thedrifter
06-18-06, 10:39 AM
"We've Become the Enemy"
Posted By Blackfive
That's what Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) said in the halls of Congress.
It's almost unbelievable that a former Marine and Congressman would say such rhetoric.
What would troops in Iraq think upon hearing those words?
There's been a lot of traffic on the military email and web site nets about holding a mock trial for Murtha to remove his Marine title.
I don't know what good that would do, but I do know part of the antidote for John Murtha's anti-military, anti-victory stance...
Posted on Sat, Jun. 17, 2006
House resolves to back Bush’s policies in Iraq
1st extended debate on war since ’02
By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington
Washington Post
WASHINGTON – The House on Friday voted 256-153 to back President Bush’s policies in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate that saw Republicans try to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.
Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join Republicans and declare that the United States must complete “the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq” without setting “an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment” of U.S. troops.
Three Republicans – Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, John Duncan Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Leach of Iowa – joined 149 Democrats and one independent to oppose the resolution. Five others – three Democrats and two Republicans – voted present in protest.
Public opinion polls continue to show the Iraq war is deeply unpopular, even in the wake of the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But, convinced they cannot avoid the issue in an election year, Republicans tried to put Democrats on the defensive with the first extended debate on the war since Congress authorized the use of force nearly four years ago.
House Republicans sought to frame the conflict in the broadest possible terms, linking it to not only the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war on terrorism but also to what they saw as the Clinton administration’s repeated failures to act after terrorist attacks in the 1990s.
“The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to destroy our American way of life. Will we fight or will we retreat?” asked House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. “Let me be clear: Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing more than wrong. This is a war of necessity.”
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the question before the House was whether “the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California countered: “Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are distinct … and efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women fighting in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Ramadi.”
“We’ve become the enemy. We’ve given a microphone to people like Zarqawi,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. “We support the troops. It’s the policy we don’t support.”
For much of the past four years, House Republicans have avoided serious debate on Iraq. The Senate, not the House, held hearings on prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison. The Senate, not the House, descended into bitter debate last year over an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to ban torture at U.S. detention facilities. And the Senate, not the House, pushed into law a measure declaring 2006 a “year of significant transition” in Iraq.
But with midterm elections less than five months away, House leaders – driven in part by dissenting voices in their party – decided their members needed to engage the Iraq issue directly.
“I think all members are going to have to express themselves on this issue as the year goes on. There is no way of avoiding it,” Boehner said.
But Republicans wanted to air it out under the most favorable circumstances, debating a leadership-tailored resolution over 10 hours that would not be subject to amendment and would not face competing policy statements. By drafting a resolution that supported U.S. troops, emphasized triumphing over terrorism and called for victory in Iraq, GOP leaders had constructed a measure that was “hard not to support,” said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.
After the vote, Republicans crowed that they had held ranks while highlighting Democratic division.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said that “we are pleased that 42 Democrats defied their leadership and stood with House Republicans to support both our troops and their mission to win the global war on terror.”
The 42 Democrats were mostly Southerners and members in swing districts, but they included a few surprises, such as Reps. Howard Berman of suburban Los Angeles and Stephen Lynch of Boston.
But the Democratic defections were about half the 81 who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force, an indication, some said, that the potency of the issue is defusing even in swing districts.
Hawkish Democrats who voted for the invasion, such as Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and Harold Ford Jr., a candidate for Tennessee’s open Senate seat, felt free to vote against the resolution.
Ellie
Posted By Blackfive
That's what Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) said in the halls of Congress.
It's almost unbelievable that a former Marine and Congressman would say such rhetoric.
What would troops in Iraq think upon hearing those words?
There's been a lot of traffic on the military email and web site nets about holding a mock trial for Murtha to remove his Marine title.
I don't know what good that would do, but I do know part of the antidote for John Murtha's anti-military, anti-victory stance...
Posted on Sat, Jun. 17, 2006
House resolves to back Bush’s policies in Iraq
1st extended debate on war since ’02
By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington
Washington Post
WASHINGTON – The House on Friday voted 256-153 to back President Bush’s policies in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate that saw Republicans try to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.
Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join Republicans and declare that the United States must complete “the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq” without setting “an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment” of U.S. troops.
Three Republicans – Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, John Duncan Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Leach of Iowa – joined 149 Democrats and one independent to oppose the resolution. Five others – three Democrats and two Republicans – voted present in protest.
Public opinion polls continue to show the Iraq war is deeply unpopular, even in the wake of the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But, convinced they cannot avoid the issue in an election year, Republicans tried to put Democrats on the defensive with the first extended debate on the war since Congress authorized the use of force nearly four years ago.
House Republicans sought to frame the conflict in the broadest possible terms, linking it to not only the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war on terrorism but also to what they saw as the Clinton administration’s repeated failures to act after terrorist attacks in the 1990s.
“The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to destroy our American way of life. Will we fight or will we retreat?” asked House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. “Let me be clear: Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing more than wrong. This is a war of necessity.”
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the question before the House was whether “the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California countered: “Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are distinct … and efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women fighting in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Ramadi.”
“We’ve become the enemy. We’ve given a microphone to people like Zarqawi,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. “We support the troops. It’s the policy we don’t support.”
For much of the past four years, House Republicans have avoided serious debate on Iraq. The Senate, not the House, held hearings on prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison. The Senate, not the House, descended into bitter debate last year over an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to ban torture at U.S. detention facilities. And the Senate, not the House, pushed into law a measure declaring 2006 a “year of significant transition” in Iraq.
But with midterm elections less than five months away, House leaders – driven in part by dissenting voices in their party – decided their members needed to engage the Iraq issue directly.
“I think all members are going to have to express themselves on this issue as the year goes on. There is no way of avoiding it,” Boehner said.
But Republicans wanted to air it out under the most favorable circumstances, debating a leadership-tailored resolution over 10 hours that would not be subject to amendment and would not face competing policy statements. By drafting a resolution that supported U.S. troops, emphasized triumphing over terrorism and called for victory in Iraq, GOP leaders had constructed a measure that was “hard not to support,” said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.
After the vote, Republicans crowed that they had held ranks while highlighting Democratic division.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said that “we are pleased that 42 Democrats defied their leadership and stood with House Republicans to support both our troops and their mission to win the global war on terror.”
The 42 Democrats were mostly Southerners and members in swing districts, but they included a few surprises, such as Reps. Howard Berman of suburban Los Angeles and Stephen Lynch of Boston.
But the Democratic defections were about half the 81 who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force, an indication, some said, that the potency of the issue is defusing even in swing districts.
Hawkish Democrats who voted for the invasion, such as Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and Harold Ford Jr., a candidate for Tennessee’s open Senate seat, felt free to vote against the resolution.
Ellie