Wash. Post's Murray: GOP won't support Iraq withdrawal because "[t]hey're just not willing to do that to the military"
On the July 18 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion of Senate Republicans' move blocking an up or down vote on a Democratic amendment aimed at withdrawing troops from Iraq, Washington Post staff writer Shailagh Murray asserted that "most Republicans" could not "get their heads around" what she described as the amendment's "hard and fast withdrawal date" and therefore would not support the measure because "[t]hey're just not willing to do that to the military." Murray did not explain what exactly the amendment would "do" to the military, nor did she explain how it represented a "hard and fast withdrawal date."
The amendment in question, offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), calls for the reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq to begin no later than 120 days after its enactment. According to the amendment, the reduction in U.S. forces would "be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq." The measure also calls for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to protect U.S. "personnel and infrastructure," train, equip and support the Iraqi Security Forces, and engage in "targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations." The amendment further stipulates that "[t]he Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described" in the amendment by April 30, 2008.
This is not the first time Murray has equated supporting the war or opposing withdrawal with support for the troops or the military. As Media Matters for America noted, in a July 8 Post article, Murray and Jonathan Weisman reported on Rep. Dan Boren's (D-OK) reluctance to support a withdrawal deadline and wrote that President Bush "needs the support of pro-military lawmakers such as Boren." The characterization reflects a pattern in the media, including in the Post's reporting, that Media Matters has repeatedly documented.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 18 edition of MSNBC Live:
MONICA NOVOTNY (anchor): Now, Democratic Senator Richard Durbin [IL] has said that many Republicans have been telling their constituents they've given up on the president's Iraq policy but they're not voting for change. Did the Democrats succeed in publicly putting more pressure on Republicans to change course in Iraq?
MURRAY: Well, you know, we'll have -- we'll see in the next few days as some sort of milder amendments come forward that would place some restraints on the administration, but not with this hard and fast withdrawal date that Republicans, most Republicans -- I think only three supported this today -- can get their heads around. They're just not willing to do that to the military, and they're not willing to challenge Bush that directly.
Yeah, it'd be so horrible to bring troops home to their families and better paying jobs after all that fun they've been having.
"Yeah, it'd be so horrible to bring troops home to their families and better paying jobs after all that fun they've been having."
The plan is to keep the trrops occuppied to fill the positions with the next genration of neo-cons:
GENERATION CHICKENHAWK
Thanks for the link, Monk.
What balls, for a young college Republican to shill for this horrendous war and then say, "It's not for me".
I hope this video spreads like wildfire. I can't post it on Youtube from work, but I will when I get home if it's not already up.
KING,
You said it. I have stated this before. I can't stand those who expound the virtues of war but never had the balls to go themselves. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Delay, blah, blah, the list goes on and on and on. IF the draft comes back maybe the government should take those first who support this war. I say draft the hell out of those college Republicans. Raise the age of commitment so O'Reilly can go along with Boortz and Savage and let Hannity be their platoon leader. Second Louie Hannity. Boy, does he ever fit the stereotype.
Caught that this morning. It's an excellent piece by Max that everyone needs to see.
How about the "Hammer." I defend his right to say outrageous and bigoted statements, but he defends his right to not show it to opposing viewpoints.
Good job, you greedy pr*ck!
The Hammer is all about excerising his freedom of speech, he just doesn't want it documented.
wow monk that video was breathtaking and scary , tat big kid is definatly gay denial is not just a river in egypt
What the GOP is "willing to do to the Military":
1. SMEAR decorated war veterans with lies and unproven allegations.
2. Send troops into battle with numbers insufficient to get the job done, according to generals who know (and were then fired).
3. Send troops into battle without proper armed vehicles, which were available but not ordered.
4. Send troops into battle without proper body armor, and BANNING THE USE of the most effective armor because it "costs too much".
5. Ordering troops to abuse prisoners in order to properly "interrogate" them, then letting the lowliest troops take the fall for the actions, absolving higher-ups of responsibility.
6. Placing troops in harm's way WITHOUT either a plan for victory or an exit strategy.
7. Placing troops in harm's way with confusing and conflicting rules of engagement.
8. Allowing medical care facilities for returning veterans to fall into squallor and disreputable condition. Reclassifying injuries such as to the head, in order to avoid giving proper (but more expensive) treatment.
9. Using National Guard units as frontline combat troops in active duty, and "reupping" their tours four, five, and six times. (The National Guard's primary mission is homeland security and domestic contingencies such as helping out during national disasters ... they are no longer available for this duty, as they are in Iraq.)
10. Using "signing bonuses" to make weary troops an "offer they can't refuse", which may help explain why there is no money for armor or health care.
11. FAILING to adjust the size of our military to properly handle the demands faced by our troops today; readiness cannot help but be degraded when time-honored guidelines of time off for time served in battle are disregarded, among other morale-destroying practices.
This is how the GOP treats our troops. There are myriad other examples of this treatment ... cutting wages, cutting housing for families back home, charging troops for equipment, forcing troops to be "backdrops" for political speeches, and other mistreatments ... but the record is clear: If the GOP is a FRIEND to the troops, they really don't need any other enemy.
She could have very easily meant that since Petreaus' report is due in September, the Republican's will wait this out until then. By not "doing that to the military" could mean jump the gun ahead of their report.
Tommy, on a personal note.
Do you really think that report is going to bring us any good news? Especially with the Iraqi government taking the month of August off?
I have no idea, the interim report card was not so encouraging in some ways, and a little bit in other ways. I heard about the Iraqi govt. taking August off - that is symptomatic of their attitude it appears. And it's unfortunate.
I will wait and see what the Sept report says.
Fair enough. I wasn't on the atttack against you. It's just my opinion of this whole mess is the the GOP is just stalling and spinning. I get the impression that when the Sept. report comes around the GOP will bail on the war like it was the Titanic.
You're right. It is stalling and spinning. Just how many corners have we waited to turn? How many status reports have we been told to wait for? This September report will just be one more, likely with enough "bright spots" to give Bush and his supporters ammunition to shoot for another Friedman Unit.
They want to wait this out until the next president (likely a Democrat) has to make the decision as to whether or not we leave. If we stay thereafter, it will be seen as a tacit approval of Bush's invasion. It will become the "Democrat's war" in a matter of months. If we leave, it will be fodder for a rightwing "stab in the back" legend that they'll use for the next 10 election cycles to say that the left retreated just as we were about to win. Delay is the name of the game right now. Don't doubt it.
Wake me up when September ends.
To be honest I'd rather have the withdraw laid at the feet of the Dems, than keep the occupation going. If the Dems have to take their lumps on this one so be it. I say it's worth it and it may teach them to be more effective in the future, it would also get the troops out of the grindhouse. How any troops will die between now and Sept. The Dems played nice with the Neo-cons for years and look where we're at. Pull the troops out and let the chips fall. Does anyone really doubt no matter what the report says the administration will just stall it out until the next president (Nice point Christopher!)?
To be honest I'd rather fight them over here, they wouldn't stand a chance in a real fight. If all of our resources were really put towards "protecting the country" we could effectively counter guerilla tactics and "real" homeland security would make it pretty hard for them to get here in the first place.
"To be honest I'd rather have the withdraw laid at the feet of the Dems, than keep the occupation going. If the Dems have to take their lumps on this one so be it. I say it's worth it and it may teach them to be more effective in the future..."
I agree. I just hope the left is savvy enough to do it without it becoming too effective a tool for the political right in the future.
Oh, don't worry...the troglodytes will figure out a way to blame EVERYTHING on the Democrats. Just hide and watch. Revisionist history is their specialty.
Yeah, Tommy. She could have meant that. Proving that she's unworthy to be a reporter. Because the vote was NOT whether or not to withdraw the troops, it was a vote to have a vote to withdraw the troops, on the record. And THAT is what the GOP is unwilling to do - to themselves. But hey, your guys are pushing the meme that todays vote was about withdrawing the troops. You're apparently on board, and all is right with the world.
Tommy, the issue here is what will pulling out of Iraq "do to" the military? Most Republicans have refused withdrawal regardless of status reports or not, and I don't think this situation is any different
Washington Post staff writer Shailagh Murray asserted that "most Republicans" could not "get their heads around" what she described as the amendment's "hard and fast withdrawal date" and therefore would not support the measure because "[t]hey're just not willing to do that to the military."
Bull, There are not willing to do that to the White House. They promised the White House that they would wait till Sept.
Republican party loyalty before the troops. This from the group that always cries "the troops, the troops". They are willing to allow how many dead soldiers between now and Sept. before they pull the plug. What a group of as*ho**s.
I just love the new Republican "bumper sticker" of a talking point:
Support the troops--let 'em win.
They might as well say the Democrats want to lose this war. Oh wait--O'Reilly did say that last night.
How abot a new Liberal Bumper sticker I've seen floating around:
Voted for Bush?Support the War?Enlisted Yet? Hypocrite, or just a Coward?
Max Blumenthal had a good one at the end of his "Chickenhawk Generation" video.
"Draft College Republicans"
(I think that's what it said)
Monk, the video was priceless.
Anyone know if Sen. Reid's comment
"Support the troops, not the President"
is available as a bumpersticker?
Partisanship is a disease we all should be purged of
Really? I don't see antything wrong with partisanship. In fact, an argument can certainly be made that it helped to keep our country here as long as it has been.
What I detest, is the lying crap that people won't take the time to check, and simply follow because it was said by someone in their party.
I agree- it seems to me that the most Nonpartisan nations in the world are brutal dictatorships. People who think that America is being "torn apart by politics" really need to buy themselves a clue. FREE people argue about politics. Enslaved people, and sheep, do not.
True. I like that if we are tired of our government, every four years or so we can overthrow it--at the ballot box!
I think the "partisanship" of which Mr. Soul wrote was the blind faith to a party, similar to the way people back their favorite baseball team, like say, the Angels, or the RedSox, no matter how bad the organization might be, nor how hopeless their bid for post-season play. Same could be said for football, say, Raiders fans who - despite their eternal role as pathetic cellar-dwellers in what is rightly called the Broncos division - still put on their stupid black and silver face paint and dress up like goth clowns every sunday, before once again watching their team go down to humiliating defeat. Later, once they've changed back into their panties and t-shirts, they scour the trade-status reports in their ever-hopeful quest that some old rundown has-been is just the spark they need...
Anyway, we're talking about ignoring the facts to support a "team", and that's bad, mkay?
Nail on head... Ive just realized that blogging isnt my thing. It requires constant re-visitation, and I simply dont have the time, which is a shame. Theres's alot of great debate on this site, and alot of troll lashing (which is always worth the price of admission). Ill be on the sidelines watching. But a may return. Until then, Peace.
1. Of course, the Petraeus report will say the surge is working. If Bush didnt know that already, he wouldn't be telling us to wait for the report. Is it actually working? A totally different question.
2. The most Orwellian thing this administration and the GOP has done is argue that to "support the troops," we need to keep them stationed in an oven in the middle of the desert, getting shot at and blown up. To "betray" the troops would be to redeploy them, bring them home, or even provide them with the body armor they need to survive.
3. Any time the White House wants to stop hiding behind the military- claiming that Bush's policies are all directed toward what's best for the troops, and if you support the troops you must support Bush- would be fine with me. But I don't expect that any time soon from these gutless cowards.
I just did my lunchtime El Rushbo scan - a caller mentioned Liberals complaining about 6 month tours.
"#1" he said, "they signed up". then he went into the tale of his father who got married at the start of WWII, and the next day got on the Queen Mary, which took him to the South Pacific for 3 years without one day of R&R.
He didn't mention anything about his own service, strangely.
But his draft-dodging butt-cyst hero didn't waste any time going off on a rant about the "wuss culture" that's taken over America.
The Oxymoron was careful to note that he wasn't talking about the troops, who are happy to be there, but about the Dems, who are not as tough as he is about sending others to fight.
Please see the link I posted above. You'd appreciate it.
I had already checked it out, and was responding to it as well as the item. Thanks, MOnk.
It seems to be the new no-risk Super-Patriotism.
Monk & HBL, I think it was touching to see Tom DeLay show up to address the youngsters.
No one had a better excuse for avoiding Vietnam than he did. His excuse being that there were so many minorities signing up (translation, DRAFTED) that there weren't any spots left for good, "patriotic folk" such as himself.
I've always been opposed to the draft, but after seeing this video, bring it back, NOW!
My thoughts exactly. IT would be the most effective way to ge the public to actually pay attention.
On point #1...apparently the military brass has no problem lying for their Numbnuts in Chief. They just happened to catch the "Head of Al Qaeda in Iraq" today, and...Guess what? He confirms that the Iraqi franchise of Al Qaeda is being controlled by the international Al Qaeda. Hot Dam! Does anybody really believe this crap any more?
I found it highly convenient that that news was released today.
Especially since he was captured two weeks ago.
You know, it seems that Al Qaeda would have run out of leaders by now, since we seem to catch one of them every time Bush gets in political trouble.
Wow. When you put it that way, there'as a veritable plethora of AQ generals...
Once again hiding behind the word "troop" as if they had any say at all.
Fact: The troops did not start the war. Bush started the war, which means "support the troops" s code for "who cares about the troops support Bush".
The troops isn't the issue here. The issue is the war and time and time again the war supporters never want to make the war the issue they always want to hide behind the word "troops" which is like hiding under mommy's skirt.
I heard some General on Hannity say "By God if our brave troops want to go in there and fight these terrorist--I'm gonna support them."
I thought I hadn't heard him correctly, but he then repeated it. I wish I could remember his name (I'll try to find it). I don't understand why I still get surprised at the Bu11$**t the right falls for.
Oh, that's right. I keep forgetting that ALL the terrorists are in Iraq, and they're too damned stupid to find the U.S. as long as we have troops over there.
It just occurred to me...these guys really are living in a John Wayne movie. Remember those westerns where soldiers volunteered to fight as long as they'd get to kill Indians...ANY Indians? I think these troglodytes really believe that the modern American soldier is delighted to kill A-rabs just for the hell of it.
Well, it's an illegal, immoral, unnecessary war, run by war criminals who figure that the "troops" are expendable suckers who signed up to defend Halliburton profits, so screw them anyway. Tha fact that college republicans are cowards is not news; all republicans are ignorant, lazy, greedy, amoral cowards who have put party ahead of country fro decades. they are far more harmful and dangerous than any Musilm terrorists.
I think this is all about buying time for President Numbnuts and his puppeteer. If the Democrats had their way, and got the troops out of Iraq...uh-oh...we'd have time to start examining how we got into the whole mess to begin with. The Bush Junta knows that they would never survive a serious investigation of the lies they told to start this war. All they can hope to do is ride it out until the end of their term...then Bush will pardon himself and Cheney, and all their fellow war criminals.
Democrats nor Republicans are going to take the troops out of Iraq. Harry Reid is a liar!!
The resolution they tried to pass keep troops in Iraq. It doesn't end the war.
READ THE RESOLUTION, the dems are worthless.
The amendment in question, offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), calls for the reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq to begin no later than 120 days after its enactment. According to the amendment, the reduction in U.S. forces would "be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq." The measure also calls for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to protect U.S. "personnel and infrastructure," train, equip and support the Iraqi Security Forces, and engage in "targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations." The amendment further stipulates that "[t]he Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described" in the amendment by April 30, 2008.
From the topic posting above.
And what exactly is a "limited" presence? 50,000 troops? 75,000? And their mission? To do exactly the same things they are doing now, to the utter hatred of the natives of Iraq. It will continue the violence! It will keep arabs hating the USA! It's just another plan for continued occupation and imperialism. The Dems are offering NOTHING but more of the same. Time to throw both parties out for real anti-war candidates. Time to bring ALL the troops home and to end the American Empire.
Actually not a bad sounding amendment. The problems are:
1) Military strategy is the responsibility of the executive branch, funding and declarations of war the responsibility of the congress. If congress doesn’t like the strategy or the war, they are constitutionally empowered to cut off funding or rescind the original declaration of war following 9/11. This amendment, among other problems it creates in this war, merely gives aid and comfort to the enemy in announcing our strategy.
2) “…implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq’s neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq”.
Stability is what the Iraqis and the U.S. seek. Iraq’s “neighbors” seek the exact opposite. It’s the neighbors of Iraq, Syria and Iran, who seek to destabilize it for their own ends. In other words, our real enemies in the region (at least the primary ones, not to mention the jihadists in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, and Wizeristan) are Iraq’s neighbors. The only kind of diplomacy which will work is the “big stick” brand.
3) “The measure calls for a limited … etc. (blah, blah, blah). As REDKING pointed out a couple of days ago on one of these Iraq war forums, this Democrat measure sounds a lot like what the current administration is doing (except for the stupid timeline announcement). I agreed whole-heartedly with REDKING and noted that the reason it sounds the same is because there is no viable alternative to the general current strategy.
This is what the Democrat party fears the most: that the current strategy will show signs of success (in spite of attempts by the media to focus on negative subjects) and that the reemergence to political power of the Democrat party will then no longer be a shoe-inThe resolution they tried to pass keep troops in Iraq. It doesn't end the war...the dems are worthless.
So with one move they can't clean up the entire mess?and that makes them worthless?
Geez, what does that say about the guys who planned the whole war?
Copious, do you ever have anything constructive to add to a discussion? I love your posts because they are such unsubstantiated, unthinking, right wing talking point regurgitations that it helps me remember how important what MMFA is doing here.
It is exposing your vapid nonsense for all to see. Thanks!
On the “resolution” debate which was staged by senate Democrats the other night, note that they (and their buds in the media) are hoping for two things:
1) That enough Republican senators will buy into the propaganda (i.e. they would believe that the majority of their constituents have bought into it) that the Iraq war is hopeless. Senate Democrats can then impose cloture enabling them to engineer our defeat by legislative action - and then blame that failure on the Republicans in the administration and the congress.
and
2) That they can convince the American people of the need to “change course” whatever the hell that means.
Of course, the Democrats have no alternative plan to win in Iraq because that is not their goal. Such an event would jeopardize their prospects for winning back full power in both the legislative and executive branches of government come the ’08 elections. Rather, their goal is our defeat.
But there is a problem with guaranteeing our defeat: the American public does not want to see us defeated in Iraq or anywhere else in this war against the jihad. So, the Democrat party, through their legislative majority must tread a careful line: get us defeated but make the Republicans the fall guys.
Good luck on that.
Half of America wants our country to be defeated.
Once again, a talking point of the righty media that I think is too stoooopid for anyone to buy.
Then a volunteer proves I've overestimated some of my fellow Americans again.
“Half of America wants our country to be defeated”. Please clarify. Was that an opinion or an interpretation?
You defined "defeat" as withdrawing from Iraq. And according to the latest polls, somewhere around 60% of Americans want us to withdraw from Iraq. Ergo...
Along with not understanding that, your claims of what the Dems intended with their overnighter are way off-base. The dems just hoped to draw attention to the fact that republicans are fillibustering the vote for withdrawal.
And as far as not knowing what "change course" means - I imagine you were one of the many pumping your fist in the air and hooting every time either of the Bushies used the phrase "stay the course". Surely with a little comparitive logic, you could educate yourself on the phrase, couldn't you?
Yeah, maybe not.