The AP writes:
Resolution: Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., on Thursday offered a resolution that would force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date."
Alternative resolution: Friday, House Republicans planned to put to a vote -- and reject -- a symbolic alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Here's the points that the AP missed in reporting the Murtha proposal:
1. Murtha's language concerning the "deployment" of troops and their "termination" did not differ from the Republican resolution. Murtha resolution reads:
2. As for the "at the earliest practicable date" addition, we must get a fuller understanding of what Murtha means by a "practicable date." As Murtha said in his now-infamous press release yesterday:"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."
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.
As I pointed out earlier in a post, if Murtha wants the troops to immediately redeploy before the mid-December elections in Iraq, he's going to have to do it pretty soon. That's only a few weeks ago. Getting thousands of troops out of a broad land doesn't happen over night. The real reason Democrats didn't go for this is because it meant exactly what the Murtha resolution meant: Immediate withdrawal. Dems wanted a long and protracted debate so they could convince the American people to side with them. Then, when we did not meet their unachievable goal, they would cry some more and shout "Abuse of power!"
It certainly is a shame that Democrats want Iraq to become the next Vietnam.
Then, hilariously, Democrats had the nerve to complain about Republicans questioning their patriotism. What's wrong with that? Is their actions patriotic or not? Think about it: Is it patriotic to want America to lose a war, or to want America to win a war? I don't think these are invalid questions. And, by the way: I applaud Jean Schmidt's comments. They were certainly reasonable and necessary.
It certainly is a shame that Democrats want Iraq to become the next Vietnam.
Then, hilariously, Democrats had the nerve to complain about Republicans questioning their patriotism. What's wrong with that? Is their actions patriotic or not? Think about it: Is it patriotic to want America to lose a war, or to want America to win a war? I don't think these are invalid questions. And, by the way: I applaud Jean Schmidt's comments. They were certainly reasonable and necessary.
Correction: Earlier, I proposed that Murtha wanted us out of Iraq by the mid-December elections because he said that, at that time, Iraqis should be put on notice that we will immediately withdraw. Well, it turns out that Murtha at another time said that he thought getting all troops out by six months was reasonable. OK. This doesn't take away from my larger point, however, concerning the language of the resolutions. BOTH of them say that the DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. TROOPS would be TERMINATED as soon as the resolution passed. My bad for not reporting that and clarifying that earlier.