House Democrats Embarassed

[Shady]

Iraq withdrawal handily defeated

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal

CNN

They like to talk the talk, but when it comes to actually voting the way they supposedly feel, they fold like a house of cards.

[Riverwind]

They like to talk the talk, but when it comes to actually voting the way they supposedly feel, they fold like a house of cards.

Even I think an immediate troop withdrawl is a dumb idea. I don't see how voting for a sensible withdrawal plan means the Democrats 'folded'.

[tml12]

They like to talk the talk, but when it comes to actually voting the way they supposedly feel, they fold like a house of cards.

Even I think an immediate troop withdrawl is a dumb idea. I don't see how voting for a sensible withdrawal plan means the Democrats 'folded'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed.

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer. If anything, the Democrats seem more united behind this reality after the vote.

[Shakeyhands]

Iraq withdrawal handily defeated

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal

CNN

They like to talk the talk, but when it comes to actually voting the way they supposedly feel, they fold like a house of cards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why am I not surprised that the Right have again twisted facts?

[Black Dog]

Right-wingers don't even read the articles they post.

The House late 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.

...

Democrats said it was a political stunt and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.

"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

What's more, the original resolution itself did not call for an immediate withdrawl.

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

link

The G.O.P deleted the lengthy preamble and changed the text to read, simply:

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

Link.

[Shady]

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her.

[Riverwind]

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her.

Sorry, supporting her protest does not mean agreeing with every statement that comes out of her mouth.

[Black Dog]

Still can't face up to your own dishonesty, eh Shady?

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer.

Well, depends on the question, doesn't it?

[tml12]

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am referring to realistic people in government, not people like Cindy Sheehan.

[Black Dog]

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am referring to realistic people in government, not people like Cindy Sheehan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Pentagon is already planning on pulling out 60,000 troops after the new parliment sits in January.

Can anyone tell me why pulling out immediately would make the situation any worse in the long run?

[moderateamericain]

No one really believes that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am referring to realistic people in government, not people like Cindy Sheehan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Pentagon is already planning on pulling out 60,000 troops after the new parliment sits in January.

Can anyone tell me why pulling out immediately would make the situation any worse in the long run?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will step up to that plate. In order to show why pulling out immediatley would create chaos in iraq. you have to look at other situations when "the law" was removed from an area. Take a look at the LA riots for instance. When the LAPD pulled out of Watts, a notable ghetto in LA and the center point for just about every riot ever in LA. The people in that area went nuts. The worst rioting and burning was done when the LA police pulled out to regroup and organize. As they pushed back into that area of the city the rioting dwelled down to nothing, "the law" had re-established dominance in that party of the city. Now take a country like Iraq, where you have people that have showing a willingness to kill even those that profess to sympathize with them. Now pull out the standing "law", what do you think is going to happen? A lot of innocent people who want nothing more to rebuild their country are going to die. The iraqui government has to develop and enfore laws and a sizable police force to combat any remaining terrorist there. Im willing to bet, that even afte we leave, they will still be a constant threat of terrorism in that country.

[Black Dog]

I will step up to that plate. In order to show why pulling out immediatley would create chaos in iraq. you have to look at other situations when "the law" was removed from an area. Take a look at the LA riots for instance. When the LAPD pulled out of Watts, a notable ghetto in LA and the center point for just about every riot ever in LA. The people in that area went nuts. The worst rioting and burning was done when the LA police pulled out to regroup and organize. As they pushed back into that area of the city the rioting dwelled down to nothing, "the law" had re-established dominance in that party of the city.

But are the American forces really contributing much to the security situation? Every day, we read of another suicide bomber, another ambush. Now, we're starting to hear of Iraqi Government death squads and torture facilities. Now, the argument could be made that an American withdrawl would lead to a full-scale armed civil war, versus the under the table one that's going on right now, but I'm not convinced taht's a good thing. As I said, curently the Sunis kill the Shiites under the guise of fighting the occupation while the Shiites and Kurds are exacting revenge on the Sunnis unde rth eguise of counterinsurgency. If the American prescene is in fact, preventing the mess from boling over, they are only delaying a inevitable (and some might say necessary) step in Iraq's post-Ba'athist development.

The iraqui government has to develop and enfore laws and a sizable police force to combat any remaining terrorist there. Im willing to bet, that even afte we leave, they will still be a constant threat of terrorism in that country.

You're labouring under the misaprehension that being "Iraqi" is important. It's not. Tribal, religious and sectarian loyalties trump natinolist ideas everytime. Look at the constitution which, as it stands, divides the country into semi-autonomous regions, with the Sunni minority being left out in the cold. Like I've said before, viewing the mess as the struggles of a nascent democracy is hopelessly idealistic. What we're seeing is a winner-take-all scramble for the remenants of the imperialist creation dubbed "Iraq" (1932-2003).

(Now, personally, I believe the bulheadedness on the part of the U.S. vis a vis withdrawl are motivated more by concerns over who might swoop in to fill the vacumn they would leave behind. I don't think they are going anywhere.)

[moderateamericain]

I will step up to that plate. In order to show why pulling out immediatley would create chaos in iraq. you have to look at other situations when "the law" was removed from an area. Take a look at the LA riots for instance. When the LAPD pulled out of Watts, a notable ghetto in LA and the center point for just about every riot ever in LA. The people in that area went nuts. The worst rioting and burning was done when the LA police pulled out to regroup and organize. As they pushed back into that area of the city the rioting dwelled down to nothing, "the law" had re-established dominance in that party of the city.

But are the American forces really contributing much to the security situation? Every day, we read of another suicide bomber, another ambush. Now, we're starting to hear of Iraqi Government death squads and torture facilities. Now, the argument could be made that an American withdrawl would lead to a full-scale armed civil war, versus the under the table one that's going on right now, but I'm not convinced taht's a good thing. As I said, curently the Sunis kill the Shiites under the guise of fighting the occupation while the Shiites and Kurds are exacting revenge on the Sunnis unde rth eguise of counterinsurgency. If the American prescene is in fact, preventing the mess from boling over, they are only delaying a inevitable (and some might say necessary) step in Iraq's post-Ba'athist development.

The iraqui government has to develop and enfore laws and a sizable police force to combat any remaining terrorist there. Im willing to bet, that even afte we leave, they will still be a constant threat of terrorism in that country.

You're labouring under the misaprehension that being "Iraqi" is important. It's not. Tribal, religious and sectarian loyalties trump natinolist ideas everytime. Look at the constitution which, as it stands, divides the country into semi-autonomous regions, with the Sunni minority being left out in the cold. Like I've said before, viewing the mess as the struggles of a nascent democracy is hopelessly idealistic. What we're seeing is a winner-take-all scramble for the remenants of the imperialist creation dubbed "Iraq" (1932-2003).

(Now, personally, I believe the bulheadedness on the part of the U.S. vis a vis withdrawl are motivated more by concerns over who might swoop in to fill the vacumn they would leave behind. I don't think they are going anywhere.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

fair enough. I see what your saying especially about the tribal and religious loyalties. I wasnt thinking in the shoes of an iraqi. see in America we think "im an american" not "im a caucausian" or "im a north carolinian" or im a "christian" we just simply say yep im american. But in iraq, and i think you hit it on the head, they are much more divided. Maybe the democracy will fail, i really dont know, but i assure you that we will find out when and if American troops do pull out. But put yourself into the shoes, you have essentialy invaded a country. Do you A. trash it and leave. B. trash it and try and fix it. and dont say "i wouldnt have gone there in the first place" because we already know how you feel about it. So we have a big mess now, and we can either leave it or attempt to clean it up. One thing i do know, suicide bombers and death squads are not going to get us to leave any sooner.

[Black Dog]

Maybe the democracy will fail, i really dont know, but i assure you that we will find out when and if American troops do pull out. But put yourself into the shoes, you have essentialy invaded a country. Do you A. trash it and leave. B. trash it and try and fix it. and dont say "i wouldnt have gone there in the first place" because we already know how you feel about it. So we have a big mess now, and we can either leave it or attempt to clean it up.  One thing i do know, suicide bombers and death squads are not going to get us to leave any sooner.

I keep saying that the problem here is a political one, so the prescence or lack of 160,000 U.S. troops has little bearing on its resolution. It seems to me that the U.S. has been bungling the diplomatic side almost as bad as they've bungled the operational side. The wholesale dimissal of the Iraqi army, the new government's rabid commitment to deBaathification, and the wholesale corruption that has emerged are all grave missteps that have contribute dto the dismal econiomic and security situation. If the U.S. is serious about a stable, self-sufficient and democratic Iraq, it needs to start acting like more of a facilitator, rather than a imperial proconsul. That means making serious overtures to the Sunni factions to convince them that a civil war is not in their best interests while curbing the ambitons of the Kurds and Shiites. So, in actuality, I think a withdrawl of a large number of U.S. troops would send the message that they are serious about helping to find a political solution.

[moderateamericain]

Maybe the democracy will fail, i really dont know, but i assure you that we will find out when and if American troops do pull out. But put yourself into the shoes, you have essentialy invaded a country. Do you A. trash it and leave. B. trash it and try and fix it. and dont say "i wouldnt have gone there in the first place" because we already know how you feel about it. So we have a big mess now, and we can either leave it or attempt to clean it up.  One thing i do know, suicide bombers and death squads are not going to get us to leave any sooner.

I keep saying that the problem here is a political one, so the prescence or lack of 160,000 U.S. troops has little bearing on its resolution. It seems to me that the U.S. has been bungling the diplomatic side almost as bad as they've bungled the operational side. The wholesale dimissal of the Iraqi army, the new government's rabid commitment to deBaathification, and the wholesale corruption that has emerged are all grave missteps that have contribute dto the dismal econiomic and security situation. If the U.S. is serious about a stable, self-sufficient and democratic Iraq, it needs to start acting like more of a facilitator, rather than a imperial proconsul. That means making serious overtures to the Sunni factions to convince them that a civil war is not in their best interests while curbing the ambitons of the Kurds and Shiites. So, in actuality, I think a withdrawl of a large number of U.S. troops would send the message that they are serious about helping to find a political solution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ill give you that.

[Shady]

The blood will be on the hands of the cowards who want an immediate pull-out from Iraq, just as the blood is on the same type of people who fought for the kind of pull-out we saw in Vietnam, and what happened? 2 million people slaughtered.

[Guest eureka]

So Murtha is a coward!

[BHS]

Perhaps the December elections will make this entire discussion moot. I mean, maybe the new Iraqi government will request that the Americans leave. I doubt it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I mean, maybe the new Iraqi government will request that the Americans leave. I doubt it.

I doubt it too. Both the Afghanistan and Iraqi 'gov'ts' woudn't last a week without US military presence, at least for now. The US is hoping to train a 'proxy army' to rule the country, as they (the US) wishes it to be, but in their stead. Haven't they read a single history book? If the US' current approach actually worked, we probably would all still be speaking Latin.

[Black Dog]

The blood will be on the hands of the cowards who want an immediate pull-out from Iraq, just as the blood is on the same type of people who fought for the kind of pull-out we saw in Vietnam, and what happened? 2 million people slaughtered.

Blah blah blah. Are you aware that the 2 million figure for Vietnamese casulaties covers the entire period of American intervention? In other words that includes people killed by B-52s as well as the V.C. or P.A.N.V. But then, I expect such intellectual rigor is beyond you. You're a mere sloganeer (for instance, you still haven't addressed the issue of the bogus, Republican-altered resolution that you were crowing about in the first place.)

[Shady]

Are you aware that the 2 million figure for Vietnamese casulaties covers the entire period of American intervention?

Actually, it doesn't.

FACT

Four months after the Democrats cut off aid to Cambodia and Vietnam in Jaunary 1975, both regimes fell to the Communist armies. Within three years the Communist victors had slaughtered two and a half million peasants in the Indo-Chinese peninsula

STOP LYING!

[Black Dog]

Source?

Four months after the Democrats cut off aid to Cambodia and Vietnam in Jaunary 1975, both regimes fell to the Communist armies. Within three years the Communist victors had slaughtered two and a half million peasants in the Indo-Chinese peninsula

Uh...how does including Cambodia support your contention that the U.S. withdrawl was responsible for all those deaths when there was no significant U.S. prescence in that country?

Cambodia, you'll recall, was taken over by the Khmer Rouge, who were responsile for as many as 2 million deaths, which would account for the majority of the casualties between the two countries. The Khmer Rouge, contrary to what the above statement suggests, were not afiliated with the North Vitnemese Communists.

So, once again, you are wrong.

The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, reporting that 1.1 million fighters—Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers—and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and the south were killed between 1954 and 1975. Other figures run as high as 4 million civilian casualties with 1 million casualties being NVA or VC fighters. Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million. The number of wounded fighters was put at 600,000. It remains even more unclear how many Vietnamese civilians were wounded.

-wikipedia

[Black Dog]

Iraqi leaders call for pull out timetable

Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right'' of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

[moderateamericain]

Are you aware that the 2 million figure for Vietnamese casulaties covers the entire period of American intervention?

Actually, it doesn't.

FACT

Four months after the Democrats cut off aid to Cambodia and Vietnam in Jaunary 1975, both regimes fell to the Communist armies. Within three years the Communist victors had slaughtered two and a half million peasants in the Indo-Chinese peninsula

STOP LYING!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

another thing to add to this, didnt the vietmanese get into a rather bloody war shortly their after with china?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I mean, maybe the new Iraqi government will request that the Americans leave. I doubt it.

I realize Black Dog has already posted one link about this, but here is another 'official' source...(the Pentagon)

from...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...51122-voa02.htm

Pentagon: Politics Will Not be Factor in Iraq Withdrawal Recommendations

By Al Pessin

Pentagon

22 November 2005

Iraqi leaders meeting in Cairo Monday called for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, a demand that coincides with similar calls from some members of the U.S. congress. But U.S. officials continue to say any such withdrawal will be based on conditions in Iraq, not on political considerations or artificial timetables.

Speaking from Iraq, the second ranking U.S. commander in the country, Lieutenant General John Vines, said the statement issued in Cairo will not affect his recommendation on U.S. troop levels after the Iraqi elections scheduled for December 15.

So, in effect Iraq has asked, and have been told by the US... "No, we will decide, and further, what you may want will have no bearing on what we decide to do". (Note that this already discounts whatever may happen in the December elections)