403-3 Against Troop Pullout

[RandFan]

"Pull OUT?!! Doesn't sound Manly to me. I say live it in and get the job done" --George Carlin

 

[CFLarsen]

What's a "403-3"?

 

[Cylinder]

What's a "403-3"?

It's the result of the House vote.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Cutting our losses now and running would only embolden the fundamentalists, and frankly, it's spineless to cut & run on the Iraqi people....really spineless.

Between Iraq and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon things are really beginning to change in the Middle East. We are beginning to see a new chapter there, from iron-fisted dictatorships to democracy. And this democracy bug will eventually infect the entire region - to our, and their benefit.

The insurgents aren't the Iraqi people, they aren't even "the arabs" they are sick twisted radicals who belong to groups like Al Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Jeemah Islamiyah. These nutjobs have state sponsors such as Syria and Iran who are also run by complete nutjobs...these state sponsors torcher, kill and jail people for speaking out against them. They are so evil that - with malice aforethought - they support groups who blow up innocent men, women and children...Iraqis, Israelis, Lebanese, Jordanians, whomever...

Look at Jordan, the "nutjobs" struck there and turned that countries public opinion 180 degrees around, now Jordanians have turned their backs on Zarqawi. So should America cut & run out of Iraq because of these nutjobs? Should the nutjobs "win the day" cuz some people just don't have the guts to see a job to completion?

Just because these frikkin' nutjobs are committing suicide by murdering innocent Iraqis doesn't mean you throw your hands in the air, pick up your toys and go home. That would only say to them, Syria and Iran that we are weak and spineless.

 

[RandFan]

What's a "403-3"?

My appologies

Lawmakers Reject Immediate Iraq Withdrawal

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.

 

[webfusion]

In Congress

There are 435 total, and 406 voted (in the House of Representatives).

Probably the other members were already back home for the holidays, not wishing to waste their time voting on a resolution that has the same effect as saying "We declare our support for the Sun to stop shining" -- which probably would obtain the same 403-3 result.

A fair evaluation of the way the House resolution was presented shows that instead of voting on the Murtha Bill (setting a timetable and parameters for starting an organized and proper troop redeployment in Iraq), the Republicans pulled a maneuver to introduce an alternative Bill that would demand all troops leave "immediately" (as in, this weekend).

And that language led directly to the voting results mentioned in the OP.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.
The proposal comes as tension grows in both Washington and Baghdad following a call by a senior House Democrat to bring U.S. troops home and the deaths of scores of people by suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities.

There are the appearences, and there are the plans.

 

[RandFan]

There are 435 total, and 406 voted (in the House of Representatives).

Probably the other members were already back home for the holidays, not wishing to waste their time voting on a resolution that has the same effect as saying "We declare our support for the Sun to stop shining" -- which probably would obtain the same 403-3 result.

A fair evaluation of the way the House resolution was presented shows that instead of voting on the Murtha Bill (setting a timetable and parameters for starting an organized and proper troop redeployment in Iraq), the Republicans pulled a maneuver to introduce an alternative Bill that would demand all troops leave "immediately" (as in, this weekend).

And that language led directly to the voting results mentioned in the OP.

{shock} Politicians playing politics?

Take no offense web, I agree completly.

 

[webfusion]

When a top American General makes this proposal (and it's revealed publicly), and it coinicides with what Rep. Murtha was saying in his HR Bill, then it is quite amazing to see all the Congressional Republicans scrambling to make a mockery of what should be obvious to everyone by now ---
This war is over. Finished. Concluded. Ended.
Now, how to best get out, that is a question for the military, once they've been given the order to do so.
I would think that the commanders prefer a directive along the lines of Rep. Murtha's -- and not along the lines of what the Republicans tried to insinuate.
================================

As for the idea that Politicians were 'politiking' --- yeah, so what else is new?
It is just annoying to see the level of public debate reduced to shouting & namecalling (especially against a man like Rep. Murtha who was obviously NOT playing politics in his appeal).
I saw the televised session and it made me really think that our Congress has take the low road, being no better than a bunch of folks arguing in a bar.
(Heck, it even reminded me of the Israeli Knesset, and we all know how well-mannered and even-tempered that body is).
No offense taken, RF.

 

[Cylinder]

A fair evaluation of the way the House resolution was presented shows that instead of voting on the Murtha Bill (setting a timetable and parameters for starting an organized and proper troop redeployment in Iraq), the Republicans pulled a maneuver to introduce an alternative Bill that would demand all troops leave "immediately" (as in, this weekend).

Both bills called for the immediate end to the deployement.

Sense of the House Resolution text (resolution is not yet posted on the House site):

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

The Murtha Resolution:

The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

There is no getting around the plain language of the resolution sponsored by Rep. Murtha - it calls for the immediate termination of the deployment in Iraq. If you want to parse original intent, I will simply rely on Rep. Murtha's own dissection:

The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

 

[Cylinder]

When a top American General makes this proposal (and it's revealed publicly), and it coinicides with what Rep. Murtha was saying in his HR Bill, then it is quite amazing to see all the Congressional Republicans scrambling to make a mockery of what should be obvious to everyone by now ---
This war is over. Finished. Concluded. Ended.

Wow.

The DOD proposal reported in the media has nothing whatsoever to do with the Murtha Resolution:

From the CNN article:

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

From Rep. Murtha's comments:

The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy.

 

[joe1347]

Cutting our losses now and running would only embolden the fundamentalists, and frankly, it's spineless to cut & run on the Iraqi people....really spineless. . . . .Should the nutjobs "win the day" cuz some people just don't have the guts to see a job to completion?

Just because these frikkin' nutjobs are committing suicide by murdering innocent Iraqis doesn't mean you throw your hands in the air, pick up your toys and go home. That would only say to them, Syria and Iran that we are weak and spineless.

Since Iraq war supporters are adamant about not "cutting and running" - why aren't they also debating how to "win" the war on both terrorism and in Iraq? Since things aren't going that well in Iraq - why can't Congress offer some help to insure success? For example, shouldn't Congress be debating whether to reinstitute the Draft to provide enough military force to win since recruiting goals are not being met - plus isn't it unfair to expect active duty troups to serve more than two or three Iraq/Afganistan tours? The Republicans are always talking about the need to support our troups. Ok - how about Drafting a few hundred thousand more soldiers to allow those that have already served long tours to come home. Haven't we already asked more than enough of the existing volunteers? Additionally, I've read reports that all of the US soldiers still don't have the necessary gear - plus the Iraqi soldiers are woefully underequipped. Shouldn't Congress also be debating whether to significantly raise taxes to buy the necessary equipment to win the war. The Republicans like to consider themselves the grown-up party (with the spines) that makes the hard decisions necessary to protect America as opposed to the terrorist coddling "spineless" Democrats. So shouldn't the Republicans in Congress prove just how serious (and tough" they are in winning the war (on terror and in Iraq) and bring back the Draft and raise taxes?

 

[President Bush]

From Rep. Murtha's comments:

Thanks for the link. Can you believe what this guy said?

I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need(s) to be done.

Wow.

I've been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed, as some of you know, almost every week since the beginning of the war. And what demoralizes them is not the criticism; what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace. The devastation caused by IEDs is what they're concerned about, being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes -- and you've seen these stories about some of the people's whose homes were destroyed, and they were deployed to Iraq after it -- being on their second or third deployment, leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must prepare to face all these threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say the Army's broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down even as the military's lowered its standards. They expect to take 20 percent Category 4, which is the lowest category, which they said they'd never take, but they've been forced to do that, to try to meet a reduced quota. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made, and we cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away.

And this?

I just recently visited Anbar province in Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. And last May -- last May -- we put in the emergency supplemental spending bill -- Moran amendment -- which was accepted in conference, which required the secretary of Defense to submit a quarterly report about the -- and accurately measure the stability and security in Iraq. Now -- we've now received two reports. So I've just come back from Iraq, and I looked at the next report. I'm disturbed by the findings in the key indicator areas.

Oil production and energy production are below prewar level. You remember they said that was going to pay for the war, and it's proved to (be) below prewar level. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situations. Only $9 billion of $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. And I said on the floor of the House, when they passed the $87 billion, the $18 billion was the most important part of it because you got to get people back to work, you got to get electricity, you got to get water! Unemployment is 60 percent. Now, they tell you in the United States it's less than that, so it may be 40 percent. But in Iraq, they told me it's 60 percent when I was there. Clean water is scarce, and they only spent $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects.

And most importantly -- this is the most important point -- incidents have increased from 150 to a week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over a time when addition of more troops -- when we had addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelation of Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. You look at the timeline. You'll see one per day average before Abu Ghraib. After Abu Ghraib, you'll see two a day -- two killed per day because of the dramatic impact that Abu Ghraib had on what we were doing in -- and the department -- the State Department reported in 2004, right before they quit putting the reports out, that -- they indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

Can you imagine someone saying this?

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent.

I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice.

The nerve of this guy!

I go out to the hospitals every week. One of my first visits, two young women. One was 22 or 23, had two children, lost her husband. One was 19. And they both went out to the hospitals to tell the people out there how happy they were -- or how happy they should be to be alive. In other words, they were reaching out because they felt their husbands had done their duty, but they wanted to tell them that they were so fortunate, even though they were wounded, to be alive.

I have a young fellow in my district who was blinded and he lost his foot. They did everything they could for him at Walter Reed, then they sent him home. His father was in jail. He had nobody at home. Imagine this. A young kid that age, 22, 23 years old, goes home to nobody. VA did everything they could do to help him. He was reaching out.

So they sent him -- to make sure that he was a blind, they sent him to Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins started sending bills. Then the collection agency started sending bills. Well, when I found out about it, you could imagine they stopped the collection agency and Walter Reed finally paid the bill. But imagine, a young person being blinded, without a foot, and he's getting bills from a collection agency.

I saw a young soldier who lost two legs and an arm, and his dad was pushing him around.

I go to the mental ward; you know what they say to me? They got battle fatigue. You know what they say? "We don't get nothing. We get nothing. We're just as bruised, just as injured as everybody else, but we don't even get a Purple Heart. We get nothing. We get shunted aside. We get looked at as if there's something wrong with us."

Saw a young woman from Notre Dame. Basketball player, right- handed, lost her right hand. You know what she's worried about? She's worried about her husband because he lost weight worrying about her. These are great people. These soldiers and people who are serving, they're marvelous people.

I saw a Seabee lying there with three children. His mother and his wife were there. He was paralyzed from the neck down. There were 18 of them killed in this one mortar attack. And they were all crying because they knew what it would be like in the future.

I saw a Marine rubbing his boy's hand. He was a Marine in Vietnam, and his son had just come back from Iraq. And he said he wanted his brother to come home. That's what the father said, because the kid couldn't speak. He was in a coma.

He kept rubbing his hand.

He didn't want to come home. I told him the Marine Corps would get him home.

I had one other kid, lost both his hands. Blinded. I was praising him, saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciate his service to the country. "Anything I can do for you?" His mother said get me a -- "Get him a Purple Heart." I said, "What do you mean, get him a Purple Heart?"

He had been wounded in taking care of bomblets, these bomblets that they drop that they have to dismantle. He had been wounded and lost both his hands. The kid behind him was killed.

His mother said, "Because they're friendly bomblets, they wouldn't give him a Purple Heart."

I met with the commandant. I said, "If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine." And they gave him a Purple Heart.

Let me tell you something. We're charged -- Congress is charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and it's our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them. That's why I'm speaking out.

Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily; it's time to bring the troops home.

This guy can't possibly know what he's talking about.

 

[webfusion]

two parts - merged into one.

Here is the main problem, as I see it, about the Republican version of what Murtha proposed.

Murtha was trying to make a point, knowing full well that the Democrats have no parliamentary majority in any case, that the war is over and the President needs to declare it over, and begin right now (before xmas) to draw down forces. That is what the Generals in Iraq anticipate and recommend and that is what the American people are looking for (and not getting). This isn't a question of "cutting and running" -- it a question of what this nation expects of its' troops, in the War on Terror.
Rep. Murtha said that the President needed to declare an immediate termination of the War, and the language he used was redeployment at the earliest practicable date ----- which is why the Republicans jumped up and said, NO!
Let's change (parse) the language so that the resolution appears to be virtually the same as Murthas' intent, but actually says:
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

I see the difference, and so did just about everyone in the House of Representatives, hence the vote results.

 

[Magyar]

Since Iraq war supporters are adamant about not "cutting and running" - why aren't they also debating how to "win" the war on both terrorism and in Iraq? Since things aren't going that well in Iraq - why can't Congress offer some help to insure success? For example, shouldn't Congress be debating whether to reinstitute the Draft to provide enough military force to win since recruiting goals are not being met - plus isn't it unfair to expect active duty troups to serve more than two or three Iraq/Afganistan tours? The Republicans are always talking about the need to support our troups. Ok - how about Drafting a few hundred thousand more soldiers to allow those that have already served long tours to come home. Haven't we already asked more than enough of the existing volunteers? Additionally, I've read reports that all of the US soldiers still don't have the necessary gear - plus the Iraqi soldiers are woefully underequipped. Shouldn't Congress also be debating whether to significantly raise taxes to buy the necessary equipment to win the war. The Republicans like to consider themselves the grown-up party (with the spines) that makes the hard decisions necessary to protect America as opposed to the terrorist coddling "spineless" Democrats. So shouldn't the Republicans in Congress prove just how serious (and tough" they are in winning the war (on terror and in Iraq) and bring back the Draft and raise taxes?

Joey, Joey, Joey,

Don't you know by now that such talk is iiiiiirrrrrisponsible! How can you possibly question the logic and wisdom of "stay the course" "hard work" and "freedom on the match" what other instructions do soldiers need?

Besides, dear Joey, don't you know that things are actually going wonderfully in Iraq! Why I even heard that there are some Wendy's open in some parts of northern Iraq. It's that EEEEVIIIIIIL Liberal media that has your head all turned around. Don't worry it's nothing a few months in the re-education canps won't cure.

And weapons armor, benefits and medical care - don't you know soldiers are supposed to die and then we're supposed to send more soldiers to die to honor the first soldiers that died otherwise the first soldiers died in vain.

And bringing up tax rai** ( i can't even say it).
Christmas is coming, how is the good republican supposed to afford buying that $5 mill personal sub or $600K Mercedes if you ask them to actually contribute to the war effort. How DARE YOU! This may actually be sedition!
Sedition I tell you! OFF to gitmo with you terrorist!

 

[WildCat]

Since Iraq war supporters are adamant about not "cutting and running" - why aren't they also debating how to "win" the war on both terrorism and in Iraq? Since things aren't going that well in Iraq - why can't Congress offer some help to insure success? For example, shouldn't Congress be debating whether to reinstitute the Draft to provide enough military force to win since recruiting goals are not being met - plus isn't it unfair to expect active duty troups to serve more than two or three Iraq/Afganistan tours? The Republicans are always talking about the need to support our troups. Ok - how about Drafting a few hundred thousand more soldiers to allow those that have already served long tours to come home. Haven't we already asked more than enough of the existing volunteers? Additionally, I've read reports that all of the US soldiers still don't have the necessary gear - plus the Iraqi soldiers are woefully underequipped. Shouldn't Congress also be debating whether to significantly raise taxes to buy the necessary equipment to win the war. The Republicans like to consider themselves the grown-up party (with the spines) that makes the hard decisions necessary to protect America as opposed to the terrorist coddling "spineless" Democrats. So shouldn't the Republicans in Congress prove just how serious (and tough" they are in winning the war (on terror and in Iraq) and bring back the Draft and raise taxes?

Throwing money and men at the problem is not a strategy, Joe. If it was, Vietnam would have been a cakewalk and the USSR would have pacified Afghanistan in no time at all.

The strategy now is working well. The insurgents/terrorists have been pushed back to the Syrian border, there are enough trained Iraqi troops now that this has been made possible. Last year we went on search and destroy missions, now we're doing clear and hold operations. Public opinion in Iraq for the insurgency is eroded w/ every suicide bomb going off in a mosque or market. In fact, there is now open warfare between Iraqi insurgents and Zarqawi's terrorists in many places.

There's more to military strategy than body counts, not that CNN et al would ever notice.

The insurgency a year ago controlled many towns in western Iraq, now they are reduced to a few backwater areas along the Syrian border, and those won't last much longer. The military situation of the insurgency is hopeless, they are putting their last resources (car bombs and other terrorist strikes of no military value) to try to win through propaganda (via the western media) what they can't win militarily. Thus, the increasingly desperate car bomb attacks against mosques, hotels, and markets.

Of course, this won't stop some US politicians from trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

 

[Mephisto]

Another passionate response . . .

I guess it's no secret what I think should be done or who I agree with.

I say pull out yesterday! If the Iraqi people REALLY want freedom, independence and Democracy they'll fight for it against those who stifle it, just like we did!

You CAN'T force a Democratic system of government on anyone at the end of a gun. The idea is so unbelievably non sequitur that I'm surprised that the country backed the whole war in Iraq. It's sad what people will do in a nationalistic fervor. This whole war makes as much sense as screwing for celebacy.

I keep hearing people say, "we lose if we pull out," but this sounds fairly self-centered as I'm not sure what we'd lose if we did pull out. I'm actually beginning to believe that there is a sort of inferiority complex thing going on here, we just DON'T want to lose and we don't care how many soldiers die!

I know what we WOULDN'T lose if we pulled out soon; more dead American soldiers, more dead and innocent Iraqis, more money, more of the fuel needed to supply a large occupying military, more respect around the world, more military vehicles and supplies, more ammunition, more military amputees, more brain-damaged veterans, more broken (and destitute) military families, more emotional/psychological trauma, and so on and on and on . . .

What do we gain? Well, a country that we invaded, forced our system of government upon, a country in which we've killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, a country that STILL has virtually no infrastructure (but lots of oil), a country besieged by terrorists that weren't there before, a country populated by three warring factions, a country on the brink of civil war (this is inevitable no matter how long we're there, remember the Serbs and the Croates?), and a country that will suffer terrorists actions and suicide bombings for decades to come (remember Israel and how successful their "war on terrorism" is?). Does it still seem like a good deal? Does it still sound like it's worth the lives of 2,000 American soldiers or the sadness that 2,000 families will carry for the rest of their lives?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, the only way I would support this war is if Jenna and Barbara Bush (and Cheney's non-lesbian daughter) were with the Marines on daily patrols!

 

[Mephisto]

This guy can't possibly know what he's talking about.

Thanks for including major points of his commentary, GW!

It's interesting that they are a little more wary of passing him off as yet another "disgruntled employee." That worked with Richard Clarke and others, but I think they're worried about trying it again.

This is something that the American people should take note of - the fact that combat veterans are calling an end to this war! It's also noteworthy that among the Washington crowd, the politicians most vehemently opposed to prisoner torture are all combat veterans and ex-POWS, while the majority of the Bush administration has NEVER seen a day in uniform.

Again, I assert that hawkish politicians who grandstand in support of ANY war offer up their family as a "good-will" token. It's easy to make the case for war when the children of everyone YOU know are vacationing in the Hamptons!

 

[CFLarsen]

If the Iraqi people REALLY want freedom, independence and Democracy they'll fight for it against those who stifle it, just like we did!

IIRC, there is now a democratically elected government.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The military situation of the insurgency is hopeless, they are putting their last resources (car bombs and other terrorist strikes of no military value) to try to win through propaganda (via the western media) what they can't win militarily. Thus, the increasingly desperate car bomb attacks against mosques, hotels, and markets.

Cases in point.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051119133304

A car bomb exploded Saturday near a market outside of Baghdad killing at least 13 people and wounding 21...

On Friday, two suicide bombers wandered into the Sheik Murad mosque and the Grand Mosque in the border town of Khanaqin during noon prayers and detonated explosives strapped to their bodies, police and survivors said.

Reported death tolls ranged from 76, provided by Kurdish officials, to at least 100, provided by police. Hospital officials said Friday that 74 people were killed and more than 100 injured in the largely Kurdish town, about 90 miles northeast of Baghdad.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1328173&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

The Mideast's most feared terrorist sought Friday to justify a triple suicide bombing on Amman hotels that killed 59 civilians, insisting he did not deliberately target a wedding party and appealing to Muslims to believe that he was not attacking them.

Still, the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi made clear he was not about to stop the bloodshed, warning he will attack more tourist sites in Jordan and threatening to behead King Abdullah II.

Emphasis mine.

These guys are nuts. Al-Zarqawi, Ansar Al Islam, Jeemah Islamiyah, Bin Laden, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc... Delusional, irrational, psychotic...not stupid.. but certifiably nuts. And this is their military strategy.... markets, mosques, hotels, beheadings... then bizarre "public service announcements" to the media.

I keep hearing people say, "we lose if we pull out," but this sounds fairly self-centered as I'm not sure what we'd lose if we did pull out.

Respect.