House Seeks Vote on Iraq Pullout Tonight!

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
House GOP Seeks Quick Vote on Iraq Pullout
Nov 18, 3:37 PM (ET)
By LIZ SIDOTI


WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no immediate reaction to the planned vote.

The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

(AP) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., faces reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington Friday, Nov. 18, 2005,...
Full Image
Murtha's resolution would force the president to withdrawal the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date."

Most Republicans oppose Murtha's plan, and even some Democrats have been reluctant to back his position. Republicans were seeking to force Democrats to stand with the respected 30-year congressman or go on the record against his proposal.

Some members of the House and Senate, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire there. They have been staking out new positions on the war that has grown increasingly unpopular with the American public, resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and cost more than $200 billion.

The House move comes just days after the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting mushrooming questions from both parties about the war, though, the chamber then approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues, said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

(AP) Senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., hold a news conference on pre-Iraq War...
Full Image
A day after his comments, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the usually pro-military congressman.

"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 routinely give to Pentagon reporters.

Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."

Republicans pounced, chastising Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment, and Democrats defended Murtha as a patriot, even as they declined to back his view.

"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, responded Friday. Also a Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.

(AP) Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., right, standing with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left,...
Full Image
"There is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience," Kerry said.

For his part, Kerry has proposed a phased exit from Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in Iraq. A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal.

As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee with close ties to many military officers, Murtha carries more credibility with his colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the war from the start.

Bush administration officials have been cautious in responding to Murtha.

"We have nothing but respect for Congressman Murtha's service to his country," White House communications director Nicolle Wallace told NBC's "Today" show Friday. "And I think he spoke from the heart yesterday. We happen to have a real serious policy disagreement with him."

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.

With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
 
The Democrats don't want a vote, because they know they will lose. They just want press so they can grandstand.

This is pure posturing at its most grotesque.
 
I watched the vote on C-SPAN last night. Democrats can't look past their noses. All Murtha (D) did was trot out story after story about military families that have lost a child or ones that were injured. That was his whole reason for pulling out.

One Democrat was hillarious. He said we should pull out and fight them here at home because it would be on our turf and we know every nook and cranny of this country. I am NOT making this up. He really said it. One of the most moronic things I have ever heard said. Too bad the press won't print it. I'll see if there is a C-Span transcript or something like that.

God save us all if the Democrats ever get back into power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MonsterMark said:
I watched the vote on C-SPAN last night. Democrats can't look past their noses. All Murtha (D) did was trot out story after story about military families that have lost a child or ones that were injured. That was his whole reason for pulling out.

One Democrat was hillarious. He said we should pull out and fight them here at home because it would be on our turf and we know every nook and cranny of this country. I am NOT making this up. He really said it. One of the most moronic things I have ever heard said. Too bad the press won't print it. I'll see if there is a C-Span transcript or something like that.

God save us all if the Democrats ever get back into power.

PLEASE post that link if you ever find it.... that's priceless!

And terrifying at the same time. I hope that makes its way into a campaign ad somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing more than cheap, partisan politics from the Repugs to deflect attention from the failure of Shrubs failed Iraq policies and the looting of the reconstruction monies by Repug criminals and cronies.
 
97silverlsc said:
Nothing more than cheap, partisan politics from the Repugs to deflect attention from the failure of Shrubs failed Iraq policies and the looting of the reconstruction monies by Repug criminals and cronies.

Did you lift that off the DemocratUndergrounds message board or come up with that little gem on your own?

First of all, it wasn't "cheap partisan politics," it was a RESPONSE to cheap partisan politics. But, do tell, what was "cheap or partisan" about it. If nothing else, it was a resounding confirmation that the U.S. wasn't going to cut and run, and that the terrorist threats would be ill-advised to attempt to wait us out.

And then, you mention the "lootng of the reconstrucition money" by Republican criminals and croines.... Care to give examples.

Haliburton is having one of it's worst years on recent record, so that one doesn't work.

I doubt you will actually respond directly to this thread. If you're lucking someone else will come in and run with the torch you burnt your fingers lighting.
 
97silverlsc said:
the looting of the reconstruction monies by Repug criminals and cronies.
If I send you $50,000 will you stop the Repug looting crap? Boring.

Why don't you comment on your fellow Democrat who actually got up to the lecturn and said the dumbest thing ever said in the House of Representatives.

The Republicans DESTROYED the Democrats on the merits of pulling out. The left wants to undo all the good that has been done. Weakness only hurts peace. Doesn't help it.

The left thinks they win back the House and Senate pursuing this failed appeasement policy. Americans want to be protected. That is why Bush won re-election.

Come on lefties, trot out Hillary as your candidate. I can't wait!

Here's the scenario I would like to see.

Hillary wins the Presidency. San Francisco gets attacked and is wiped out. Republicans still control the House and Senate and Hillary and her V.P. get impeached and tossed out with the House leader taking over and Americans are once again safe.

Things are really falling into place. Looks like the Dems will win the White House and Al-Qaeda will wait till '08 to wallop us a month after Dems take office and things are in transition.
 
Calabrio said:
Did you lift that off the DemocratUndergrounds message board or come up with that little gem on your own?

First of all, it wasn't "cheap partisan politics," it was a RESPONSE to cheap partisan politics. But, do tell, what was "cheap or partisan" about it. If nothing else, it was a resounding confirmation that the U.S. wasn't going to cut and run, and that the terrorist threats would be ill-advised to attempt to wait us out.

And then, you mention the "lootng of the reconstrucition money" by Republican criminals and croines.... Care to give examples.

Haliburton is having one of it's worst years on recent record, so that one doesn't work.

I doubt you will actually respond directly to this thread. If you're lucking someone else will come in and run with the torch you burnt your fingers lighting.

Nope, didn't lift it anywhere, my own opinion after watching that circus on C-Span. Proof?
How about:
Halliburton Case Is Referred to Justice Dept., Senator Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/international/middleeast/19contractor.html

By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: November 19, 2005

Pentagon investigators have referred allegations of abuse in how the Halliburton Company was awarded a contract for work in Iraq to the Justice Department for possible criminal investigation, a Democratic senator who has been holding unofficial hearings on contract abuses in Iraq said yesterday in Washington.

The allegations mainly involve the Army's secret, noncompetitive awarding in 2003 of a multibillion dollar contract for oil field repairs in Iraq to Halliburton, a Texas-based company. The objections were raised publicly last year by Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, then the chief contracts monitor at the Army Corps of Engineers, the government agency that handled the contract and several others in Iraq.

In a letter received and released yesterday by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, the assistant Pentagon inspector general, John R. Crane, said that the criminal investigation service of the Defense Department had examined Ms. Greenhouse's allegations "and has shared its findings with the Department of Justice." Senator Dorgan is the chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, a Congressional group that has repeatedly used unofficial hearings to question the administration's record of awarding contracts in Iraq.

The Justice Department, the letter said, "is in the process of considering whether to pursue the matter."

Ms. Greenhouse, a 20-year veteran of military procurement work, says her objections before the contract was signed were ignored. After internal clashes with officials at the agency and threats of demotion, she went public with her charges in the fall of 2004.

This year, she was demoted in August from the elite Senior Executive Service, on charges of poor performance, and given a lower-ranking job as a project manager. She has filed appeals, but for now "she has no projects to manage and she just sits in the corner," her attorney, Michael Kohn, said yesterday in a telephone interview from Washington. The inspector general's office at the Defense Department had already begun its own investigation of her charges regarding the contracting. Exactly which issues are of most interest to investigators in the Justice Department is unclear. Mr. Crane wrote that he could not provide more details "as this is an ongoing criminal investigation."

Melissa Norcross, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said in an e-mail message, "The company continues to cooperate fully with the Justice Department's investigation of certain issues pertaining to our work in Iraq."

In letters to senior Army officials and in public testimony, Ms. Greenhouse said that in early 2003 the Corps had violated procedures when it secretly awarded a five-year, potentially $7 billion contract for oil field repairs to a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root.

Among other things, the same company had been secretly hired months earlier to draw up a plan for the job, she said. She also said that even if the urgency of war required dispensing with competitive bidding, the duration of the contract should have been shorter. She objected again in December 2003, when officials granted a waiver to Kellogg Brown & Root, approving the high prices it had paid to import fuel from Kuwait. Other Pentagon agencies said the company had paid tens of millions of dollars too much, without offering any justification for the payments.

In her e-mail message, Ms. Norcross said, "KBR will continue to work with our customers and the appropriate government agencies to demonstrate, once and for all, that KBR delivered vital services for the U.S. troops and the Iraqi people within the appropriate bounds of government contracting and at a fair and reasonable cost, given the circumstances."

AND:http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=15197

Heard that this was just the first of many such indictments. But, of course this is all nothing more than fabrication by the Liberal MSM, cause jeebus Shrub and his administration would never do ANYTHING illegal or immoral.
 
97silverlsc said:
Heard that this was just the first of many such indictments. But, of course this is all nothing more than fabrication by the Liberal MSM, cause jeebus Shrub and his administration would never do ANYTHING illegal or immoral.

This the the first of many such INDICTMENTS?? Do you even read your own posts? There IS no indictment. There are only some vague accusations, by Democrats, which the Justice Dept. may or may not pursue.
 
RB3 said:
This the the first of many such INDICTMENTS?? Do you even read your own posts? There IS no indictment. There are only some vague accusations, by Democrats, which the Justice Dept. may or may not pursue.

Splitting hairs again. Correction-First of many such FEDERAL CHARGES. If YOU read the second article, charges were brought and that was what I was referring to.
Happy now?
 
97silverlsc said:
Splitting hairs again. Correction-First of many such FEDERAL CHARGES. If YOU read the second article, charges were brought and that was what I was referring to.
Happy now?

The other article refers to fraud committed by a specific individual, not by Halliburton.

That you think the difference between an indictment and an unsubstaniated charge made by a partisan is "splitting hairs" goes a long way toward explaining a lot of your posts.
 
House vote:

Yea: 3
Nay:426
Abstain:6

Murtha: VOTED NAY ON HIS OWN PROPOSAL!

What a coward.
 
RB3 said:
The other article refers to fraud committed by a specific individual, not by Halliburton.

That you think the difference between an indictment and an unsubstaniated charge made by a partisan is "splitting hairs" goes a long way toward explaining a lot of your posts.
Now the Justice Dept. is partisan?
 
97silverlsc said:
Now the Justice Dept. is partisan?

Once again, the JUSTICE DEPT. hasn't charged Halliburton. A Democrat (that's the partisan) made an accusation, together with a government employee who has been demoted for incompetence. There is NO indictment against Halliburton, NO charges against Halliburton, there isn't even a clear indication that there's an investigation of Halliburton.

And all that is in the article YOU posted.
 
fossten said:
House vote:

Yea: 3
Nay:426
Abstain:6

Murtha: VOTED NAY ON HIS OWN PROPOSAL!

What a coward.
It wasn't Murtha's proposal. The Republicans put this up in an attempt to show the troops and the war effort that they were not going to let a minority of people hurt the US and its chances for success.
 
RB3 said:
Once again, the JUSTICE DEPT. hasn't charged Halliburton. A Democrat (that's the partisan) made an accusation, together with a government employee who has been demoted for incompetence. There is NO indictment against Halliburton, NO charges against Halliburton, there isn't even a clear indication that there's an investigation of Halliburton.

And all that is in the article YOU posted.
Once again , I was referring to the article about STEIN. The government employee you refer to is very highly respected by her co-workers and most will admit she was demoted because see blew the whistle after trying to correct the CHALIBURTON no bid contract situation through proper channels. Keep playing your games, The truth is finally starting to come out about Shrubs administration, and when all is said and done I'd be willing to bet that Nixon will look like a choir boy compared to Shrub and associates record.
 
MonsterMark said:
It wasn't Murtha's proposal. The Republicans put this up in an attempt to show the troops and the war effort that they were not going to let a minority of people hurt the US and its chances for success.

NO, it was not Murtha's proposal, it was a cheap shot by the Repugs that was voted on and had nothing to do with what Murtha had proposed. Go read a transcript of what Murtha proposed and then read what the Repugs put up--Not even close!!
 
MonsterMark said:
Got a taste of your own medicine, eh!

LOL Phil you are *owned*

The fact is that Murtha's proposal was nothing but a pure political stunt cooked up by Pelosi and the Dem caucus (and there's an article I'll post later to prove it), and a transparent pathetic one at that. The Republicans merely hoist the Dems with their own petard.
 
97silverlsc said:
Once again , I was referring to the article about STEIN. The government employee you refer to is very highly respected by her co-workers and most will admit she was demoted because see blew the whistle after trying to correct the CHALIBURTON no bid contract situation through proper channels. Keep playing your games, The truth is finally starting to come out about Shrubs administration, and when all is said and done I'd be willing to bet that Nixon will look like a choir boy compared to Shrub and associates record.

ONCE AGAIN the article YOU posted was about Halliburton. In your comments you completely misrepresented what the article said; then you attempted to parlay an indictment of a unrelated individual (corruption rooted out by the Bush Justice Dept. by the way) into a massive indictment (pun intended) of Halliburton, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, all the contractors in Iraq, and probably the Pope; in your typical, facts be dammed, hysterical conspiracy mongering. It is clear from your posts that you feel people should be arrested and probably executed (as your buddy Al Franken recently advocated) simply for disagreeing with a Liberal.

And why do you keep referring to Nixon? If you want to see genuine, massive corruption, you need look no further back than the Clinton administration.
 
fossten said:
LOL Phil you are *owned*

The fact is that Murtha's proposal was nothing but a pure political stunt cooked up by Pelosi and the Dem caucus (and there's an article I'll post later to prove it), and a transparent pathetic one at that. The Republicans merely hoist the Dems with their own petard.

This whole thing was a lousy stunt from the beginning, and when the republicans used their own tactics against them, the Dems cried foul.


Howard Fineman, Newsweek, snip -

Murtha was the one-man tipping point. Initially a strong supporter of the conflict, he had voted for it and the money to pay for it. But on his last trip to Iraq, he had become convinced not only that the war was unwinnable, but that the continued American military presence was making matters far worse. "We're the target, we're part of the problem," he told NEWSWEEK. Back in Washington, he resumed his weekly pilgrimage to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, visiting severely wounded casualties in rehab and agonizing over what he saw there. "I think those visits affected him deeply," said DeLauro. In a long chat with an Irish colleague, he talked about his congressional hero and mentor, another blue-collar Irishman, Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. No liberal on defense, in 1967 O'Neill had stunned President Lyndon B. Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause. Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths.

Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, he denounced the Iraq war as a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

Murtha had known he would set off an explosion. He did. His arrival on the House floor was greeted with cheers from fellow Democrats, by dagger glances from Republicans. A near riot ensued. An Ohio backbencher named Jean Schmidt, eager to demonstrate coldbloodedness, was given time by GOP leaders to relate a phone call from a Marine whom she said wanted "to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Furious Democrats charged down the aisles, fists in the air, shouting that Schmidt's words had to be stricken from the record. "You guys are pathetic!" yelled Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, while Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee charged into the GOP side to confront them. The melee was so intense that it brought the soothing presence of Rep. Tom DeLay from his secure undisclosed location, and Schmidt eventually apologized. By a vote of 403-3, the House ultimately rejected a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted (without Murtha's permission) to sound as cravenly antiwar as possible. Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Murtha, voted against it.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10118733/site/newsweek/
 
MonsterMark said:
Hillary wins the Presidency. San Francisco gets attacked and is wiped out. Republicans still control the House and Senate and Hillary and her V.P. get impeached and tossed out with the House leader taking over and Americans are once again safe.

Wouldn't that be Bush's fault? Since she would inherit a compromised country. I'm just saying this since Clinton gets blamed for anything negative that happened in the last 5-6 years.


On another note, sounds like a planned conspiracy to undermine the next democrat President.... Lol..
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top