Is this really brialliance? Aren't the republican talking points at the moment that the democrats want to cut and run? By forcing them to vote on this bill they cannot effectively use that talking point anymore.

hmm. Republicans put the issue to a vote - a vote - and the Democrats call it a "political stunt". Now that's instructive.

I finally understand why we cannot put abortion up for a vote. That would be, how was it put?, "The rankest of politics."

I guess that's why we need the courts to decide these things. We shouldn't have set up Afhanistan and Iraq with a cycle of voting and elections; we should have set them up with judges and avoided the appearance of the many political stunts that included women voting.

Democrats still show that they stand for nothing at this point in history. It is really sad, because it is a party that has a great history and filled with many positives. Unfortunately, it has become (to steal a phrase from them) "out-of-the-mainstream" with the American People. And THEY KNOW IT.

Didn't Rangel offer a draft bill?
Didn't Republicans call it to a vote and he was embarrassed and called it Republican "dirty tricks?"
Isn't drafting a bill that you can't even vote for a dirty trick?

Now this "Pull out now" debate. They are a joke party!

I think Republicans are helping Democrats, actually. Those that continue to remain quiet and still make sense it today's world can now start forming a coalition to weed out the moonbats. I think Joe Lieberman should rally his troops and rescue his party from the Sheehanites, otherwise the GOPs Era of Good Feeling will continue...

Well, I'm glad you guys are proud of the Congress, because this whole sorry affair has made me want to throw up in all their shoes.

Do you really believe that Karol? Murtha calls for a timely withdrawl of the troops over SIX MONTHS, and then the Republicans have a vote on a completely separate issue, an "immediate" withdrawl. And they think they are making a point? To whom exactly are they making a point?

Maybe to Republican ideologues who have an IQ below 70.

Why didn't they have a vote on Murtha's plan? A plan people in our defense department obviously agree with:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Withdrawal in 6 months IS immediate withdrawal. Do you have any concept of how long it takes for an operation of this size to end?

And Dawn, why are you mad at Congress? Now you know where everyone stands.

umm...doof...congress had its vote three or so years ago. that's it. they don't get anymore say on withdrawal, reinforcement, uniform color, etc. -- they are done. this resolution was a stupid pathetic waste of my tax dollars and i want them back.

Well, tell your side to stop introducing resolutions that they don't actually want to vote on but instead want to roll up and poke the president in the eye with. And then they won't be outed as the weakass losers that they are.

The word on the street of Iraq is...

umm...that guy's stupid pointless resolution was not what was voted on. instead your stupid people decide come up with yet another stupid pointles resolution and force overtime to vote on it. idiots.

6 months = immediate???

Um - like I said. You have to have an IQ below 70 to not understand the definition of "immediate".

Lefty myth of the day:

Murtha's resolution, which said

The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated

the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately

Bush got himself into this mess, because he went to war without an end game.

I thought it was to depose Saddam, install Democracy, and make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction.

But obviously not, because we've accomplished all three of those and we're still there.

The only thing I can think of is that he wants to install peremenant military bases there.

The funniest part of this business is that even after Cleland, Kerry, et al., the Dems still believe in the myth of the invincible antiwar veteran.

You know what voters don't like about you guys? It's the surrender, stupid.

Hm. My previous comment got eaten. Here's the short version:

Lefty myth -- the two resolutions were substantively different.

Truth -- Murtha's stated that "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated"; the voted one requested that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately". HUUUUUGE difference. Uh huh.

umm...that guy's stupid pointless resolution was not what was voted on

Uh, yeah dude, but it was directly related to ours. You guys want to play politics and bitch all the time? Great. Let's get you on the record as to your real opinions.

DL, I'm sorry you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Talk to ANYONE in the military and ask how long a pull-out will take. Only morons who see the entire world and presidency of George Bush through the narrow prism of gay marriage would be dumb enough to believe that someone makes the call and we're out tomorrow.

Karol - You're the one who keeps bringing up gay marriage, not me. Pretty fucking pathetic if you ask me that you have to choose to gay bashing, rather than disucssing the war on its merits. But I'm not surprised.

Back in January I said that Bush should have declared victory in Iraq and started the process of withdrawl.

Please tell me why we're still there.

Too bad that Karol is resorting to Republican hate tactics. Someone brings up a point that you don't like - and the answer is to attack someone for being gay.

Do you even have any gay friends left Karol, considering how condescending you are towards them?

DL, you called me stupid. You should know better. I'm not someone you want to tussle with, I was going out to gay clubs when you were still sitting in the closet sucking on your thumb. So, nice try with the 'gay bashing'. 'DL bashing' isn't quite the same thing.

You made a really dumb point about immediate withdrawal and then called me stupid for disagreeing. It's clear to anyone who has read you for five seconds that you have no other issues or positions that aren't tied into gay marriage.

Definition of immediate:

"Occurring at once; instant"

Not six months.

Karol must have gotten this wrong impression of "immediate" when her boyfriend was trying to come up with excuses for his premature ejaculation.

Ok, DL, have a nice life, we're all done with you.

Karol - You are completely incapable of seeing gay people as anything other than gay.

That's really sad. But not surprising considering the bigots you choose to call your friends.

DL, you're a fucking moron who is incapable of being anything but a fucking moron. I should've listened to everyone who said that about you all along. They were right, I was wrong, and the benefit of the doubt with you has expired.

Like that cunt La Shawn Barber.

Woo Hoo. I'm in a good mood today.

Banned, delinked, bye.

Nothing like a good discussion about foreign policy.

Withdrawing is not a foreign policy. It is a singular action.

Do we want to still have influence in the Middle East? Do we want to abdicated our leadership position of the world? What will happen when we do that? Who will take our place and will their actions harm America's interest? These are foreign policy questions, and our millions of decision and action are attempts to answer these question - forming a statement of our intention, resolve and leadership.

Iraq itself is not our entire foreign policy. Its a keystone in our Anti-Radical Islamic War part of our foreign policy but by no mean the only part of it. Getting rid of Saddam is too little to late, he should have been deal with 12 years previously. We did not do so because of the fear of the burden that we bear now, creating a new free society. Because you know the Liberal socialist left will accused America's callousness if we left the country to the next strongman.

As long as we intend to influence the Middle East, and by extention the wider world, success in Iraq is crucual.

We did not leave Japan, the Philipine, and Europe all the way to 1990's. We did not leave because we still have interests in those part of the world. Until oil is no longer need for our economy, and our trading partners (or worst yet let our enemy have free rein over the supply) or until we find a plentiful supply close by influencing and dominating the Middle East will require us to have concrete power there.

The Democrat member of Congress neither forget the lesson of history, the nature of national power or hate Bush enough for all that not to matter. The vote in Congress is but into focus what the Democrat is all about - facing them with the question of Iraq as a commitment of America as a nation or a singular action of Bush's Presidency - and whether they are willing to destroy America standing in the world to prove that they can control the President of the US. Apparently the Democrat is OK with nipping every move the President made as long as it cost them nothing but not willing to face the full consequence of the commulative of their action - which is the undermining of America power.

whoa...what happened here. Craaaazy. Oh, and yeah, thanks DL -- now I can't say the words "immediate withdrawal" or look at Peter ever again.

OT: But the leftist NYT has hit yet another new low! They are now blatently Iran's apologists, printing full page ads defending Iran's nuclear ambitions.

This is nuclear powered self loathing. Aside from everything else, the NYT staff is about 80% Jewish. They can only expect the warmest treatment from their Iranian heroes. Soft as a bucket of shit.

The dominant idiot gene has drained the pool completely.

Withdrawal is part of a foreign policy it is not a singular action.

Any withdrawal should not be publically announced. Nobody should know, not even the soldiers that are being withdrawn.
Along with this there should be no withdrawal deadline date that is announced. But since i already said a withdrawal should not be announced that would include not announcing a date.

The withdrawal should happen gradually over time until our presence there militarily is almost non-existant.

The enemy won't rally if they don't know the withdrawal is happening. The enemy won't try to get the last few shots in at departing US troops if they don't know the withdrawal date.

Iraq needs to be stabilized. It will not happen until they form a workable government, have a functioning capable military and police force AND Coalition forces are withdrawn.

I really hope this can happen by 2007. I am pessismistic this will happen in 6 months and has no chance to happen if we withdraw immediatly.

I cannot comprehend DL's stupidity in quoting the definition of the word "immediate." The words "immediate termination" were in the document, yes, but anyone that actually read the damn thing saw that it outlined exactly what Murtha proposed. The immediate _start_ of troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Anti-war critics who say it's all going to shit in Iraq and then in the next sentence declare victory need to turn their brain on.