House GOP Seeks Quick Vote on Iraq Pullout
Email this Story
Nov 18, 3:37 PM (ET)
By LIZ SIDOT
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no immediate reaction to the planned vote.
The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.
Murtha's resolution would force the president to withdrawal the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date."
Most Republicans oppose Murtha's plan, and even some Democrats have been reluctant to back his position. Republicans were seeking to force Democrats to stand with the respected 30-year congressman or go on the record against his proposal.
Some members of the House and Senate, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire there. They have been staking out new positions on the war that has grown increasingly unpopular with the American public, resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and cost more than $200 billion.
The House move comes just days after the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting mushrooming questions from both parties about the war, though, the chamber then approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues, said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
(AP) Senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., hold a news conference on pre-Iraq War...
Full Image
A day after his comments, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the usually pro-military congressman.
"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders routinely give to Pentagon reporters.
Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."
Republicans pounced, chastising Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment, and Democrats defended Murtha as a patriot, even as they declined to back his view.
"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, responded Friday. Also a Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.
(AP) Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., right, standing with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left,...
Full Image
"There is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience," Kerry said.
For his part, Kerry has proposed a phased exit from Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in Iraq. A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal.
As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee with close ties to many military officers, Murtha carries more credibility with his colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the war from the start.
Bush administration officials have been cautious in responding to Murtha.
"We have nothing but respect for Congressman Murtha's service to his country," White House communications director Nicolle Wallace told NBC's "Today" show Friday. "And I think he spoke from the heart yesterday. We happen to have a real serious policy disagreement with him."
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.
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.
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 2783 Location: Boston, MA
This vote is going to be quite interesting. Your going to have Republicans trying to spin the vote as Democrats being against the troops and unpatriotic. At the same time you will have Democrats pointing at the flawed intelligence and how those intelligence reports were formed. This is nothing new. The only difference now is that more American people are doubting the reasons we went to war. Get the Spin Machines ready.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:32 pm Posts: 766 Location: Grayson County, Virginia
Too bad the yellow-bellied democrats are hiding out and afraid of what voters might think insteading of standing up for whats right and backing Murtha.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
So, do I understand this right? The Republicans are forcing a vote on "should we pull out all of our troops right now?"??
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
How is pulling out the troops not supporting them? Are there really troops who want to stay in Iraq over returning home to see their families and friends?
"Hey guys, the order came for us to go home!"
"Those fuckers, I was looking forward to a possible shrapnel wound on my hours of patrol in blistering heat tomorrow!!!"
Seriously, would any troops really be against this?
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
This vote is going to be quite interesting. Your going to have Republicans trying to spin the vote as Democrats being against the troops and unpatriotic. At the same time you will have Democrats pointing at the flawed intelligence and how those intelligence reports were formed. This is nothing new. The only difference now is that more American people are doubting the reasons we went to war. - Dr. Gonzo
The vote wasn't interesting. Only three representatives voted for the immediate troop pull out. This vote has absolutely nothing to do with flawed pre-war intelligence and how they were formed. Nothing. So if the Democrats brought that up, shame on them. The debate on pre-war intelligence is very important, but it has nothing to do with NOW. It has nothing to do with the situation that Iraq faces in the present. They are two independent issues, and should be dealt with as such. To not do that would be to play politics.[/quote]
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Someone on NPR was talking about how Bush always answers critics on the extremes w/o paying attention to serious debates. "There are those who say we should cut and run." "There are those who say the Iraqis don't deserve freedom."
Now Congress is doing the same thing. Has Congress ever voted on a single sentence resolution? People should be pissed that Congress is acting like a group of children on the playground.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am Posts: 484 Location: Westerville, OH
Pledge My Grievance wrote:
Too bad the yellow-bellied democrats are hiding out and afraid of what voters might think insteading of standing up for whats right and backing Murtha.
Murtha advocated withdrawl as soon as it was feasable. The bill introduced in the House stated that troops would be withdrawn immediately. This was nothing but a lame political publicity stunt on the part of House Republicans, specifically the Congressman from San Diego who brought it to the floor.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am Posts: 484 Location: Westerville, OH
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
This vote is going to be quite interesting. Your going to have Republicans trying to spin the vote as Democrats being against the troops and unpatriotic. At the same time you will have Democrats pointing at the flawed intelligence and how those intelligence reports were formed. This is nothing new. The only difference now is that more American people are doubting the reasons we went to war. - Dr. Gonzo
The vote wasn't interesting. Only three representatives voted for the immediate troop pull out. This vote has absolutely nothing to do with flawed pre-war intelligence and how they were formed. Nothing. So if the Democrats brought that up, shame on them. The debate on pre-war intelligence is very important, but it has nothing to do with NOW. It has nothing to do with the situation that Iraq faces in the present. They are two independent issues, and should be dealt with as such. To not do that would be to play politics.
[/quote]
The Democrats didn't bring up this vote. This is about what Murtha (one Congressman, one opinion) said yesterday. It had nothing to do with pre-war intelligence. That is the matter being handled by the Senate.
I don't think that it's a bad idea for the government to present a timetable to Congress. There's no oversight or transparency whatsoever when it comes to the way the Executive Branch is conducting this war. This is my money. My taxes. I, we, deserve to know what the long term plan is. If I brought my car to a mechanic to be fixed, I would expect some sort of timetable as to when the job would be completed. We should expect no less from our Government.
This vote is going to be quite interesting. Your going to have Republicans trying to spin the vote as Democrats being against the troops and unpatriotic. At the same time you will have Democrats pointing at the flawed intelligence and how those intelligence reports were formed. This is nothing new. The only difference now is that more American people are doubting the reasons we went to war. - Dr. Gonzo
The vote wasn't interesting. Only three representatives voted for the immediate troop pull out. This vote has absolutely nothing to do with flawed pre-war intelligence and how they were formed. Nothing. So if the Democrats brought that up, shame on them. The debate on pre-war intelligence is very important, but it has nothing to do with NOW. It has nothing to do with the situation that Iraq faces in the present. They are two independent issues, and should be dealt with as such. To not do that would be to play politics.
The Democrats didn't bring up this vote. This is about what Murtha (one Congressman, one opinion) said yesterday. It had nothing to do with pre-war intelligence. That is the matter being handled by the Senate.
I don't think that it's a bad idea for the government to present a timetable to Congress. There's no oversight or transparency whatsoever when it comes to the way the Executive Branch is conducting this war. This is my money. My taxes. I, we, deserve to know what the long term plan is. If I brought my car to a mechanic to be fixed, I would expect some sort of timetable as to when the job would be completed. We should expect no less from our Government.[/quote]
That's what I was refering to mister. I think it's a bad idea to lay out timetables, because it's always ridiculous to lay out time tables in regards to war. The insurgency will undoubtedly try to play into, and exploit any time table that we set. I cringe when I read any article referring to such crap.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am Posts: 484 Location: Westerville, OH
LittleWing wrote:
That's what I was refering to mister. I think it's a bad idea to lay out timetables, because it's always ridiculous to lay out time tables in regards to war. The insurgency will undoubtedly try to play into, and exploit any time table that we set. I cringe when I read any article referring to such crap.
Yeah. I agree. A war with no planning is definitely the best way to waste tax dollars. Hopefully I can give my grandkids a good excuse as to why they are still over there and why half of their income will be going to taxes to pay for the wonderful deficit this war is creating in this country.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
6 billion a month for Iraq and Afghanistan. 6 BILLION! Does anyone who supports this war have any idea what this is doing to our country month after month?
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
6 billion a month for Iraq and Afghanistan. 6 BILLION! Does anyone who supports this war have any idea what this is doing to our country month after month?
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
Brink of Forever wrote:
I have an idea. Tax big oil's multibillion $$ profits and funnel that into the Iraq war chest. Makes perfect sense to me.
I thought the best idea Kerry had while running in '04 was to take the tax cuts from the upper 2% and pay for the War in Iraq with that.
"Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." -G.W. Bush Jr.
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
