House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told colleagues at a closed meeting yesterday morning that she, too, would advocate an immediate troop withdrawal, according to several who attended. But by day's end, Pelosi -- a liberal who has sharply criticized Bush's handling of the war -- chose merely to praise Murtha and say he deserved to have "his day."
Murtha's Democratic colleagues reacted warily to his remarks, while Republicans pounced [on Murtha]. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said, "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position."
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1992, Cheney said: “If we’d gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein — assuming we could have found him — we’d have had to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace…Then you’ve got to put a new government in his place, and then you’re faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shia government or a Sunni government?” Mr. Cheney continued. “How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of this operation?” [New York Times, 12/16/03]
History will remember neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney kindly. -- Clevershark
The resolution allowing Bush I's attack on Iraq didn't get nearly as many votes as Bush II's, and Hussein annexed a whole fucking country the first time.
The big difference between our current president and his father is that the first President Bush put off the debate over the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm elections. The result was one of most substantive and honest foreign policy debates Congress has ever seen, and a unified nation. The first President Bush was scrupulous about keeping petty partisanship out of the discussion.
The current President Bush did the opposite. He pressured Congress for a vote before the 2002 election, and the war resolution passed in October.
The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.
"If anyone can say definitively whether Congress receives the 'same intelligence' as the White House on the most sensitive national security issues, it is long-time U.S. intelligence czar Richard Clarke.
He set the record straight on the popular White House talking point last night on the Daily Show, pointing out that Bush officials had access to reams of raw prewar intelligence data that Congress never saw nor had the opportunity to verify:'What happened was that Congress got the finished intelligence that said these things. They didn’t see all the details. … They don’t get the raw information. They don’t get the [forged documents purportedly showing Iraq sought uranium in Africa]; they get the answer, you know — "the uranium going from…" — but they don’t get the information that it’s based on.'"
'What happened was that Congress got the finished intelligence that said these things. They didn’t see all the details. … They don’t get the raw information. They don’t get the [forged documents purportedly showing Iraq sought uranium in Africa]; they get the answer, you know — "the uranium going from…" — but they don’t get the information that it’s based on.'"
Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005
MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on _______
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it
I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
2. Congress assembled,
4. Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5. hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
7. Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines
8. shall be deployed in the region.
9. Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10. through diplomacy.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
202-225-2065 / telephone
« Older "May you be like a lamp: hang by day, burn by nigh... | Bloggingheads TV.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt