Let’s see if they can avoid calling Murtha a coward this time

Just five short weeks ago, the House held what may charitably be described as a “debate” on withdrawal from Iraq, as part of the GOP’s blowback strategy against Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) plan for troop redeployment. Today, we may see the sequel.

As you may recall, the results weren’t pretty. House Republicans unveiled a one-sentence mischaracterization of Murtha’s position, apparently to set a trap for House Democrats — vote against Murtha or for withdrawal. It was a cynical stunt; Democrats saw through it easily; and the entire fiasco produced little more than news accounts about Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) calling Murtha a “coward.”

Fortunately, with a shortened calendar before the holiday recess, House Republicans don’t have time for anymore nonsense. Lawmakers are struggling with major legislative priorities including defense appropriations, the Patriot Act, ANWR, the budget, and even immigration. They’re anxious to get out of DC with some accomplishments under their belt for 2005, and at this point, it’s going to be difficult.

Surely they wouldn’t want to re-fight the same battle over a symbolic Iraq resolution, would they? Surprise, surprise — that’s exactly what they want to do.

Ratcheting up the debate in Congress over the Iraq war, House Republicans will offer for a vote today a resolution declaring that setting an “artificial timetable” for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be “inconsistent with achieving victory.”

The resolution also expresses the commitment of the House to “achieving victory in Iraq” and praises Iraqis for participating in parliamentary elections Thursday, calling the vote “a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq’s new democracy.”

The resolution marks the second time in as many months that GOP leaders, facing eroding public support and growing Democratic criticism of the continuing instability in Iraq, have sought to strike back at critics of the war.

It’s as if House Republicans want, more than anything else, to politicize the war while avoiding substantive legislative work, even on Iraq-related issues. Petty partisan games are, once again, more important than governing.

Shameless.

While they’re at it, perhaps they would like to put forward a resolution that expresses their commitment to “achieving victory in Afghanistan”.
That is, if anyone remembers that we have troops in that country.

  • I think the partisan games are more important to the Repubs by default rather than by plan. The war is really all they have right now. It is too far away from an election to talk about gay marriage, school vouchers or flag burning and their only economic policy is tax cuts which won’t affect most Americans one way or the other. They spend money like drunken sailors so they can’t claim to be fiscal conservatives anymore. The can’t talk about their energy or health care plans because they don’t exist.

    If the Dems were smart they would stop talking about the war and set the stage for 2006 by talking about health care, energy and the deficit.

  • I say let them do it.

    The more time they spend on nonsense like this, the less time they have to pass laws that really screw people over. Since the game is rigged, though, I actually expect them to be able to pass the most hurtful laws as well as play these games, and still have enough time to “frank” an intern or a page in the broom closet before slinking home.

  • What exactly is an “artificial timetable” that Bush and his minions keep talking about? I don’t think anyone has asked for an “artificial timetable.” I think Murtha, etc were asking for an actual, genuine timetable. Nothing artifical about it.

  • House Republicans will offer for a vote today a resolution declaring that setting an “artificial timetable” for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be “inconsistent with achieving victory.”

    Funny how this so-called CEO administration doesn’t believe it should dictate terms to a civilian controlled military.

    Rather the chain of command works backwards–> the commanders in Iraq will TELL THE CEO when it is time to retreat from Iraq.

    Or at least, that is what President Fuckup would have the stupid citizens of America believe…

    My own take on all this hasn’t changed: The USA is there to secure access to Iraq’s oil. We won’t leave until that access is guaranteed long term.

    Al Qaeda realizes this too. That’s why they have issued a call for attacking oil’s infrastructure.

    This is pretty much the fate of the planet for the forseeable future:

    A battle between fat white goons (the haves) who want the oil and skinny brown goons (the have nots) who want to deny it.

    You are either with Cheney or you are with bin Laden.
    That’s the artificial choice that is being offerred American citizens.

    And since the US is totally dependent on cheap oil…
    That really isn’t much of a choice is it?

  • I am REALLY, REALLY sick of all this talk about “victory” without someone explaining what “victory” is going to look like, or giving some semblance of a strategy for achieving it. They’ve turned the whole conflict into a political joke, trying to smear the Democrats as “against victory” when every time they open their mouths all we hear is empty rhetoric about “victory” and all we want is some GOD DAMN PLANNING!

  • I just love how Murtha and Dems use the term “redeployment,” saying all the while that its not “retreat” or “withdrawal” while your monkey on a leash, Howard Dean, screams behind you “WE CAN”T WIN!, WE CAN”T WIN!” Ha-larious.

    You want use to loose. Fess up boys, it would make y’all leap for joy to see the insurgency terrorists beat us back, cause us to really retreat, see Iraq become another Cambodia, and a democratic election landslide in 08 and thus you can get your power back- which is all you really care about.

    Oh, and get off the sanctimonious “Murtha is untouchable because he was a retired decorated combat veteran” tripe. Is he a coward? Not sure. But I do know he sure loves all the camera face time he’s getting by giving hope to our enemies. Being decorated doesn’t make you forever untouchable or unquestionable- Rep. Cunningham amply proved that. Believe it or not there have actually been Medal of Honor awardees who later became convicted felons.

  • And equating dissent with treason is just plain fascistic, force majure.

    Murtha isn’t untouchable, but a coward he is not. (And I think Schmidt using falsely-attributed comments to call him one is just the height of irony.) That is why they bring up his war decorations. War decorations are demonstrable evidence of courage in defense of our country, they have nothing to do with Cunningham’s situation, where the accusation isn’t cowardice, but corruption. Are there any allegations of Murtha being on the take, or other criminal behavior that might get him in trouble? Not that I’m aware of. Just your accusations of treason.

    Nobody wants to cede Iraq to chaos and the terrorists, but with Bush leading this nation-building project, every day it looks worse and worse for peace and democracy and better and better for chaos and terrorism. We could either pretend Bush is doing a good job and ignore any signs that Iraq is descending into chaos or we could respond to the situation by developing a new, more effective plan to reestablish stability (assuming there was one in the first place, I have yet to hear what it is.)

    If you want to have a discussion on merits, start by responding to what liberals actually think, rather than lies about us concocted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

  • But many Republicans are looking for a timetable on exiting Iraq too.

    They’ve had their elections, WMD programs are gone, and even Ba’athist militias are protecting polling stations from al Qaeda ( http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/11/uirq.xml ).

    What more does Bush want from our troops?

    Dems should seek a timetable for benchmarks on the Iraqi army. By April 2006, have x number of Iraqi soldiers actually trained and equipped, etc.

  • Uh oh. A troll has broken into the blog.
    Force majure. Do you have a policy on
    this, CB? I don’t mind good debate, but
    that’s not what they’re up to. They’ve all
    but destroyed Huffpo, which is their mission,
    of course.

    It’s pretty late – I don’t know if you’ll see
    this, CB. Be a damn shame if they’ve
    broken over the levee here.

  • Comments are closed.