma]

This is interesting. If you are against the war wouldn't you want an immediate pullout?? So I guess this shows many are for the war but are afraid if others know that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802896.html

Democrats Enraged By Personal Attack

By Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, November 19, 2005; A01

Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber's newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war.

GOP leaders hastily scheduled a vote on a measure to require the Bush administration to bring the troops home now, an idea proposed Thursday by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). The Republican-proposed measure was rejected 403 to 3, a result that surprised no one.

The idea was to force Democrats to go on the record on a proposal that the administration says would be equivalent to surrender. Recognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no.

But the maneuvering exposed the chamber's raw partisan divisions and prompted a tumultuous scene, which Capitol Hill veterans called among the wildest and most emotional they had ever witnessed.

Though even many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Bush administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.

Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent. Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "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."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

As the House temporarily moved to other matters, a calm Ford said in an interview that he confronted the Republicans because he was angry that they were using a ploy to avoid "a real debate" about the war. "I said, 'If you believe it's about Murtha, then talk about Murtha, don't hide behind a resolution,' " Ford said.

It was past 10 p.m. when Murtha addressed a relatively subdued House. Hunter's resolution "is not what I envisioned" because it avoids a broader debate of the war, which "is not going as advertised," Murtha said. "The American people are way ahead of us" in wanting a strategy to bring the troops home, he added. "It's easy to sit in your air-conditioned offices and send them into battle."

But Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), who spent seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said U.S. forces in Iraq "need our full support." He added: "They need to have full faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry."

Those voting yes on the resolution were Democrats Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). Six other Democrats -- none of them from Maryland or Virginia -- voted "present."

Top Democrats attacked the GOP tactic. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Republicans "engaged in an act of deception that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress." She called Hunter's resolution "a political stunt" and "a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform."

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the GOP resolution was meant to prevent a serious debate on the war's prosecution, and that he lacked the words "to express the magnitude of my contempt with which I view this shabby, petty political maneuver."

[NoCalMike]

I think it is really f'n sickening how former marines and armymen are flat out being called "cowards" and "anti-american" etc etc....because they don't particularly agree with THIS war, and THIS administration. For all this "love our troops" hub-bub we keep hearing, it sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors, and all it REALLY boils down to is, "Support THIS ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT THEY TELL the troops to do"

[DjTj]

This is interesting. If you are against the war wouldn't you want an immediate pullout?? So I guess this shows many are for the war but are afraid if others know that.

... jbooma ... :doh:

Alright, I guess I have to admit Sarge and BlueTalon were right. The GOP was successful in painting the Democrats into a corner with their political stunt. The GOP wins the media war - they have convinced jbooma.

Classic jbooma though, 218 posts and almost 24 hours behind:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127853

[jbooma]

... jbooma ... :doh:

Alright, I guess I have to admit Sarge and BlueTalon were right. The GOP was successful in painting the Democrats into a corner with their political stunt. The GOP wins the media war - they have convinced jbooma.

Classic jbooma though, 218 posts and almost 24 hours behind:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127853

LOL my bad it was on the front page of the post and didn't see it here

How is this a political stunt, you are for it or against it, don't hide because you know others won't like it, tell everyone exactly how you feel

Sorry but if my senator was against the war I would expect them to vote on this.

[JimboDaMan]

LOL my bad it was on the front page of the post and didn't see it here

How is this a political stunt, you are for it or against it, don't hide because you know others won't like it, tell everyone exactly how you feel

Sorry but if my senator was against the war I would expect them to vote on this.

Apparently there's quite a bit you "don't see". :laugh:

[jbooma]

Apparently there's quite a bit you "don't see". :laugh:

Technically that thread was not started incorrectly, if taken from a news site like the WP then you have to start it like this:

WP: blah blah blah

So I wasn't in the wrong

[DjTj]

LOL my bad it was on the front page of the post and didn't see it here

How is this a political stunt, you are for it or against it, don't hide because you know others won't like it, tell everyone exactly how you feel

Sorry but if my senator was against the war I would expect them to vote on this.

It's like when the Democrats vote against the Republican version of a Medicare bill even though it expands coverage ... it's possible to be in favor of something but to want it done a specific way.

Nancy Pelosi might want to bring the troops home, but she might believe "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Maybe the Democrats believe that there needs to be a plan for withdrawal. Maybe they don't want to just leave the Iraqis high and dry. The Republicans asked if the Democrats wanted to "cut and run," and they said no.

...and then again, maybe they were just pissed off that the Republicans made them work 7 extra hours on the day before vacation to debate a non-binding resolution that all the Republicans were going to vote against anyways ... if my boss made me work overtime on a Friday night for something he didn't actually want, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

[Ancalagon the Black]

How is this a political stunt, you are for it or against it, don't hide because you know others won't like it, tell everyone exactly how you feel

You're always good for comic relief, jbooma.

How is it a political stunt? The Republicans propose a resolution that says the exact opposite of what they want, couched in terms that are unacceptable to all but two Democrats and one Republican [thanks for the correction, IJ], and you think it's not a stunt?

[Ignatius J.]

2 democrats and one republican, ancal.

[jbooma]

It's like when the Democrats vote against the Republican version of a Medicare bill even though it expands coverage ... it's possible to be in favor of something but to want it done a specific way.

Nancy Pelosi might want to bring the troops home, but she might believe "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Maybe the Democrats believe that there needs to be a plan for withdrawal. Maybe they don't want to just leave the Iraqis high and dry. The Republicans asked if the Democrats wanted to "cut and run," and they said no.

...and then again, maybe they were just pissed off that the Republicans made them work 7 extra hours on the day before vacation to debate a non-binding resolution that all the Republicans were going to vote against anyways ... if my boss made me work overtime on a Friday night for something he didn't actually want, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

I agree with what you are saying but they had to know this vote wouldn't have passed anyway and they then can show that yes they are against this war. This was a vote that had no chance, so it would have been a good time to show how upset they are with the war.

[jbooma]

You're always good for comic relief, jbooma.

How is it a political stunt? The Republicans propose a resolution that says the exact opposite of what they want, couched in terms that are unacceptable to all but three Democrats, and you think it's not a stunt?

A repub voted for it so get your facts straight.

Everyone knew this wouldn't have passed, so to show your disapproval of the war you could have voted for it, knowing that it wouldn't have passed anyway.

[Ancalagon the Black]

A repub voted for it so get your facts straight.

Everyone knew this wouldn't have passed, so to show your disapproval of the war you could have voted for it, knowing that it wouldn't have passed anyway.

My bad on the three Democrats.

Is it or is it not a stunt?

[DjTj]

I agree with what you are saying but they had to know this vote wouldn't have passed anyway and they then can show that yes they are against this war. This was a vote that had no chance, so it would have been a good time to show how upset they are with the war.

I think they're doing a pretty good job of that anyways. You're not going to run into a lot of people on the street that are saying today, "Huh, I guess the Democrats DO support the war."

There really isn't much more political ground to gain in being more against the war than they currently are. Everyone pretty much already gets that they are upset.

I think the Democrats understand now that they need to have a plan for withdrawal. If they're going to come out strong in favor of something, it's going to be something concrete instead of just shouting "Bush sucks!" all the time.

This was a meaningless vote and the Democrats had nothing to gain by voting yes, so they voted no.

[jbooma]

My bad on the three Democrats.

Is it or is it not a stunt?

It is not a stunt because everyone knew it had no chance. Now if they tricked them into something, that would be a stunt. I feel dems who are against it could have used this as a way of showing they are.

I can see the elections next year in a debate, "Senator you said you were agains the war but did not vote to bring our troops home why?"

This might be payback for what the dems did the other day when the shut down the house, basically a waste of time and money if you ask me in all of this.

The house to me feels like a roach infested place. Lets just get rid of all of them and start fresh, they don't do anything anyway

[WallyVon]

It is not a stunt because everyone knew it had no chance. Now if they tricked them into something, that would be a stunt. I feel dems who are against it could have used this as a way of showing they are.

I can see the elections next year in a debate, "Senator you said you were agains the war but did not vote to bring our troops home why?"

This might be payback for what the dems did the other day when the shut down the house, basically a waste of time and money if you ask me in all of this.

Of course it was a stunt. No point even debating it.

[visionary]

Of course it was a stunt. No point even debating it.

Debate sucks, down with debate.

What should we think Wally?

[WallyVon]

Debate sucks, down with debate.

What should we think Wally?

Well, what exactly is it, if not a political stunt??

I define a political stunt as something done for only political purposes. This bill had no legislative purpose, it was engineered to fail by those who created it.

If anything is ever a political stunt, this is.

[Ignatius J.]

Wally,

If you take what the conservatives say at face value, which you really ought to do here, since we alwasy get upset when people try to misinterpret what dems are saying, then there is a legitimate reason for that vote.

Headlines across the world were saying that we wanted to cut and run. The fact is that we don't. Not even democrats advocate that position, and the legislature made a statement that we do not in fact want to cut and run as soon as possible. No one wants that, and so almost no one voted for it.

The point could be that we were trying to send a message around the world that when we leave it will not be a cut and run, it will be in a measured way that reflects a decision on what is best for iraq in our estimation. What those goals are has yet to be defined, but we can say that as a country we are very united around the idea that we do not want to cut and run.

[WallyVon]

Wally,

If you take what the conservatives say at face value, which you really ought to do here, since we alwasy get upset when people try to misinterpret what dems are saying, then there is a legitimate reason for that vote.

Headlines across the world were saying that we wanted to cut and run. The fact is that we don't. Not even democrats advocate that position, and the legislature made a statement that we do not in fact want to cut and run as soon as possible. No one wants that, and so almost no one voted for it.

The point could be that we were trying to send a message around the world that when we leave it will not be a cut and run, it will be in a measured way that reflects a decision on what is best for iraq in our estimation. What those goals are has yet to be defined, but we can say that as a country we are very united around the idea that we do not want to cut and run.

I favor "cutting and running", as they so eloquently put it. I know I'm one of the few. It is the best thing to do right now.

[Ignatius J.]

okay then. But you claimed that this was a stunt, and your stance makes a vote like this all the more important. We are not planning on cutting and running. Mainstream democrats don't support that, and maybe that was worth telling the world, because it seemed to need clarification. Heck, I know sarge can't figure out where most democrats stand, so maybe this will help him.

[WallyVon]

okay then. But you claimed that this was a stunt, and your stance makes a vote like this all the more important. We are not planning on cutting and running. Mainstream democrats don't support that, and maybe that was worth telling the world, because it seemed to need clarification. Heck, I know sarge can't figure out where most democrats stand, so maybe this will help him.

I doubt the world will take that away from this debate. Regardless, it was still a political stunt.

[@DCGoldPants]

the Republicans keep using the word "Immediate" when talking about Murtha's proposal.

But the Dems and the videoclips show them voting on something that wasn't Murtha's proposal. So, its just too easy to say "Yeah, this wasn't ours...........next"

I still don't understand why they wouldn't call him and the Dems on their own proposal for defeat. Instead, a Repubican non-binding resolution was voted down...and their junior most Congresswoman is on video calling Murtha a coward.....and then 5 min later, asking for those remarks off the official record. Too bad she can't have it striken from the video. That's going to haunt her forever.

[Ignatius J.]

I'm just big on giving people the benefit of the doubt. Calling this a political stunt just makes the divisions in this country deeper. True or not.

Bufford,

You do wonder why they didn't put murtha's proposal up though don't you? It would have given them a great victory, for exactly the reasons people like jbooma and sarge are touting here. Instead, the dems won this round easily. As you say, they get to say that it wasn't thier proposal and you have footage of republicans being big @#$%$ to a guy who stood up in congress telling stories about injured marines.

[WallyVon]

I'm just big on giving people the benefit of the doubt. Calling this a political stunt just makes the divisions in this country deeper. True or not.

So we can't call a spade a spade anymore??

[Ignatius J.]

You can do whatever you want. I never implied otherwise.