Republicans call for surrender!!!Follow

Say it ain't so!

The pubbies calling for immediate withdraw? It can't be... .it must be some kind of political stunt!!

I am Sancho

Actually, they probably wanted to thumb their noses at the Dems. They might have planned to put a similar bill thingy in the House in the future. Just wanted to get it voted down to show them there is no chance of it happening.

It was some California Republican named Hunter.

I was listening to this whole thing being stuck in traffic... and let me say somthing... This has been the most thouroughly amusing, disgusting, entertaining, and blatant exampling of some of the most underhanded **** that people will to to make each other look bad. It's really just fu[/b]cking outrageous.

If you listened to this **** live, you will know waht I mean...

ANd for the record, there has been NO NEW station or channel that has spelled out waht happened correctly. Omegavegeta is the only person I have seen so far that understands waht happened the Friday afternoon.

Everything else is spinning it in one way or another.. simply for the fact that it is kinda hard to explain to somone without their head around it. but saying:

Quote:

they did this to push Democrats into a corner. Any Democrat who voted for immidiate withdrawl (only 3 did) would look bad to the "average" voter, while any Democrat who voted not to withdraw would look bad too anyone who support immidiate withdrawl (generally the far left).

Just a PR stunt, didn't mean anything.

is about as spelled out as it gets. And if you really head the hypocracy that was spewing out from every orafice in the GOP, it was simply amazing. Doing everything that the can to play up to the publics emotions, without really thinking about anything but their immediate popular gains.


Fan-fu[b]cking-tastic.

it wasn't to "show the american" people anything.
it was to put the dems in congress in a bad spot in an underhanded way.

Probably they're trying to catch them in a Kerry-esque "I voted against withdrawl before I voted for it" deal, where there's a big difference between the two bills, but all they need is a soundbyte to mock and discredit.

The vote was political, but it was in response to a horribly thought out and horribly timed Dem politicalization of the war.

It was damage control. Murtha's speech and proposed resolution sent a message to people in Iraq that the resolve of the US was wavering. Left on it's own, it would have decimated troop moral, and increased insurgent recruitment, while causing members of the Iraqi interrim government to wonder if they could count on the US to help them in the comming months. Floating that out there less then a month before the deadline for Iraq to ratify it's Constitution was practically a sabotage of the last 3 years.


The Republicans took Murtha's proposal, set the timetable to "immediate", and held the entire Congress for a vote on it. The point wasn't about politicizing at home. It was damage control to hopefully prevent Murtha's ill-thought statements from wrecking any chance of success in Iraq. The reason they stayed late on a Friday before a holiday week was to make sure that the "message" sent to Iraq was that no one in Congress is going to pull our troops out of there anytime soon. The insurgents are not going to be able to just hold on another 6 months and we'll leave.


That was what it was about. Everything else is politicizing. This was purely about making sure that our allies and enemies in Iraq knew that Murtha's demand for withdrawal was *not* going to happen. It had *nothing* to do with local politics. Something Murtha should have thought about before he opened his mouth.

Read the context dork! It was political in that it deliberatly hoist Murtha on his own petard so to speak.

But it was not "politicalization" by the Republicans. It was a response to a politicalization by the Dems. Murtha attempted to score some cheap political points before the break by making a statement against the war and the Bush administration's handling of the war. He presumably did this in response to the Republicans *finally* pushing the whole "lied about WMD" garbage back on the Dems in the past couple weeks by tossing Dem quote after quote saying the same things the Bush administration did.

I'm going to give Murtha the benefit of the doubt and assume he honestly didn't realize the message that would send to those actually in Iraq. He was so caught up in countering the political messages going on at home that he missed that part. But once he made his statement, it was done. Al-Jezera had it printed up within an hour. It was *huge* news in the Middle East because it signified that the US Congress was wavering in support for the war in Iraq. That required a reaction. The best reaction was to put the idea to a vote right then. Show that we're not withdrawing any time soon so that Murtha's statements don't end up being a rallying call for more insurgency in Iraq.


What we say here at home really does have an effect on what people think on the other side of the world. The Republican reaction to Murtha's proposal was a direct recognition of that fact. That vote had *nothing* to do with politics here at home (except perhaps to slam Murtha a bit for being a bonehead and saying what he said). It had everything with sending a message to the people of the Middle East.

What part of that don't you get?