HOUSE SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

I just saw that many dems are planning on voting 'present' because of the wording of the resolution.

I'm listening to the debate right now--2:50 pm MST--pretty ugly. But the Dems are in a tough spot. They vote to pull out, they'll surely see that depicted in campaign ads. They vote to stay, and they'll be showed in ads saying one thing and voting another. They don't vote and they'll be shown as ducking the issue.

This was much needed as the rhetoric was reaching a crescendo, all need to put up or shut up.

Well after Murtha's (D) infamous speech yesterday, roundly applauded by the Democrats, it was almost essential. The GOP was a bit....um.....okay sarcastic making it the Murtha resolution, and the Dems are spending all their debate time howling about that and complaining about the rule. The rule passed on a party line vote allowing the resolution to be debated and voted on the same day it is introduced.

They're in recess right now (4:45 MST) and when they come back from recess will take up the resolution: "It is the sense of the House that the US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq immediatley." Of course all the GOP will vote no. How will the Dems vote? Or will they vote? The suspense is building.

Tonight or November 22nd?

Oh sorry....Tonight.....the 18th....the debate on the resolution is in process right now 6:10 MST

And the GOP is spending their time telling how all the talk of withdrawing the troops is demoralizing to the troops and just them an injustice. The Dems are spending their time exalting Jack Murtha to unprecedented heights.

Stupid.

This is what I'm paying for.

Posted on Drudge... so far 403-3 against troop pullout.

Those voting yes are:

McKinney
Wexler
Serrano

Yes, the final vote was 100% no for the Republicans who were there....3 dems vote yes, 6 indicated present, 6 I think weren't there or didn't vote....everybody else voted no including the guy who triggered this with his speech to withdraw troops now yesterday.

So hopefully this will cool the rhetoric at least on that front.

This morning the Washington Post, NY Times, and Al Jajeera all were reporting a prominent decorated Democrat, supported by his comrades, calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Tomorrow morning I hope the Washington Post, NY Times, and Al Jejeera are reporting a near 100% sense of the house that no such withdrawal is in the works. I have no confidence that will happen, you understand, but I still hope.

Everyone will report what happened that the Republican proposal was a cheap political trick.

Today, the seeds of ending our national nightmare were planted.

The soundbite you will hear is Murtha talking about the dead in Arliongton National Cemetary.

I guess their asses will shut the hell up about taking the troops out too soon. Its impossible with their vote staring them in the face.

That was priceless.

Nonsense. The vote is meaningless.

Awhile back, it was a waste of money, an hour later, it's priceless.

Schizophrenia should not go untreated. LOL

Who farted?

That was me. Sorry.

What a silly, cheap, ploy.

It's funny, when I first read it, I thought some anti war person had gone nutso, and had created an utterly stupid tactical blunder.

Then I read up on it, and realised, that, of course, it was a pro war Republican stunt.


As if anti war people are stupid enough to think you can unscramble the eggs just like that.

If the American public are dumb enough to get fooled by propaganda about that vote come election time, then they deserve what they get.


Ok, I have read more...this is part of a Bushco fightback/dissent is unpatriotic thing, right?


So....how much of Congress's time, and taxpayer money did this ploy waste?

Is this a common ploy in political strategy?

It would seem to show some contempt for political processes in your country.

Dissent unpatriotic, wasting time and money in a travesty of political process fine...hmmmm.


I guess if this is a common tactic, well, so be it. But it seems to me a wasteful and would be didhonest one (if anyone was fooled.)

deb

For you or I or the Brits here, the event would have seemed quite normal (shouting, desk pounding, people up on their feet or even rushing down toward the speaker. But in the American context, it was (according to folks who've been watching the House for decades) completely unprecedented.

I tend to like the unprecedented, and think the whole thing quite wonderful. From the viewpoint of the Republicans, Murtha was exactly the wrong Democrat to speak about pulling the troops out. He is apparently well respected in and connected to the military community, he's been a long time strong supporter of defence and military, and he's of course a war hero. He was one of the Dems that the Republicans have been able to count on previously re these matters. I gather that all of that is why his statement caused such a kerfuffle.

The Republicans had to move quickly to do damage control and so made the motion under discussion, but left out the important proviso of his original as an attempt to portray his stance as more extreme than it actually was. That sort of gamesmanship is nothing new, of course. That's part of politics.

The whole thing hurts the administration in a notable way. It once again takes the appeaance of control or leadership away from the administration, and does so at a time when the administration is reeling from a whole host of other goings-on which have had a similar consequence. In any similar case this would hurt an administration somewhat, but this one has put a premium on their presentation of self as being in control and sort of big-dick dominant.

A very fine consequence is that it will likely really throw the Iraq war matter into the public's consciousness in a manner that will demand and foster open debate.

Not the first time.