WAR: Iraq Pullout Voted Down By House of Representatives

After a fiery confrontation between Democrats and Republicans over a call by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, to immediately remove troops from Iraq, a resolution calling for such a removal was voted down. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) quoted an email from a former Marine who said that cowards cut and run, not Marines. The statement was immediate seized upon by Democrats who shouted and, in one case, charged a group of Republicans. Some have called the vote a stunt.

---

I am also stunned that a former Marine Colonel would call for what amounts to a surrender in Iraq. This has to be one of the lowest moments in American history, right up there with the abandonment of the people of South Vietnam. Fortunately, things have not gone that far, as yet, but we must be ever vigilant to avoid such a disastrous decision ever again. The blood of millions of innocents is on the hands of those who called for the removal of troops from Vietnam and hardly a word is ever mentioned of such a fact. We cannot let such cowardice tarnish the image of America ever again. Our enemies have gambled on America's reprising its actions in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. We must band together to send a resounding, "Never again."

Related News Links:
www.abovetopsecret.com

[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]

You have voted GradyPhilpott for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Murtha made the comment that people are coming from all over the world to join the insurgency with the purpose of killing Americans. I say let them come. The American forces in Iraq know the threat. They are armed and trained to combat it. Would you rather have Al Quida atttacking American civilians? Setting a pull out date will just give the insurgents the confidence to wait until after the pullout to attack. The US was not allowed to do the job right in 1991 and had to go back in. If we leave now what is there to keep these terrorists fixed in one place? If we leave now how long until we are fighting this war in the US?

I don't care about the Iragui people.
they now have a government thanks to us.
Let them dicide what kind of a country they want.
If it's civil war; we had one that ended in1865. it happens.

What I do care about is that the troops get to reunite with their families instead of fight and die for some Halliburton and the other war profiteers that in my opinion are the real motivators of this bogus war.

Thank GOD for Murthra a visionary that can see behind the lies for this stupid macho exercise by people who have no real personal contact with the death and desturction by the middle and lower classes of this country.

I would feel entirely different if the Presidents twins were in volved in the conflict, but from what i see their parties and education is more important than really helping the effort to win the war on terrorism,

This is the ways it's always been; send the middle class to fight for the upper classes kids that are in schood.

Go ahead if your partiotism is strong to sacrifice your kids to the BS agenda of the elete. It's not a war on terrorism, it's abogus war for the war profiteers to fill their coffers with the blood of young people that should have a shot at life, not death for some undefined manulapited patrotic BS.

thank God for Murthra a ture hero with some experience to finally tell the thruth about this war being propagated by 'chicken hawks'" that find a nice safe place for their kids, wheather it be graduate school, peace corps, or some other cushey job as some entern in the slimely hall that a GED receipent would have no chance in hell of being able to avail himnself of because his blood line dosen't guite put hin or her in the status percential.


In the future if your familly makes less than 100k a year you can be assured of a nice oppurtinity to meet some musilims up close and persaonal.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!!

I find it astonishing that those with no real military experience can bash a true HERO like McKain or Murthra. Ideology makes fools of some men that worship at the feet of false authority figures because they don't have the guts to admit they were chumped out in such a transparent way.



[edit on 19-11-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 19-11-2005 by whaaa]

What was the final tally? I was catching snips of it through the TV, and the DEMs were saying that Murtha was not calling for the troops to be home like tomorrow, but merely that now is time to begin planning an exit strategy. Of course the Repubs disagreed.

I can remember seeing John Murtha's name on voting signs way back when I was a kid in PA. Damn, has time flown by!

Just my .02 on pulling out now: If we pull out too soon, you can change the name from "Iraq" to "The Base", because that is what will happen. Usama and Abu will then have a permanent home to call their own.

The republican resolution tactic was almost as good as the democrats calling the Senate into secret session. It would be nice if politicians from both sides of the aisle would stop playing games while we have troops deployed overseas. Seems to me the good-guys are starting to win in Iraq. It sure would go a lot smoother though if some of the Shiites were not carrying out thier own agendas.

The person quoted above suggested that the Republican's move was right off the playground, but to me it was pure poker. With all the posturing of the Democrats, the Republicans responded by calling their hand: Put up or shut up! Here's the results as reported earlier:



Furthermore, as this will likely be the last measure before Congress adjourns, it will be an excellent message to our troops: We stand behind you 99.992555831265508684863523573201%


[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]

If I was still in Iraq, I would read it as: We're against you 99.992555831265508684863523573201%.

I guess everyone has their own opinion as to what's best for our men and women over there. Hopefully an exit strategy will be developed soon, of course, that is usally decided before hand instead of winging it.

I'm not surprised that you would come to such a conclusion, but the math speaks for itself. Fortunately, I believe that the majority of the troops, while wishing they could come home, believe that the cause is worthwhile and appreciate a vote of confidence. It is fortunate for you that your time is served and you will not be called upon to return.

Torture, civilian deaths, poor intelligence information, international CIA detainments camps, unilateralism do wonders for America's image. Sorry prince, the means do not justify the ends.

Congress resolutions does not equal poker. You do not gamble with American lives.

Also, the rhetoric that if you do not support the war you do not support the troops is a weak argument.

This is one of the greatest contradictions of all time and it is just as much a lie as it was during Vietnam. I know firsthand how much the antiwar element cared about the troops. They cared so much that they have spent a generation spitting on us literally and figuratively and the same holds true today. There are some things that are only knowable through experience and this is one of them. You don't fool me for even one second. I've been there. Troops forced to surrender will never be honored at home, because in the end, those who called for the withdrawal will put the blame on the troops, denying any responsibility for the repercussions, just as happened after the Vietnam withdrawal.


[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]

I'm interested in seeing how the dems spin this to their anti-war base. I'm sure many of the Sheehanistas were hoping more dems would vote for a pull out. It looks like few did. Let the spinning begin!

what about afghanistan? will the mess there be completed? if so by whom? as the us forces ARE pulling out there.

This is why I gave up on voting. No politician represents me.

At least next year when the Democrats sweep the elections, the pro-war crowd can be satisfied that it will continue until an even uglier and more violent end to the conflict is achieved.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by heelstone]

I wondered what I would wake up to.

I somehow knew that someone would uh, take advantage of the situation.

Grady, there are some things you left out of your article. A nuance here, a nuance there, several key elements of the underlying point. Funny how that one worked out.

1. The "Iraq Pullout Vote" was put up by a Republican. The floor debate (which I am sure you didn't bother to watch) looked like a scene from Congressmen Gone Wild. There was a real sense that there was no adult in the room.

2. The side taken by the Democrats was simple. They were not going to vote on a radical, reckless pull out vote put up by the Republican administration. If you had watched the debate you would know what the line of each party was.

3. Proceedings were halted and Rep Jean Schmidt (R-OH) was almost CENSURED for calling a fellow representative a liar. She tucked tail and apologised when called on it.

4. The Faux Republican resolution called for an immediate unplanned withdrawal. The Murtha resolution called for a quick but steady pullout of US troops to foreign nations*.

* = this does not include Syria, Iran or France.

I guess if you enjoy spin then you could say that the Democrats performed a good leadership role by not taking the bait. And for waiting for the Murtha resolution to have a real debate on the floor instead of this sham.

I like how you write your articles with such an obvious bias. It's easier for me to pick apart.

Here are the yea's and nay's. Linky

P.S. Rep. Murtha voted noe.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Nerdling]

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Nerdling]

There's nothing to spin. The Dems wanted a debate regarding Murtha's bill. The GOP acted to prevent such a debate by forcing a vote on different bill, one which was designed to be unappealing to everybody. Even democratic voters who want a pullout of Iraq as soon as possible realizes that 'immediately' is not the same as 'at the earliest practicable time.'

Oh yeah, I thought it was kind of an error of omission that Jean Schmidt, the one and only person in the entire day long, heated debate to be pulled aside for lack of decorum should be portrayed as some kind of innocent victim of the Democrats.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by koji_K]

I just have to wonder sometimes if anyone has a brain that can work analytically.

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the "war" in iraq (i like to call it an occupation), pulling out of the country would be literally impossible. The anti-war crowd, instead of fighting like children and calling everyone liars, need to do something more constructive such as giving possible solutions to the problems we are facing in iraq that would enable us to leave. And the other side, Republicans, need to consider that the middle east isn't a place we can fool around with.

Instead of fighting each other like five year olds, where everyone is so stubborn that they can't even think logically, they should be working together. Both sides have valid points, and once they realize this America will be much better off.

I believe that every one of the points you raise are either in my introduction or in the quote from the article or in the article itself. I may not have succeeded completely, but the criteria for an introduction is not to cover every nuance of the story, but to provide the gist in three or four sentences. I also provided a link to the original vote story. That seems adequate to me.


[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]

Why this opposition to a pull out plan. Look the Iraqis need to stand up and take their country back and protect it. With us refusing to set a deadline they appear to be in no hurry to do that. Where is their army? Saddam had a huge army, why are these people not back in uniform protecting their new nation? Afghanistan did a much better job, being forced to do so by our troop pullout there. Keep in mind when we ramped up for Iraq Afghanistan knew it was time to get it together and learn to survive without us.

Iraq fails to see this as an issue, why? We have said we will stay and die as long as it takes. With that option why would they risk their own troops?

This bill put out by the republicans does not call for the systematic pullout the democrats suggested. It was a sham but will make for some great soundbites in the next election for the dems to run. After all they did not propose the bill did they?

Between this, the cuts in food stamps and the vote to give themselves a $3,100 a year raise it was a busy Friday. Not a single one of these bills helps Americans. Not a single bill supports our troops. But have no fear, they also voted themselves into a 2 week vacation.

Civil war is starting to sound good.

You're not keeping up with the news:



Google Search

So much talk about democracy. Look at the representation. With all the anger over the war, only three out of 406 representative voted for it. They are sock puppets at the command of their handlers.