:toast:

Does anyone have the number of the House amendment/bill that Rep. Murtha put forth. I would like to read it on Thomas.

Thanks!

Bring our troops home!

They're voting for withdrawal after they voted against it. The media will have a field day. Does the Democratic Party have no media savvy advisers at all?

The resolution they voted on was a sham bill by the Republicans for an immeadiate withdrawl, Rep. Murtha's resolution calls for a phased withdrawl over six months (I believe).

All you have to do is pull out both resolutions and, bam, Republicans have nothing.

cut and run to give Bush his strawman argument.

Murtha's actual plan was always more provisional than the way it was spun.

see Warner on Hardball last night...

We've got to go carefully here, and be very clear every time the GOP tries to paint their phony resolution as Murtha's.

No room for allowing that to slip, even once.

Murtha's plan is NOT cut and run.

Murtha's plan was always more nuanced than the GOPcontrolled media version.


Earliest practicable with best case being within 6months....could be a year or two, too.

...I no longer have the patience to do so.

that he meant that post sarcastically

minute proposal - Not Murtha's resolution.

There should be no confusion about that. It was not Murtha's resolution.

The Republicans may have produced a sham resolution, but the Democrats--those wise politicoes--voted for it. Way to stand on principle!!

Btw, some of us WANT an immediate withdrawal. It'll make no difference to the well-being of Iraq if we pull out next Wednesday or a year from now. The only difference will be how many Americans die in the meantime.

Kucinich had the balls to vote his conscience, without weighing what would look good on CNN. The other Dems in Congress should take lessons!

4 voted for it and the rest against!

?!!!!?!!?!!

Your talking in circles.

in "harm's way".

I would like to have faith that in the end, truth will find a way (with the people's true hard work! ) and justice will be served. I got so frustrated w/ how the Dems backed down when all the info about 'cooked intel' was surfacing, and there was incredible momentum to move to end the war. I am hoping Pelosi is trying to turn that around. I can't stand it when the Dems drop the ball or even let the 'other team' HAVE the ball. When they have the ball they need to run with it, all the way to touch down, and not start worrying how will 'play on the news.' I think they need some confidence in the people. They need to be pit-bullish. They need to fight to the death when necessary, I am sorry to say. If the attacker is trying to destroy ( think Cheney-Vadar in full pathological liar mode, lecturing us about "irresponsibility" -RePUKE-) then fight to the finish.

"If the people lead, the leaders will follow"

They decided to try and use our sacred government institution as if it were the set of Saturday Night Live.

And not even a good season of Saturday Night Live, but like the ones after Lorne Michaels left the show.

they didn't vote on Murtha's resolution

I hope :)

BTW, welcome to DU. It is always safer here to indicate your sarcastic intent by using smileys or otherwise.

If I read your post wrong, and yu did not intend to be sarcastic, I would just like to add : What the hell are you talking about?

That leaves little room for Bush when the plans on the table so far from Dems range from 6months to 12months with a few others opting to begin SOME form of pullout in 2006.

Good going Dems.

it into cut and run.

In follow up appearances Murtha said he thought it was possible to do it in 6months, something the media ignored for the most part. The 6mo "possible" date is cool as a base point, anyway.

At the earliest practicable date!

All we are saying...
is give phased redeployment to the periphery a chance!

"earliest practicable date" is Congresscritter-speak for "As Soon As Possible," or "Whenever seems like a good time to do it without getting everyone killed or losing access to the oil."

Finally, the Republicans and the Democrats all agree that we can just blame the Iraqis for not being able to take care of defending themselves after we've crushed their infrastructure and government.

Pay attention, New Orleans-- The Brown People are all on their own from now on.

For the record: I support the Murtha Bill as probably the least of all the evils we can possibly do.

Let's get the bull out of The Pottery Barn!

Hey, buy my Phased Redeployment bumperstickers!

:spray:

But then I found this"

prac·ti·ca·ble (prkt-k-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See Synonyms at possible.
2. Usable for a specified purpose: a practicable way of entry.

<Medieval Latin prcticbilis, capable of being used, from prcticre, to practice, from prctica, practice, from Greek prktik, practical science, from feminine of prktikos, fit for action, practical, from prssein, prk-, to make, do.>

practi·ca·bili·ty n.
practi·ca·bly adv.
Usage Note: It is easy to confuse practicable and practical because they look so much alike and overlap in meaning. Practicable means "feasible" as well as "usable," and it cannot be applied to persons. Practical has at least eight meanings, including the sense "capable of being put into effect, useful," wherein the confusion with practicable arises. But there is a subtle distinction between these words that is worth keeping. Someone with a practical knowledge of French may be able to order coffee in a café, though it may not be practicable to learn the language of every country in Europe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practicable

DU helped me to add another word to my vocabulary today!

GUTS

Get "them" out put her in!

:bounce:

lets see if other democrats who love to self-promote themseleves can get on board

Hillary could take a couple lessons...

Text of Murtha's resolution
Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

_____________________

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

The Hunter GOP bullshit version was:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Republican Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

_____________________

Whereas Democrats and the Congressman Murtha are cranky little pussies

Whereas Democrats hate America

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have had the glorious opportunity to meet with Jesus in person

Whereas U.S. forces are whining about "body armor" and "lack of ammunition" and "being served contaminated drinking water on purpose by Halliburton" or "being forced to transport unusable fuel through 'dangerous' territory in un-armored vehicles" Whine whine whine

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people seem to think that they can manage to run their country without the help of White Christian People

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that it's okay to kill someone who has tortured and raped or killed their children boo hoo hoo

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the The 2006 Mideterm Elections, the people of Iraq, or the oil companies

Therefore be it

I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

I've read that Murtha was talking about approximately 6 months (as the earliest practicable date) to BEGIN withdrawing troops. The Republicans are DESPERATELY trying to spin this in another direction.

The Bush spinners are saying they are against the Democrat's (Murtha) plan for IMMEDIATE withdrawal...but withdrawing within 6 months might be acceptable to them. WHAT??? .....6 months IS the Murtha plan.

They are resorting to their lying techniques by saying Democrats want immediate (as in tomorrow) withdrawal (which is a lie on their part), and hoping no one will notice.

What slimey people they are....

getting this info out?

This is just pointless posturing and press conference politics if the resolution is not allowed to be brought up for a vote.

we take over control in 2006.

listening to someone who actually knows what he's talking about
Thank you Nancy

Then they'll run for cover until the media makes certain that the Dem's plan and Murtha's plan are their plans. Only when the Republician's plans are what the Democrats plans were will they put them into action. In other words, the Republicans will only do what's right when the Democrats no longer have a say. It's stupid, I know, but I believe that's what's going on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq;


WASHINGTON - Reversing course, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday endorsed a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable," Pelosi said. "That is what the American people and our troops deserve."

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn't be calling for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because "a vote on the war is an individual vote."

Nevertheless, she said: "I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha."

Murtha did NOT SAY "quickly" and I doubt Pelosi did. (Notice, it's not in quotes in the article quoting her.)

This is just another CON meme that Dems want to:
cut and run, //wrong//
immediately withdraw, //wrong//
quickly withdraw, //wrong//
et. al.
such that it would hurt the troops. //Dems don't want to hurt our troops, Murtha was clear//

CONs designed this to keep the discussion away from the public, and to keep the war profiteering for as long as they can.

"Cut and Run".
How that will harm our troops is beyond me.

Cut, immed, quick mean the same, but differ sharply between LWers and RWers.

LWers see an orderly withdrawl saving our troops from continued deaths.

RWers see those expressions as immediate, without thought, without concern, thus dangerous to our troops as they exit. Perhaps even murderous to our troops. That those blasted LWers are so focused on leaving and ending wars they don't think about troop safety, only avoiding conflict. They hate guns and people who use them, they would rather people die than to allow them to have guns, ... yadda yadda yadda.

What will harm our troops is the LW allowing these bumper sticker messages to be controlled by the RW, depleting public support, and finally stopping withdrawl. Murtha's plan withdraws as soon as practicable. Indicating the safety of troop removal. Cut and run fails to show this concern to the public and hides the actual Murtha words from the public.

and asking the perps... "Do you have an exit plan?" "I think this can be done better."

The exit plan would be to immediately withdraw to bases, no more patrols, period. Dismantle said bases, pack up all those weapons, don't want to leave those behind. Arrange for transport over a period of several weeks, or as fast as possible. That's the exit plan

Liberals (with a few exceptions) never think about the people who are really suffering, namely the Iraqi people. It is because of their resistance that Murtha (a war lover from way back) ever, ever came up with his resolution.

I support the Iraqi's right to armed resistance to invasion, as tragic as it is, i am not a total pacifist, though it is what i practice here in fact

Now we need real leadership (and it is unlikely to come from the Dems) to get us the hell out of the Middle East, and working to solve our problems in the midwest, NO, Mississippi...

False analogy. You/we have an interest in these robbers/the soldiers, unwittingly following orders.

Extracting them carefully and safely from the crime scene is important to us, before it blows up any worse than it already has.

To cut and run out the front door quickly, immediately, without thinking, ignores the safer rear door, or window, or whatever safer method. The difference is to take a moment, a moment that will be taken by argument anyway, and find the best practicable way out. Speed is important, yes. But, speed is not so important as to risk catastrophe here. It's not just you and I here, it's many others who would take even more time. They want to keep us from discussing it, and to keep us at the crime scene.

We need to stop giving them their framing of this issue, that LIBs don't care to be careful with our troops, which is not true, but, what is true does not matter next to what is perceived to be true.

When the last troops were removed from Vietnam, with damn haste, i suspect it was one of the safest weeks for the troops.

I think the Iraqis will be busy waving to us... kinda like when relatives who wayyyyyyyy over stayed their welcome decide to leave, you do nothing to impede their departure. This whole argument that it is about the safety of the troops is totally bogus.

It is about protecting US honor. I do not think their should be honor in a war of aggression. To protect that honor, thousands more will die, and it will be mostly Iraqis. Not that Dem or Repub officeholders (with the fewest of exceptions) give a rat's ass about that.

You want to say Dems want to "cut and run" because you have belief that:
. Iraqis will be waving at us nicely when we leave,
. Vietnam's safest week were the days we left it, and
. others will see the truth of your beliefs and more than accept, apply your beliefs rather than continue to be afraid of the RW rhetoric plastered on the LW (more than with your permission, you advocate using RW rhetoric "cut and run").

If you really don't mind hurting the cause of deposing Bush and raising Democrats as I would see it, you can go on your merry way.

But, why you would or would want to do so, is not clear to me.

How you can be so glib, boggles my mind. Why you insist on it, makes me shake my head. This is a difference in rhetoric, advertising, PR, the effects of which can be life and death. And not only are you willing to help opponents advertise against us, you also think nothing of risking our soldiers lives based on that you: "suspect" last troops removed from Vietnam "was one of the safest weeks for the troops." That's quite a risk for your suspicion.

This means reality is being recognized. No more following the Bush talking points, which the publication of today has forced the hand of Pelosi in calling for a rejection of all those talking points. As Democrats, you should be either for Murtha or against him on this

Other, softer Democrats have been egregious in calling this a "plan" (Kerry). Doing so has been nearly as bad as calling it "immediate" (Clinton). It is a sense of the Congress that a clear plan needs to be developed to withdraw and it gives 6 months as a suggestion for a timeframe.

And Goddamnit, it could be sooner!

you get the idea.

Didn't think i would have the occasion to say something nice about Pelosi's policies in the Middle East, but here it is-- Nancy Pelosi, this is the right decision. This is a very good first step.

I live in the Bay Area, and was involved in protests at Pelosi's office in regard to her seeming opposition to any call for any timetable for withdrawal. Getting the US out of Iraq is the overwhelming position of the people she represents, and of course an even more popular position for the people of Iraq.

The Murtha position is still different in some ways from that of the anti-war movement (We don't want troops in the region at all), but it is world's better than those who want to keep troops in Iraq "as conditions warrant", because the presence of troops is itself causing instability.

Pelosi's other positions on the Middle East is still atrocious. She has , for example, joined Tom Delay in taking Bush to task when Bush whispered valid criticisms of Israeli policies. This is no minor matter.

I must say, this is a victory for the San Francisco Bay Area anti-war movement. Pelosi faced the possibility of primary challenges or Green Party challenges to her seat(the Green Party Candidate came within 3 percentage points of winning the Mayors seat...it took Al Gore and Jesse Jackson to come to the rescue), and she made the right decision.

This is a great defeat for Bush and Co. :toast:

now we just need a good candidate to select him.

reporting for duty

Yeesh, I'm sick of politicians that distance themselves from someone one day (saying she did not support Mutha's immediately after his speech), and then suddenly "coming around" when it appears public support for the idea they opposed is gaining strength.

These are the kinds of "political expendiency", stand for nothing until it proves popular, wishy-washy flip flopping that gives we Democrats a bad name.

Grow a spine. Stand up for what's right from the beginning even it it's unpopular and you'll earn my respect. Pelosi's new found support for Murtha makes me sick. She should have supported him from day one. :thumbsdown:

...are the worms turning, too?

About goddamn time.

Let's see, though, if this moves beyond the posturing stage. "Earliest practicable time" is, of course, weasel words. Every war is over at the earliest practicable time.

We demand this one end now.

Schism time. Why can't we have a united front, after 2 years on this issue?! Why must some dems continue to provide cover for Bush? Confound it all!

Marine Corps General Pace, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, needs lots of support right now. He is a good man. He has stood up to Rumsfeld on several issues already, including:

--He said that those who have been body counting have been wrong. He said we measure success by security, not by counting the dead.

--When asked about death squads and murders in Iraq, Rumsfeld got huffy and said he doesn't respond to rumors and unconfirmed reports. General Pace, standing right next to Rumsfeld, then said that he was aware of those reports and is investigating.

--And, while not directly disagreeing with Rumsfeld On white phosphorus being used by America as a weapon of war, General Pace talked to us like an adult to adults. Rumfseld haranged on and on about how much he hates the New York Times, then when he was done with his stinking tantrum, turned to General Pace, who answered the question.

--And then in the issue of stopping torture, as reported in WaPo, General Pace directly disagreed with Rumsfeld's morally reprehensible and illegal order.

I think this Marine is a good and honorable man.

this situation is kind of like the German general staff during WWII arguing with Hitler about a soldier's honour. they didn't have much success either.

This is a first step, early in General Pace's tenure.

General Pace is providing the Marines and soldiers what they need: clear, unambigous instruction that torture and/or inhumane treatment is unacceptable and they have a military duty to take action if
they see it.

I do not envy General Pace, but he apparently has set his loyalty to the country and our servicemen and -women over personal loyalty to the junta.

He has taken over after it is clear that U.S. leadership has committed war crimes. I think we see what direction he is going. He has a huge task ahead - to salvage the fighting strength of the U.S.
Marine Corps and U.S. Army, while keeping his head out of the hangman's noose.

Imagine where we might be if his predecessor had had the equivalent moral courage.

I sent a supportive email to General Pace. It seemed small, but who knows?

This looks like the right place http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html

===

Rep. Murtha, Col. Wilkerson, Gen. Pace have deep ties to the current military leadershipt and I think are working together to get through the media barrier to tell the truth about the horrors of the bush regime/PNAC world dominion plans.

has pressured Dems in the past. Wonder why not?

Join Us in Thanking Cong. Murtha's Call for Peace

November 22, 2005

This Thanksgiving, whether you are enjoying the company of family and friends, joining us in New Orleans to help rebuild that devastated city, or sojourning to Crawford, Texas to accompany Cindy Sheehan, we want to thank you for your continued support for CODEPINK and your determination to end this unjust war in Iraq.

Let us also take a moment, collectively, to thank a newcomer to our peace movement: Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). Last week, Congressman Murtha, a decorated veteran with 37 years in the Marine Corps, touched off a firestorm in Congress with his courageous call to end the occupation of Iraq.

While Vice President Cheney attacks Cong. Murtha, Republican Congresspeople call him a traitor, and even Democrats like Cong. Nancy Pelosi distance themselves from his position, CODEPINK wants to send the Congressman a heart-felt gesture of appreciation by showering him with pink roses on his next visit to Walter Reed Hospital -- unlike his critics, he visits the soldiers
weekly. He can then deliver the roses to the wounded soldiers, brightening both his and their day.

Just click here to make a $3 donation to the bouquet.

You can also support Congressman Murtha by asking your congressperson to support his resolution (House Joint Resolution 73), which calls for US forces in Iraq "to be redeployed at the earliest
practicable date" and says the US should "pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."

Urge your Representatives to cosponsor Murtha's bill and two other excellent bills against the war:

H.R. 4232 (by Congressman Jim McGovern) to cut off funding for an ongoing occupation and H. CON. RES. 197 (by Congresswoman Barbara Lee) to block permanent military bases in Iraq.

With members of Congress are home for the holidays, we encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity to visit them in their district offices, or question them about the war in Iraq at public
events in the district. For updated lobbying materials and talking points, see the United for Peace and
Justice website.

The events surrounding Murtha's resolution pushed the Democratic Caucus to call a special meeting on December 5 to discuss a position on Iraq. Next week is a perfect time to call on Democratic Representatives to take a strong position on an immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal.

We have much to mourn and celebrate this Thanksgiving, but most of all we have much work before us. Congressman Murtha has opened up a new level of debate in Congress. Let us seize the moment and build the momentum!

From New Orleans to Crawford to Cong. Murtha's Congressional District 12 of Pennsylvania, we send our Thanksgiving greetings,

Dana, Emily, Farida, Gael, Jen, Jodie, Medea, Nancy, Rae, Sam & Tiffany (http://www.CodePink.com

P.S. Spread the word -- forward this email to your friends!

Nominated :kick:

plan. Simplified for an outline of this plan for a vote but bushco leaned on Gen. Casey after he made public statements on withdrawal.

Top commander in country had foreseen large withdrawals by spring
• U.S. commander's about-face on Iraq

Sept. 28: Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, has backed off his prediction about when the troops will come home. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

Nightly News Updated: 7:50 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2005

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq backed away on Wednesday from his prediction that a substantial pullout of U.S. troops could begin by next spring, as the White House undertakes a new campaign to win public support for the war effort. Gen. George Casey’s latest assessment came as President Bush — down in the polls and criticized for his hurricane response — starts to turn his focus back to the fight against terrorism and to Iraq, the issues that helped him win re-election last year....

Bush on Wednesday sent Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, to Capitol Hill to update lawmakers on war operations. “We’re on the offense,” Bush said, the two generals at his side in the Rose Garden. “We have a plan to win.” Bush warned of an upsurge in violence before Iraqis vote Oct. 15 on a new constitution. He said that insurgents ultimately will fail...

Casey, the most senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq, repeatedly has said “fairly substantial” troop withdrawals could happen after parliamentary balloting in December election if the political process stayed on track, if the insurgency did not expand and if the training of Iraqi security forces continued as planned.

After the commanders met with senators, reporters asked Casey whether he still believed that to be the case, given current conditions in Iraq. “I think right now we’re in a period of a little greater uncertainty than when I was asked that question back in July and March,” Casey said. “Until we’re done with this political process here with the referendum and the elections in December, I think it’s too soon to tell,” Casey said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s spokesman later played down Casey’s comments. “In July he had one assessment. He has an assessment now that could still result in what he said earlier, it could result in no change, it could result in more,” Lawrence Di Rita said. Casey and Abizaid were to testify on Thursday before the Senate and House Armed Services committees with Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Troop deaths erode support for war Daily reports of U.S. troops deaths — approaching 2,000 — have helped drive down public support in the U.S. for the war.

In an AP-Ipsos poll this month, only 37 percent approved or leaned toward approval of how Bush has handled the situation in Iraq. The percentage who disapproved strongly outweighed those who approved strongly by 46 percent to 22 percent....The violence led some Republicans to join Democrats in calling for a strategy to bring U.S. troops home.

Senate Democrats said in a letter Wednesday to Rumsfeld that he should provide “frank answers” to the public’s questions about Iraq, including the status of the training of Iraqi security forces and expected U.S. troop levels over the next year. “Continued stonewalling, or simply saying these answers are ’unknowable’ or are ’conditions based,’ are no longer satisfactory,” the lawmakers said. “The Congress and the American people deserve better information.”

Senator Feingold has announced a target time for the completion of the US military mission in Iraq. Please support his efforts by signing up below.

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/page/petition/targettime/kvvzm
==
http://democrats.house.gov/news/librarydetail.cfm?library_content_id=430&CFID=1894726&CFTOKEN=91855805

Thank You For Becoming a Citizen Co-Sponsor

Thank you for showing your support for improving benefits for our men and women in uniform today and providing long overdue benefits for the veterans and military retirees who have already served.

The New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century would improve benefits for our men and women in uniform today and provide long overdue benefits for the veterans and military retirees who have already served. House Democrats are committed to honoring our veterans and military retirees with actions, not just words. We are calling for full funding of veterans' health care and an end to the Disabled Veterans' Tax.