A Pathetic Congress

[bemildred]

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

[Jim Sagle]

1. CounterPunch ain't nuthin' but shit.

[niceypoo]

2. the whole debacle was a knee jerk reaction to one guys statement

it shows just how desperate the GOP is. Its over for them. Short of massive fraud in 06 we will win. Most Americans are against the war. People don't fall for their crap anymore.

[Canuckistanian]

3. This guy's a political neophyte

Or a pathetic liar. Take your pick.

Democrats certainly didn't vote to "continue the war in Iraq as is".

They both voted against the resolution for totally different reasons.

I he can't understand that or be able to explain the difference, he shouldn't be writing political stories.

[cdsilv]

4. This reminds me of 1994....

....remember the house 'check bouncing' scandal? That's what threw out the democrats (and GOP incumbents). It wasn't 'Contract with America' - it was the electorate realizing that house incumbents were kiting checks and NEVER HAVING TO PAY UP!

The people want us out of Iraq. Congress doesn't. Simple fix - get a new congress.

I have a feeling that any and all incumbents up for reelection next year need to start padding their resume's because they'll be looking for new jobs come 2007.

[Epiphany4z]

5. It was a stunt

It wouldn't bring the troops back now anyway. It was just put there so they could make Cut and Run bumper stickers for the next election.

I want our troops out of Iraq but I think it is more complicated than just bring them home NOW. Iraq is such a Huge Fubar. There is no great way to handle it. The One thing I am sure of is the widdle cowboy and friends are not the people to do it. They need to let the grown ups handle it.

ahh well just my .02.

[bemildred]

8. It is more complicated than "bring them home NOW".

But this was just a resolution saying "Let's get started".
An expression of sentiment. It makes no policy and forces no action.
There was no legitimate, principled reason not to vote for it, if you
actually oppose the war.

[NightOwwl]

6. Just shows any idiot can claim to write...

"America's Best Political Newsletter." Meanwhile, the author doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. :eyes:

[Greeby]

7. Was this guy not paying attention?

The Hunter resolution was non-binding, Murtha's resolution doubtless is.
If it were a binding resolution for withdrawal, there is no way people like Kucinich or McGovern or any of the Black Caucus would have voted against it.

The Black Caucus assembled as one and explained in strong, clear terms, why they were voting against it, as was Kucinich. Hell, as were most of the other Dem speakers.

gah, some people just don't listen :argh:

[bemildred]

9. 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 declare. 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

[bemildred]

10. Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did

By Martin van Creveld

---

The third and most important reason why I think Vietnam is relevant to the situation in Iraq is because the Americans found themselves in the unfortunate position where they were beating down on the weak. To quote Dayan: “any comparison between the two armies… was astonishing. On the one hand there was the American Army, complete with helicopters, an air force, armor, electronic communications, artillery, and mind-boggling riches; to say nothing of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and equipment of all kinds. On the other there were the who had been walking on foot for four months, carrying some artillery rounds on their backs and using a tin spoon to eat a little ground rice from a tin plate."

That, of course, was precisely the problem. In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old—even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife—will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces—whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on—things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak — and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed — and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat; if U.S. troops in Iraq have not yet started fragging their officers, the suicide rate among them is already exceptionally high. That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one did. Namely, with the last US troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.

http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/why_iraq_will_end_as_vietnam_did.htm