Other Voices on H. J. Res. 73
From Republic of Dogs:
Please see a lengthy email my Congress person sent me. At least someone gets it in Washington....
"Mr. Murtha is a decorated Vietnam War veteran with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. He voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq and is viewed as one of the "Hawks" of the Democratic Party. Many of us who oppose this war have been working to convince individuals like Mr. Murtha to join us in calling for an end to the combat. I have the highest regard for Mr. Murtha and know that he engaged in thoughtful deliberation before reaching the conclusion that the US must withdraw.
"On Friday, the Republican Leadership pulled a cheap political stunt that demeaned the House and made a mockery of the democratic process. They introduced a three line Resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately". They claimed to simply be adhering to Mr. Murtha's wishes by offering a simplified version of his proposal.
"In fact, Mr. Murtha's resolution states that the deployment of US forces in Iraq be terminated and those forces redeployed at soon as practical. It calls for a "quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines". Finally, it directs the US to pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
"In contrast, the Republican resolution does not provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and ignores efforts to achieve stability in Iraq through diplomatic means. This resolution lays out no plan - it is simplistic and irresponsible...."
From You Want Freedom Fries with That?:
While some peace activists had doubts about the bill (mostly focused on uncertainty as to what an "over-the-horizon presence" is and what it does, where, and for how long), many groups were clearly fired up about Murtha's public statement in support of ending the war. U.S. Labor Against the War was among those ready to roll out an organizing campaign. Congressman Charles Rangel was rounding up supporters and comparing Murtha to Martin Luther King Jr. Murtha's office was telling us they'd received 1,600 phone calls on the topic, and 1,300 of them had been positive.
The excitement clearly was based on the fact that Murtha is a well-known supporter of wars and a veteran who was now opposing, not wars in general (or even wars based on lies, which comes to almost the same thing), but this war in particular. Murtha is also the ranking Member and former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. These qualifications meant that the media would treat his position as significant, and so possibly might the nominal leaders of the Democratic Party. On the latter score, however, initial results were disappointing. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "I think that Mr. Murtha speaks for himself...." Senator Harry Reid said, "I don't support immediate withdrawal."...
The Republicans thought that they could take what they do on talk radio and actually make it real in Congress. If the Democrats refused to advocate for a childishly simplistic position, why then a Republican would have to put the words in their mouths. The Republicans clearly thought this would work. They thought that some or most or all Democrats would vote for the thing, and that this would make the Democrats look bad....
From Independent Conservative:
Democrats are saying that the vote to pull out was not “John Murtha’s bill”. But when you look at the text it is not very different....
So his bill says “earliest practicable date” and what was voted down Friday gave a date, “immediately”! Given Murtha feels no more can be done, there could be no more practicable date than right now, using his logic! I don’t see much difference there. His bill called for a “quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines”. So if the troops were pulled out there would still be troops “over-the-horizon” in other areas. A “quick-reaction” force could have been proposed in a follow-up bill, but let’s be honest here. A “quick-reaction” force would not be able to do much! So the call for such a force at this point is a bit of a waste and foolish! It would not prove effective! His bill mentions that more troops are needed, so how can he contradict himself in calling for a “quick-reaction” force, as if that would be effective?!!! So better to not have that. Still the bill they voted on Friday is not much different from Murtha’s bill, considering section 2 of his bill was a waste anyway! And section 3 of his bill “diplomacy” could continue if all the troops were pulled. So in total I see the bill that they voted on last Friday as a functional equivalent of John Murtha’s bill!
Amygdala sez:
John Cole obviously disagrees. I assume that if I immediately point out that a plan to do something within six months is different than a plan to do something immediately, John can immediately point out how I am wrong, in six months.
So, the next time one of us baby seal clubbers says we will do something immediately, don't cancel your dinner plans.
Comments