A Pathetic Congress

[bemildred]

Also in Editorials.

If It Walks Like a Withdrawal Resolution, and Talks Like One, Then Why Won't You Vote For It?

By RON JACOBS

---

Although Murtha's call angered some Republicans, it also made Democrats very nervous. Not only was it a member of the party's right wing that was demanding a withdrawal, he was calling for an immediate withdrawal--a demand made by the antiwar movement's more radical sections. This wasn't some nebulous demand for a withdrawal sometime in the future, nor was it a call for a talk about maybe withdrawing some troops some time in the future. It wasn't a call to replace US troops with NATO troops, either. It was a demand that a redeployment of US troops in Iraq begin immediately. Sure, there was a subsection of the resolution that would station a rapid reaction force "over the hill" just in case the client government in Baghdad needed US assistance to keep its tenuous grip on the country, but the words that mattered to the US media and the members of Congress were the words "immediate withdrawal."

So, that was the setting for Friday's big showdown at the Capitol Building corral. In what Democrats called an attempt to call their bluff and, essentially, put them on record as being against the war, the GOP introduced its own resolution echoing Murtha's. This freaked out the Democrats. All of a sudden they were going to have to take a stand. Were they against the war or were they for the war? The vote would come before everyone went home for the US Thanksgiving holiday. How would it go? Well, let me put it this way: The Democrats didn't vote for immediate withdrawal. In what can only be labeled a classic exercise in Orwellian doublespeak and political chicanery, the Democratic leadership called the GOP resolution a "political stunt" and voted against the resolution demanding withdrawal.

Now, excuse me if I don't get it, but it seems to me that if one is against the war and wants to see an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, then one votes for immediate withdrawal, no matter who sponsors the legislation. Only Cynthia McKinney (GA), Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) agreed with this approach and voted for the resolution (and for immediate withdrawal). Six other Congressional members voted present and the other 403 voted to continue the war in Iraq as is. This may have been a political trick by the GOP, who may have hoped to get some Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal and thereby paint them into some corner with Saddam Hussein or the phantom al-Zarqawi come election time in the hope that a war-weary public might start supporting the war again. Instead, what the GOP got was an overwhelming vote for the war--a vote that they can also use to their advantage come election time when Democratic candidates attack the same war that they are to chickenshit to genuinely oppose.

CounterPunch

[occuserpens]

1. Reduction to absurdity

This looks like reduction to absurdity. What happened is that Colonel Murtha suggested semantically reasonable language for the withdrawal resolution: "forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date... A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region". GOP, instead of discussing (and rejecting) this text, reduced it to absurdity: "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately" - which was naturally rejected.
The tragedy is, semantic manipulations like this are typical, their purpose is to make any reasonable discussion impossible. Instead, we have hysterical rhetoric and farcical "staged withdrawal plans": remove X1 troops by date D1, X2 troops by date D2, etc. The trick is, this "planning" infuriates military professionals by its obvious incompetence - and liberals get their label "weak on security".

Juan Cole. Straw Man Resolution in Congress http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/straw-man-resolution-in-congress.html

[ClassWarrior]

2. Murtha called for a responsible and realistic withdrawl. RepubliCONs...

...thought they could trap Dems into supporting an irresponsible and unrealistic one. It must be a bitch to learn that not everyone is as one-dimensional as them.

NGU.

[David Briggs]

3. I agree with this editorial.

403 votes for the U.S. war in Iraq. That's the bottom line.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Then you're not paying attention.

NGU.

[Maggie_May]

6. Like the response you

gave number 3. I agree he or she is not paying attention. What was done on the Congress floor did not solve anything. We will eventually have to pull out. The cost of this war and the wear and tear on our arm serves is starting to show. We must debate this in a civil way. It did nothing and everyone knows that. The big question is how long can we stay the course as we are getting picked off 1 by 1. How much more money can we dump into this Nation building before we go broke. These are reasonable questions.

[bemildred]

5. Addendum, an exit plan:

Let me just say something about how to withdraw. This is my plan. Hey, if Tom Hayden is qualified to write up exit strategies, why not an old grunt like me, eh?

The Plan: The National Command Authority orders all US forces redeployed out of Iraq within one month and out of the theater in two months. Any commander that fails to meet the deadline will be summarily relieved, and replaced with a commander that will thereby be placed on a shorter timeline. I can promise anyone who has no experience of the military that this is perfectly feasible, and that with that kind of command emphasis, the mission can and will be accomplished.

Here, of course, is where we discern the liberal pre-occupation (pun intended) with "overseeing" disengagement and other such poppycock. Oh Gasp! they will delcare. What then will become of these simple-minded brown people who want nothing more than to drink each other's blood? At the end of the day, a liberal can be every bit as much the white nationalist as any rock-ribbed Republican Confederate. They really believe that the United States is the beacon of civilization because we have sitcoms and theme parks, and that the brutality of the US military occupation is an aberration -- the antithesis of our true nature. Under all this verbiage is plain, Anglo-American Kiplingesque white supremacy. Remember the "white man's burden to civilize the dark races?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08252005.html