The War Debate Turns Even Nastier
My, but this is an ugly spectacle, indeed…but probably quite necessary. My initial reaction is that Democrats have brought this on themselves with their constant carping, and it’s put up or shut up time:
By forcing the issue [of troop withdrawal] to a vote, Republicans tried to place many Democrats in a politically unappealing position — whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to criticism, or oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.
But Democrats claimed the effort had backfired because their party members planned to vote against withdrawal — and the GOP version of Murtha’s resolution.
Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq “at the earliest practicable date.” It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
But House Republicans planned to put to a vote — and reject — their own resolution that simply said: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”
Well, that’s perfectly legitimate…you think troops should be out of Iraq, go on the record…if not, work with us for a successful conclusion to the war. However, we certainly don’t need this:
The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.
“He asked me to send Congress a message — stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message — that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” Schmidt said.
Democrats booed and shouted her down — causing the House to come to a standstill.
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber’s center aisle screaming that it was an uncalled for personal attack. “You guys are pathetic. Pathetic,” yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.
Thank God all these clowns are about to go on their holiday break – and shame on you, Rep. Schmidt – that personal attack on Murtha is both unwise politically, and unfair to a man who has served his country in combat. I would have booed you right along with the Democrats…
UPDATE 9:46 p.m.: Turn on C-Span to see the fireworks (what a spectacle – sigh)…
UPDATE 10:09 p.m.: The resolution has gone to a vote…remember that the proposal states the troops should be immediately withdrawn – therefore a yes vote says I believe the troops should be immediately withdrawn. Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas was the last speaker. Rep. Johnson, if you don’t know, is one of our most distinguished veterans in Congress, and spent a number of years as a P.O.W. in Vietnam. Though he was reading from prepared remarks, he spoke eloquently of the damage to morale that calls for withdrawal inflict on the front lines, and he swore that he was determined to make sure that doesn’t happen again. He spoke of the message that we should instead send…whatever it takes, as long as it takes, we will see it through and give you all the support you need. There are people who have actually gone on the record for immediate withdrawal…with 10 minutes remaining in the voting, 1 Republican and 2 Democrats have said yea…there are still 121 votes remaining.
A word on Murtha…he spoke from the heart, and he spoke as someone who has seen much suffering from the wounded and the families of the killed. We should respect him, and them…but Murtha’s litany of woe is not a policy argument. Yes, it is heartbreakingly tragic that so many fine young men and women are dead or severely maimed…but it doesn’t speak to the implications of withdrawal. Simply put, Johnson is right…withdrawal is not even an option at this time…
UPDATE 10:37 p.m.: 403-3 was the final vote – all three were Democrats, the 1 Republican reported earlier was either a mistake or the individual reconsidered…there is no shame to be placed on the heads of the three Democrats who voted for the resolution – they went on the record with their convictions…but there were 6 Democrats who voted present – on this issue, of all things…now that truly is cowardly…I’ll have the name of those 6 later tonight or tomorrow…
UPDATE 11:12 p.m.: The ayes: McKinney, Serrano, and Wexler…
The presents: Capuano, Clay, Hinchey, McDermott, Nadler, Owens…
For not even having the cajones to stand up and be counted, a first-class Bronx cheer to the last six…
UPDATE 11/19/05 9:07 a.m.: I agree completely with Tom Bevan:
Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn’t make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.
So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn’t.
Well said…
Gosh, I wonder why the polls show people think even less of the Republicans and Democrats in Congress than they do of President Bush?
I feel like the rhetoric is just getting pitched to the point that it won’t be long before we see real acts of violence over this stuff.
As for the resolution itself, I wonder if this helps the Democrats in the long run. If they open the bidding, so to speak, with immediate withdrawal, and get rejected, then they’ll put some kind of timetable up as the next piece of negotiation, and that will look reasonable by comparison.
Truth be told, I’m not entirely against a timetable. I’m worried that it’ll give the Islamists hope to hang on, but I’m also afraid an open commitment allows the current Iraqi government to act like a perpetual welfare client and never worry about making itself self-sufficient. I think it would be better if the timetable came linked to specific accomplishments, not specific dates. And I also think it’s better if it comes from the administration, which clearly wants victory to be the standard, as opposed to coming from those for whom exiting is the chief goal.
But I also will be pleased if the Democrats vote against this and realize they can’t keep playing the far-left base for money by hinting at immediate withdrawal without actually having to be responsible for promoting it.
I am so sick and tired of this BS from the left in this country. Its now gotten to the point that I am just about ready to give up on America, I don’t think a majority in this country has the balls to fight a real war, we might as well just surrender now. I’ve always said that if there were cameras from 24 hour cable “news” channels in Normandy on June 6, 1944 we’d be speaking German and pledging alligence to Hitler today. How can a president be expected to lead when 95%+ of the information we get is twisted to the left. I just don’t know how much more we can take before we destroy ourselves, the Chinese must be smiling.
I also find it incredibly distrubing that there is an active element of the elite liberal press doing everything possible to assure an American defeat because of an outright hatered of President Bush. I am sure there were elements in this country that disagreed with FDR but I doubt these people actively worked to help Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo. How can these people live with themselves? I am really just beside myself and can’t comprehend all the BS.
GOP: Iraq Showdown
I nostri soldati sono sotto attacco. Non possiamo permetterci di mandare segnali ambigui. Con queste parole, il congressman dell’Arizona, J.D. Hayworth, ha lanciato il guanto di sfida repubblicano agli avversari democratici, obbligandoli a prendere…
Dan, I share your frustration, but what can you do? We’ve got to tough it out…this has been a very discouraging year on many fronts…still, the fight is out there waiting for us…hang in there…
“Plus ça change…” Wasn’t it in the mid 19th century when one congressman beat another into a coma over the fugitive slave law or something? Let’s get some of that old time civil discourse going, have it on C-Span and show it opposite whatever that WB Friday Night Free For All is.
The rhetoric isn’t any worse – it’s just more mediatised than ever before.
Bebere, you’re right. Rep. Preston Brooks of S.C. beat Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with his cane on the floor of the Senate. How far are we from such a spectacle today. Well, maybe still pretty far, since I can’t picture any of these Congresscritters doing anything that required them to get their hands dirty, but I don’t think we’re all that far from extremists calling for political violence and getting some lunatic to heed their call.
Mark, I agree with you on what Murtha had to say. I watched some of his speech and while the talk of wounded soldiers is always moving, it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand. There were a lot more wounded soldiers in World War II; did those wounds make the war not worth fighting? I mean, if you’re against the war, one soldier with a paper cut is presumably more wounds than you think are worth it. It’s not as if there’s some magic number.
They represent us. We elect them, in part, with expectations that they will be above this petty fighting and name calling, focused, instead, on a dispassionate analysis and discussion of the issues of the day. We offer them respect in return for voting their conscience when the time to vote arrives. They are all to blame, both those that started the pettiness and cheap political tricks and those that allowed themselves to be baited and goaded by such childish antics. Shame on them all.
Dennis – you’re absolutely right on that. The problem with all this coverage is that it may well call some violent people into action. To be honest, I’m surprised that, given the level of bile I’ve seen against him, that no one’s tried to take a shot at the President. (Or some NARAL fringer pull a reverse John Salvi on Alito.)
Too Many Steves: I wonder how many end up representing us because so many are so lazy-disaffected-whatever to go to the polls. I live in MA and the only person I could honestly pull the lever for was Romney a couple years back. Generally, since all they can find who’re crazy enough to run (on the senate side of things) against Kerry or Kennedy is some twitching Green or whacked out independent. I won’t not vote, but often I’ll leave the ballot blank if I don’t want *anybody* in. (Which is what happened this year.)
too many steves said:
“They represent us. We elect them, in part, with expectations that they will be above this petty fighting and name calling, focused, instead, on a dispassionate analysis and discussion of the issues of the day.”
You’re expecting too much from them. They’re a cross section of typical men and women, with one notable exception: the passion for politics that led them to run for office in the first place. And that passion is going erupt sometimes, and it will get nasty. Even term limits, which I’m certain is only way to get the institutional corruption under control, won’t change that.
Sadly I have to agree – I guess I’m just clinging to an unrealistic ideal (or does that make it a fantasy).
bebere: I am a lifelong resident of MA and a conservative leaning type who almost always arrives at the polls to discoverer I have no one to vote for.
Hinchey voted “present?” That’s my former congressman … I’m so proud! (Take a look at NY’s 22nd district some time … talk about gerrymandering!)
What about Barbara Lee, my current congresswoman?
Did she vote “no?” Ye gods!