Rep Murtha and Iraq

K

K80Geoff

New member
I spent most of Friday afternoon and evening watching the U S House circus on TV (C span)

Most of you folks by now have heard about the House voting down a resolution callinf for troop withdrawa from Iraq.

Like many I am puzzled why the House would get into this Brouhaha now. Why did Murtha, normally a hawk and a decorated veteran, call for troop withdrawan now at tis time?

Watching the debate, and the nastiness and praise spewed by the Reps, it seemed to me a waste of time and effort for a vote that was obviously going to fail.

I was pleased when the resolution was voted down, but this morning it hit me why they went through this circus and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ (Shouting intentional)

They voted themselves a pay raise, almost unnoticed, this week!!!!

After the ruckus the Pennsylvania legislature created after their pay raise caused a huge backlash and cost a judge his job, they did not want the same problems!!! And Murtha is fron PA!!!

Politicians amaze me with their cleverness.

Damn them all!!!:mad:
 
Keep in mind that the proposal that was actually voted on was sponsored by the Republicans, not the Dems. The news articles keep "forgetting" to mention that fact.
It is all a big circus but it's designed to lay blame for Iraq, not cover up a raise.
These politicians work my nerves :mad:
 
Here's a short film I put together :D

"Iraq War Debate"
A GoSlash27 production

Bill Pullman

Peter Cushing

Fade-in to Senate floor

id4.jpg

For God's sake man get our people OUT OF THERE!!!

grand_moff_tarkin-0.jpg

Evacuate?!? In our moment of triumph???

Fade to black

Democrat: Bill Pullman
Republican: Peter Cushing
Directed by: GoSlash27

:D
 
Finally, the republicans are acting like the majority party for a change!

The issue is simple. The democrats were positioning themselves for the 2006 elections by lying their asses off about what's going on in Iraq, and lying about Bush and WMD.

So the republicans held a vote, and the democrats could choose to either vote their supposed conscience, or vote for the proper policy as charted out by the president.

And the democrats caved big time. Now when the elections roll around, this issue cannot be used for their shameless propaganda. It's a huge victory for the republicans, which is why the liberal/left is whining so much about it.
 
Thank you gentlemen, you validated my observation.

With the deficit climbing, huge bills for disaster relief/cleanup and regular folks suffering because of high gas/oil/natl gas prices, the politicians slipped a pay raise for themselves in under the radar by focusing attention elsewhere.

Damn they are good!
 
Please elaborate. What exactly were they lying about and how do you know they were lying?
Click to expand...
They are lying:
1) That we're losing the war. We are not, it's a test of wills at this point, and the liberal/left are doing their best to sap our will. We cannot lose unless we let ourselves lose. And the liberal/left would rather see Iraq fall under the control of the terrorists rather then see Bush's policy succeed.

2) They are lying when they say that Bush "lied" about WMD. All the intelligence pointed to Saddam having WMD, and all the leading democrats who saw the intelligence came to the same conclusion. That now they're claim that Bush lied is rediculous.

3) That Bush "rushed" to war. Saddam had ten years to comply with UN resolutions, and Bush gave him another 14 months to comply "or else". Saddam chose "or else". 14 months is not a "rush", it also gave Saddam plenty of time to hide or ship to Syria any WMD stockpiles he might have had.

4) That Bush and/or his administration are profiting from the war. Not one shred of evidence has been produced to show that any administration official has made so much as a dollar on the war, yet the liberal/left still keeps repeating it's a war for oil.
 
the politicians slipped a pay raise for themselves in under the radar by focusing attention elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So what? In the big picture, a pay raise amounts to nothing, chump change. We're in a war, to focus on minor nonsense like that is a needless distraction.
 
What else are they distracting us from? Gun bans, etc.? Makes you think doesn't it.
Click to expand...
No, not really. The last gun ban, in San Fransico, has had plenty of attention, even right here on these boards.
 
Well you obviously didn't know about the pay raise?
And what do you mean "They who?". Who the hell have we been talking about this whole time.
 
Rebar, Point #1 I obviously disagree. And while I believe that 'staying the course' is preferable to 'cut and run' I don't believe that either party wants to win this war. I want to win this war. Here's a test if you care to prove your point.
Find me a positive analysis of the current direction of the war on a website that's not advertising "Bush Gear" at the end of the story.

Point #2 Remains to be proven 1 way or the other, but from the record it is clear that the analysis the Senate saw was definitely skewed. The 9/11 commission was very clear on that point. This may or may not have been the fault of the Bush administration. There is a bipartisan commission currently looking into it and Fitzgerald is unraveling it at the edges.
I suspect that the intel that Bush saw actually was the same bad intel that the Senate got. But I think that his people were the ones that did the lying to both him and the Senate.
Whoever it was, I would like to point out that *I* knew it was a load of bullsh*t at the time and if I knew it all of those politicians should have known as well. It's their job. And any bellyaching from the libs at this point is to cover the fact that they rolled over when they were supposed to be fighting.

Point #3 is strictly partisan kool-aid. The Senators were on record loud and clear that they were authorizing use of force ->only<- with the expectation that it would be used diplomatically through the U.N. The statements are in the Congressional record. So was Bush wrong to cross the UN? No. But he was wrong to create a power vacuum there without putting any thought into how it was to be filled.

Point#4 What about Cheney's Halliburton stock options?
Look....I do not believe the 'war for oil' nonsense, but I can understand why a peacenik librul would. I think some of 'em honestly believe that whether or not it's actually true, just as I think that Dubya honestly believed that the WMDs were real.

I can see that you are very heavily influenced by one party's propaganda and that there's no point in dissuading you from it. That makes you (sorry to say) just another parrot. The left has their parrots too, so you merely offset their noise with your own.
To the same end, there's no point in you peddling your kool-aid to me. I do my own research and draw my own conclusions. I frankly think your sources are liars.
 
LOL, K80Geoff, they still aren't getting the point. Look at 'em go.:D
Click to expand...
Who's not getting the point...

The bring-the-troops-home resolution wasn't a smokescreen for allowing the Congressional pay raise. Unfortunately, the members of Congress are shameless enough to allow the pay raise to go through without a smokescreen; they just rely on confusing the public with technicalities. One house of Congress votes down the pay raise, while the other house drops the issue by claiming it was a necessary behind-closed-doors compromise to clear the way for a "must pass" budget bill.

It is really incredible what the Congress rammed through in the last few days. How about the spending-cuts bill? Of course, any savings from that bill were more than offset by the tax-cut bill. It's a win-win for Congresscritters, who can claim both cutting spending AND cutting taxes. The math doesn't exactly work, but it sure seems to make a lot of voters happy. At any rate, even those big-ticket items don't need a smokescreen - they just get lost in the landslide of stuff that gets approved at the very end of a session.

The bring-the-troops-home thing was an entirely separate issue. The Democrats had been quiet about the war for a long time, but began ramping up the rhetoric weeks ago to build to a peak during the Congressional recesses and holidays. That would give them a talking base from which to deal with voters while back in their districts. (1-0, advantage Democrats) Even though they waited a long time, I think the Republicans surprised the Democrats by finally responding vigorously. (1-1, tied) So, on Thursday, the Democrats tossed a grenade on the floor in the form of the bring-the-troops-home resolution to redefine the debate on their terms. (2-1, advantage Democrats) The Republicans turned the resolution back on the Democrats by forcing a quick vote on the central issue - stay and win or cut and run. (2-2, tied, or maybe even extra style points for advantage Republicans)
 
Pop Quiz

QUESTION
Which of these folks agreed with President Bush about the WMD's and supported military action against Iraq?
A) Sen. Kerry
B) Sen. Clinton
C) Bill Clinton
D) PM Blair
E) All the above.
 
I suspect that the intel that Bush saw actually was the same bad intel that the Senate got. But I think that his people were the ones that did the lying to both him and the Senate.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. But who was lying to the British, the French, the Russians, the Germans, the Israelis and the Saudis?:confused: ALL of these seperate nations intellegence agencies believed Saddam had WMD's.

Whoever it was, I would like to point out that *I* knew it was a load of bullsh*t at the time and if I knew it all of those politicians should have known as well.
Click to expand...

I guess we should just disband the CIA and let you handle all intellegence matters then.:rolleyes:

Point#4 What about Cheney's Halliburton stock options?
Look....I do not believe the 'war for oil' nonsense, but I can understand why a peacenik librul would.
Click to expand...

The "peacenik librul" probably believes it because they (and apparently you too) don't know that VP Cheney divested ALL of his Halliburton holdings prior to taking office in 2003!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top