Posted on 11/19/2005 12:50:54 AM PST by Former Military Chick
WASHINGTON - The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt.
"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war.
The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not retreat," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said as the GOP leadership pushed the issue to a vote over the protest of Democrats.
It was the second time in less than a week that President Bush's Iraq policy stirred heated debate in Congress. On Tuesday, the Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal.
Murtha, a 73-year-old Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam, issued his call for a troop withdrawal at a news conference on Thursday. In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.
Democrats said it was a political move and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.
"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
"The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.
Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position - either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue - the war - that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks.
Democrats claimed Republicans were changing the meaning of Murtha's withdrawal proposal. He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months.
At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.
"He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.
Democrats booed and shouted her down - causing the House to come to a standstill.
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks.
"You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.
Democrats gave Murtha a standing ovation as he entered the chamber and took his customary corner seat.
The fireworks, as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break, came just days after the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting questions from both parties about the war, senators approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Murtha has proposed his own resolution, which would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
"It's just heinous," Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said of the Republican move.
"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House, and it is outrageous," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, however, said the resolution vote was not a stunt. "This is not an attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question."
"They've been itching for a fight for a long time," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said of the Democrats.
Bush, traveling in Asia, also fired back at his critics, saying a troop withdrawal would be "a recipe for disaster."
Most Republicans oppose Murtha's call for withdrawal, and some Democrats also have been reluctant to back his position.
A growing number of House members and senators, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire in Iraq. They have been staking out new positions on a war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public, has resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and has cost more than $200 billion.
A U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the congressman who usually backs the Pentagon.
"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 give to Pentagon reporters.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Well said!
That undoubtedly is part of it. I have a friend who works for the state, and he's a Democrat too. But knowing that his mother died with a photo of John F. Kennedy on the mantle of her house, I don't think that was the whole story. My own theory is a bit different. I hold that, as my tagline puts it, "The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR."And that if you care about nothing but PR, you simply mouth what makes a "great story" without regard to any other consideration than how it will look in the newspaper. The innate arrogance, negativity, and superficiality of mass-market journalism does the rest.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Democrats get so cranky when they lose!
True.I have always been a strong supporter of the Bush Doctrine but we need to be honest-a significant presence of US troops will be needed in Iraq for MANY years or else the warring factions will go about their bloody business of ongoing civil war.
Islam is not compatable with Western Democracy and never will be.
GO DOUG!
He's gotta win the Senate race to have any hope for President.
And he's not gonna win the Senate race.
It was Congressman Sam Johnson, R-Tex, that was winding up the hour long debate when he ran out of time and our side requested 3 more minutes to the Chairman. The Chairman said "without any objections" and some half-wit on the Dem side said "objection". Then the Chairman asked if the objector would stand and state his objection and they didn't have the cahones to stand, and 3 more minutes were added. This was our sides war hero talking and they can't abide giving him the respect he deserves, just as much or more as that Murfa character!
The Dems wanted to have it both ways. Now they have to explain to their constituents why they aren't for immediate withdrawl. This was brilliant strategy. The Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Well sick animals are to be pitied: Demoncrats are beneath contempt.
The AP wrote this??? < scratches head >
Reminiscent of Kerry's, "I voted for funding the war before I voted against it".
Brilliant!
Yes, hoisted by their own petard!
Ha ha!!!
It's always Groundhog Day with the Dims. It's like a never ending cycle. "We want a debate." They claim. But when Republicans (finally) show up for the debate they cry foul (or just cry) and insist that the debate stop. A few weeks (or another lost election) later and they're screaming for a debate again.
This should be the last term for those who voted “yea” on this gutless resolution. They were elected to serve the American people, not al-Qaeda.
Denying additional troops greatly endangers our military already in Iraq. The morale of our troops in the field will also take a big hit.
This is one of those days in American history that will have to be lived down by us all. We didn’t do enough to stop these traitors. It’s now quite clear what “going to hell in a hand basket” means.
Is there anything Nancy can do that President Bush can’t veto?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.