House Democrat calls for immediate troop withdrawal

Sorry, Deckard. Been away a few days. I think its senseless and stupid but not suprising coming from the Cheney/Rove Whitehouse. I understand the sentiment because I don't particularly like (or agree with) someone saying the situation is 'unwinnable,' but I'd much rather see an on point argument why that's not true than ad hom attacks in reply. Sadly that is what the Republican machine IS and has been for awhile.

 

That's OK, and a nice reply. Now I have to dash off myself, but I'll be back later today. If Murtha has done nothing else, and he's done a lot, to be sure, he's moved the debate about how we are going to extract ourselves from Iraq front and center. Regardless of the differing views of so many of us, that is a discussion that the Congress, and the American people, need to have. The way things are going now is simply unacceptable. I can't imagine anyone being happy with the present circumstances, regardless of their views pre or post-invasion. The Bush Administration never does things halfway. They've done an amazing job of making a monumental mess. The country and their government, not just the Executive Branch, needs to figure out what we are going to do. The way the Administration, and the Republican Congress, responded to John Murtha is a fine example of what not to do.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

And that is the end result of this country's meddling in the civil wars of other countries.

 

Oh, i'm so shocked....

Who Is Mean Jean's Marine? And Why Does He Think Murtha's A Coward?
by Max Blumenthal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/who-is-mean-jeans-marine_b_10993.html

On Friday, freshman Republican Rep. "Mean Jean" Schmidt mounted one of the fiercest, most personal assaults Congress has witnessed since Preston Brooks caned Charles Sumner to a bloody pulp in 1856. The target of Schmidt's attack was Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam vet who had just introduced a resolution calling for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq within 6 months (which included several measures designed to ensure regional stability upon pullout).

"A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course," Schmidt declared from her lectern. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

By employing Bubp, a Marine reservist, as her surrogate attack dog, Schmidt sought to give the impression that the military rank-and-file overwhelmingly deplored Murtha's resolution. Murtha may have been a Marine a long, long time ago, but he doesn't understand the harsh realities of the post-9/11 world. But that tough-talking paragon of the modern warrior, Colonel Danny Bubp, whoever he is, sure as hell does. Or so Schmidt would have us believe.

A quick glance at Bubp's background reveals him to be a low-level right-wing operative who has spent more time in the past ten years engaged in symbolic Christian right crusades than he has battling terrorist evil-doers. And throughout his career, Bubp's destiny has been inextricably linked with Schmidt's. Bubp may be a Marine, but his view of Murtha as a "coward" is colored by naked political ambition. He is nothing more than cheap camouflage cover for the GOP's latest Swift-Boat campaign.

March 1999 marked the beginning of a brilliant career. It was then that Bubp became pro-bono legal counsel for Adams County for the Ten Commandments, an ad-hoc Ohio group formed to keep 10 Commandments monuments displayed in local public schools after the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding their removal. Bubp was assisted by a Who's Who of Christian right leaders, including James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Judge Roy Moore and Jay Sekulow. The campaign was organized primarily by Rev. Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, who was once detained for threating Bill Clinton's afterlife at the National Cathedral. (Read my profile of Schenck for the Washington Monthly for the full story on this, and many more bizarre stunts).

When the monuments' removal seemed imminent by 2003, Bubp nevertheless declared, "We've already won." Thanks to Schenck, he was able to help distribute 600 yard signs reading "We Stand For The Ten Commandments" throughout Adams County. And the devoted network of activists formed during the 8-year-long struggle would toil on his behalf when he ran for the Ohio legislature in 2004.

Bubp was elected despite a successful legal maneuver by his former primary challenger to unseal his divorce file. Bubp fought tooth-and-nail to keep these records in the dark because, according to the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists, "the file does contain sensitive tax and personal information he'd just as soon keep private." Whatever information emerged was overlooked by a local press focused on national races.

During the campaign, Bubp still found time to help his friend, Schmidt, who was struggling to counter the momentum of her Democratic challenger, Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett. At a Schmidt rally falsely billed as an event to honor war veterans, Bubp appeared in full Marine battle dress uniform to attack Hackett for criticizing his "Commander in Chief." " "I served for eight years under a president who loathed the military," Bubp said, referring to Clinton. "But we never said a word about it."

Now in the Ohio legislature, and back in his usual three-piece suit, Bubp has teamed up once again with Schmidt, this time to save the Pledge of Allegiance from "liberal activist judges." Bubp is the author of the Pledge Protection Act, which would ensure that public schoolchildren include the phrase "under God" in their daily recitation of the pledge, no matter what the comsymp one-worlders at the ACLU do. This month, at Bubp's behest, Schmidt introduced the bill in Congress.

"I am firmly convinced that our forefathers would believe it evil for anyone to try to strike the name of God from all things public," Bubp declared in an editorial promoting the bill. Not only does Bubp understand the psychology of cowards, he has special insight into the religious beliefs of "our forefathers."

Bubp and Schmidt were honored this month by the Rev. Rob Schenck with the "Ten Commandments Leadership Award." Presented with personalized 10 Commandments plaques by a man who once attempted to hand an aborted fetus to Bill Clinton, they became decorated veterans of the right's culture war.

But in assailing the character of John Murtha, who was honored for actual combat experience with the Purple Heart, Bubp and Schmidt were unfaithful to the words inscribed on the monuments they so revere. So for them, here is a reminder: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

 

They really showed that the dems are full of it. alright.

Just to be perfectly clear, you are aware that Murtha's proposal did include procautions to make sure we redepolyed in a smart fashion that didn't leave the country in anarchy aren't you?

If not please read his proposal.

 

Yeah, those Soviets are a real threat now... and have been for the last 16 years? The Soviets weren't even a "threat" until the late 50s. The military powers remained in Germany and Japan to A) Help rebuild B) Maintain order and C) Make sure no other outside power tried to take over after a pullout. Gee, sounds just like something going on elsewhere in the world today.

 

If I'm not mistaken, these countries want out troops there. Wasn't there outrage at US making a plan to pull out troops from Germany and South Korea?

 

The Soviet Union wasn't a threat until the late 1950's??

Oh, really?


Svpernaut, I don't even know where to begin addressing that statement. It's so far off base as to be, no disrespect intended, completely ludicrous. I'll stumble off and hope my kids are not near the textbooks you had for history. With any luck, they (the history textbooks, not my 2 kids) are residing in the bottom of a landfill some place.


keep D&D Civil.

 

yea....ahhhh...thats not so.....might want to rethink that one.

 

I've been against an immediate withdrawl, feeling that it makes more sense to wait until the Iraqi military and police are fully prepared.

Yet when NONE of the Iraqi leaders feel compelled to defend our troops AT ALL, get our men and women out of there. They say that the insurgents have every right to kill our troops?

IT' S OVER.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference

Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 15 minutes ago



CAIRO, Egypt - Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique — finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday — condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time — reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position.

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."

The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.

"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.

The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.

The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.

 

The Iraqi leaders seem to agree that a timetable would be a good thing. It is their country, and they are supposed to be in charge.

Iraqi leaders want us out. The pentagon wants us out. Murtha wants us out. Let the timetable be set into motion.

 

I've avoided this thread but I think I'll chime in now just for the hell of it.

But don't worry, I'll be succinct:

I say pull the troops out now.

 

The House disagrees with you by a margin of 403-3. Heck, not even Hillary freaking Clinton agrees with you.

Only the most out of touch al Qaeda sympathizers are in favor of immediate withdrawal. It's cowardly and retreat hands the terrorists victory. Talk about endangering our country for decades to come...

 

You accused someone of being an Al Qaeda sympathizer without proof. You made a baseless attack. You should retract your baseless claim or give proof.

You have been found guilty of this type of activity before and even given the opportunity to defend you many accusation. However, you failed to provide anything in your defense.

The evidence is all here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=104553

If you are going to accuse people of such a thing it is time for you to put up or shut up.

 

Only people who hate our troops would let them stay in country where even the leaders who want them to stay ... just gave people carte blanche to kill them.

Why do you hate our troops?

 

Cohen, this is really shocking.

The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.

The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.



This conference was brought together with backing from the United States? And this is what they came out with? It's open season on US and other "foreign troops?" That's certainly how I read it as well. This is stunning, no matter what one thinks of the war and the way it's been conducted by the Bush Administration.

It looks like there may be some resistance to an Iraqi timetable.

The meeting was intended as preparation for a much larger conference in Iraq in late February. The recommendations made here are to be the starting ground for that meeting.

In Washington, Justin Higgins, a State Department spokesman, said, "The United States supports the basic foundation of the conference and we certainly support ongoing discussion among Iraq's various political and religious communities."

But regarding troop withdrawal, he said: "Multinational forces are present in Iraq under a mandate from the U.N. Security Council. As President Bush has said, the coalition remains committed to helping the Iraqi people achieve security and stability as they rebuild their country. We will stay as long as it takes to achieve those goals and no longer."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/i...&en=a8235ec987accd3a&ei=5094&partner=homepage


This is from the same article in the Times. This sounds pretty clear:

The statement, while condemning the wave of terrorism that has engulfed Iraq, also broadly acknowledged a general right to resist foreign occupation. That was another effort to compromise with Sunnis who had sought to legitimize the insurgency. The statement condemned terror attacks and religious backing for them, and it demanded the release of innocent prisoners and an investigation into reports of torture.

Almost all the delegates belong to political parties that represent the spectrum of Iraqi politics.


Damn.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Sigh. FB, why do you quote TJ? I don't want to read his idiotic rants.

Oh well, for my own miserable amusement:

Irrelevant.

I'm faced with a true philosophical quandary:

Do I reply eloquently and rationally, knowing full well whatever I write will not be dwelled upon or even read by the offending poster? Should I continue to play the game properly, although my adversary refuses to do so? Do I think it worthwhile to articulate a rebuttal that will only be acknowledged and or addressed by those who think similarly?

Or should I simply return in kind with a baseless accusation/insult, even though the mere temptation is why I avoided this thread to begin with?



TJ's on my ignore list, and for the sake of integrity, I will continue to ignore him. It's painful and embittering - but my cynicism is not so powerful as to make me sink to his juvenile level. But it will allow me to ignore those who are willfully ignorant.

It's hard to not care. It's hard to swallow my country going in the wrong direction.

It's worse when you realize half the nation is proud of their stubborn loyalty to a certain viewpoint - and refuses to acknowledge any evidence or rationale to the opposite. That my friends is fundamentalism - the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to be, and, in a twist of cosmic irony, the current excuse for our "perpetual war for perpetual peace".

I digress...

 

It's not half, it's down to 34% I believe.

Excellent post BTW

 

You are a liar of the first order, a classless, clueless shill. You know, just as everyone else does, that the "resolution" the House voted on was NOT what Murtha proposed and was a semantic game by the GOP.

You are pathetic.

Again, you make a baseless attack and call someone a terrorist sympathizer. Back up your vitriolic rantings or stop your personal attacks.

The only people who can be accused of wanting to endanger Americans at this point are people willing to ignore the Iraqi people, its politicians, the Pentagon, and the vast majority of the rest of the world. We need to set a timetable for our troops' withdrawal as we have been asked to do by the leaders of the country we are occupying. You know, the government that we were in such an all fired hurry to install in the first place?

 

That's enough when <50% of the populace votes.

It's more than enough if you believe as I do that the vast majority of americans don't even think before they vote, they just cast the ballot according to whatever party/culture/prejudice they subscribe to. No principles, no ethical limitations, just affiliations. Heck, look at TJs last post, "The House disagrees with you by a margin of 403-3. Heck, not even Hillary freaking Clinton agrees with you." It's complete role reversal - people are voting as his/her party desires, when it should be that the party will vote as it's represented populace desires. What an incredible act of self-inflicted enslavement. It's just plain revolting to see it so brazenly flaunted - like it's some sort of virtue to blindly follow a creed.