The Murtha Resolution (and the pathetic Republican response)
By the time you read this, the House Republicans will probably have succeeded in ramming through a vote on a non-binding resolution for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. They expect it to lose, calculating that few Democrats will vote for it; and those who do will be branded as "cut-and-run cowards."
It is a cynical, divisive ploy to avoid a real debate on the course of the war. Although we call it "The Peoples' House," this is not serving the people of this country at all (see polling results, below).
How cynical is this? The Republicans are calling it "a Democrat resolution" because Rep. John Murtha was the author of the original language. You can see it below. And you can also see how the Republicans gutted the resolution and made it into a pathetic fake designed to divide this country, not unite it.
Murtha's resolution:
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";And here's the cynical GOP "rewrite":Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
RESOLUTIONThis is politics at its worst. But I don't think anyone will be fooled by this. A year from now, we'll point to this and say it was just another Republican failure that led to their defeat.Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.
P.S. For the record, Murtha's original resolution is closer to where the nation-at-large is at:
Gallup: Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by November 2006 -- that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq. (choices rotated at random)Withdraw Now: 19
Withdraw Within 12 Months: 33
Take as Long As Needed To Withdraw: 38
Send More Troops: 7
Leave a comment