« A Democrat Actually Wrote This Post | Main | What Came First, the Chickenhawk or the Egg? »
November 19, 2005
Murthafuckas
Shakes here…
If you happened to be strolling through DC last night and heard a strange sound that could best be described as the howling of rabid wolverines slowly circling the drain of their final fate, it was because the House Republicans were engaging in a fine bit of grandstanding that took them to yet a new low.
It started with Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha’s resolution, which was a page long and, following an explanatory preamble, made the following recommendations:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and 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.
The GOP then entered a revised resolution, which, in fairness, tried to be a page long through the clever use of large-sized fonts, and reduced Murtha’s idea to a mere three lines:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
I tuned into C-SPAN to watch the ensuing spectacle. The Dems went understandably apeshit, but the GOP was not to be deterred. Now, watching the House on C-SPAN always provides me with some amusement, as I get a glimpse of all the losers Republicans elect to represent them. (I mean, seriously—what a collection of reprobates.) But yesterday, they were in rare form, with Duncan Hunter doing his best imitation of am outraged human, and Jean Schmidt takng the bloody cake by calling the decorated Marine Murtha a coward. Apparently, donning a putrid stars-n-stripes jumper passes for bravery in her circle.
In the end, though the GOP was trying to force the Dems’ collective hand and force them to vote on their ludicrous mischaracterization of Murtha’s clever proposal, they looked like complete jags. The stunt was nothing more than a further demonstration of their hypocrisy. Sure, they say they support the troops, and accuse anyone, who doesn’t march in lockstep in their bullheadedly determined stay-the-course parade, of not supporting the troops, but everything that spews forth from any of their forked-tongued mouths comes down to one thing—being right about this war is more important than anything else, including soldiers’ arms and legs and eyes and ears and guts and very lives. And they don’t just need to be right about the war itself having been the right thing to do; they also need to be right about how the war is being fought. Even if all evidence points to the contrary, they retain their steadfast belief that the number of troops there now is right, and that they are armored (or not armored) exactly right, and that hanging on indefinitely until some yet-to-be-revealed benchmark is reached is right right right. And anyone who tries to dissuade them is a coward and a traitor.
Murtha’s resolution, as originally proposed, deserves at very least the benefit of deliberate consideration, but the GOP won’t even allow a good-faith debate about the parts and pieces of Murtha’s resolution; these chickenhawk pieces of shit won’t even walk onto the battlefield of ideas.
Instead, they just keep babbling reiterations about supporting the troops. Well, this is how much respect the GOP has for the troops: they’ll not only use them to fight a war of choice halfway around the world, sending them to risk their lives over a pack of bloody lies; they’ll also use them as a shield at home, hiding behind the soldiers they refuse to properly armor, using the troops as a shield to deflect criticism. They cower instead behind ribbons and bumper magnets and lapel pins and small flags on sticks, stubbornly insisting that they are right, and caring none for the consequences if they aren’t.
And here’s the topper: having failed at besting the Dems during yesterday’s spectacle on the floor of the House, the GOP is seeking an ethics probe of Murtha. Shameless gits.
November 19, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83496b2b669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Murthafuckas:
Comments
And let's not forget that the man Mean Jean Schmidt quoted, COL Danny Bubp (who's also a state representative in Ohio), is the textbook definition of a REMF*, having never deployed, even during peacetime. So it's a bit rich that he's the one calling Murtha, a highly decorated combat vet, a coward.
*REMF: Rear Echelon Mother F--ker
Posted by: Raf | Nov 19, 2005 10:28:39 PM
What factors would determine "earliest possible date"? How much difference is there *really* between "earliest possible date" and "immediately"? Will the voting public actually buy into these nuances promoted by the Dems? I would like to reiterate that no major Democratic leaders would defend Murtha's position. Kerry said that he would not stand by and see him "swiftboated", but declined to endorse Murtha's position. Pelosi called him "courageous", but again, would not endorse his position.
The Democratic leaders like to carp about the war from the sidelines without accountability. Perhaps a vote in the Senate would clear the air there as well...
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 20, 2005 8:32:38 AM
Murtha:
"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."
The resolution voted on by the house:
"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Hmmmm?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 20, 2005 10:00:48 AM
Toke, there are verbs. Murtha calls for "immediate redeployment", among the following:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
The Republican resolution calls for "immediate termination" and leaves it at that.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Nov 20, 2005 1:57:55 PM
Neil,
It goes beyond that. Murtha's resolution was a joint resolution, meaning that it also needed to be acted on by the Senate, and then, after that, signed by the President--in other words, it was something that you could enforce, and that carried the force of law. In other words, a binding resolution.
Hunter's resolution was merely a House resolution. All that does is express the "sense of the House". It doesn't have any binding effect. Thousands of similar resolutions are passed in the House declaring that the sky is blue, that Puerto Ricans are the bomb, and that, yes, indeed, we like apple pie.
Hunter's resolution is a mockery of the process, and if he's going to be mocking the process, then perhaps he shouldn't be part of it.
Posted by: Raf | Nov 20, 2005 2:36:38 PM
"Hunter's resolution is a mockery of the process, and if he's going to be mocking the process, then perhaps he shouldn't be part of it."
Does the same go for Charlie Rangel? Remember when he introduced legislation to institute the draft? And he voted against his own resolution? Was that a mockery worthy of expulsion from congress?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 20, 2005 5:06:29 PM
In this, as in all things, context is king.
J.D. Hayworth, whose idea this really was, and Duncan Hunter came up with their resolution purely as a response to Murtha. Their strategy was entirely to get Democrats to vote for their resolution so that they could then go back to their districts and wave the bloody shirt. It wasn't so that we could have a calm, reasoned discussion regarding why the heck we're still in Iraq.
Rangel, on the other hand, introduced his resolution to make a point: that the only people who are making any degree of sacrifice in this war are folks like my brother (who supports this war, by the way) and I.
Look, when it comes down to it, either you think that this is a fight worth having, or you don't. And if it is a fight worth having, then why the heck isn't George P. Bush on the front lines? Or the twins?
Posted by: Raf | Nov 20, 2005 8:18:17 PM
"then why the heck isn't George P. Bush on the front lines? Or the twins?"
Cuz you're an idiot.
Uhhh, derrrr, why wadn't Clinton up dere in one of dem planes dropping bombs on dem Serbs and Croats?
Moron.
Rangel didn't want to debate or vote on the draft legislation he introduced, the Republicans forced the vote. He was trying to advance the lie that Bush was going to re-institute the draft. The left-wing propaganda was telling voters that there is legislation to institute the draft, but they didn't tell the voters that a Dem introduced the legislation. You should know the facts before you lecture anyone else about context.
You see, the Left relies on the uninformed for a big percentage of Democrat votes.
The funny thing about both of these stunts(Rangel's and Murtha's) is that both times it has blown up in the Democrats face.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 20, 2005 11:26:20 PM
Rangel didn't want to debate or vote on the draft legislation he introduced... You should know the facts before you lecture anyone else about context.
Yes, CT, you should. He wanted to debate the state of the military and the fact that it is overwhelmingly comprised of lower-income people, and with a much higher rate of minorities and home-life privation than society at large. You're the moron.
Posted by: TJ | Nov 20, 2005 11:55:43 PM
Hey TJ,
"But the action by Republicans to push a vote in the House's last days before its election recess showed that the rumor has legs. The Republicans say Democratic candidates, party organizations and such youth-oriented independent groups as Rock the Vote are spreading the rumor that a draft is imminent.
"This campaign is a baseless, malevolent concoction of the Democrat Party, '' House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas said during a pointed, sometimes angry partisan debate. "It has one purpose and one purpose only ... to spread fear ... and undermine our commander in chief in an election year. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a lie.''
The vote, however, doesn't prevent the issue from returning in the new session of Congress in January.
Liberal Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont, had introduced the bill in January 2003 as a protest against the Bush administration's increasing moves toward war in Iraq"
Did you notice Rangel's reason for introducing the legislation? Look, my source is even a liberal rag!
TJ, you should know the facts before you spout off.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 21, 2005 12:18:13 AM
The topic (force composition) has been of concern to Rangel for a long time- this is not something he drummed up in conjunction with the evil MSM.
Posted by: TJ | Nov 21, 2005 1:49:08 AM
CT,
From the horse's mouth:
There are some who believe my proposal is really meant to show my opposition to a unilateral preemptive attack against Iraq by the U.S. Others believe that I want to make it clear that, if there is a war, there should be a more equitable representation of all classes of Americans making the sacrifice for this great country.
The fact is, both of these objectives are mine.
I apologize for calling you a Moron. You were half-right. I'm a moron, too.
Posted by: TJ | Nov 21, 2005 1:53:56 AM
I would like to know if one....just *ONE* of the commanders in Iraq, those trained military leaders, actually agree with Murtha. I can't find any. What does that say about his position?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 21, 2005 9:08:47 AM
The Republicans didn't fail at all. Read the papers the next day -- "House overwhelmingly votes against withdrawal." Only those willing to spend the time and effort to follow this story have any inkling of what went on.
Do you honestly think that many Americans watch C-Span to help their understanding of Congress?
Posted by: OmerosPeanut | Nov 21, 2005 10:14:17 AM
Commanders in Iraq have specificaly told some members of congress they are afraid to voice concerns over the mission for fear of being reprimanded.
Yes, its just conjecture, but so were stories of tortured prisoners until it become known fact. Conjecture is perfectly understandable in this situation. Who wants to publically say that the job their doing isn't going all that well?
Posted by: Adrock | Nov 21, 2005 11:19:00 AM
Commanders in Iraq have specificaly told some members of congress they are afraid to voice concerns over the mission for fear of being reprimanded.
Yes, its just conjecture, but so were stories of tortured prisoners until it become known fact.
And so were stories of American concentration camps and alien invasions. Most 'stories' turn out to be bullshit. That is why we try to deal in facts.
If you wish to discuss actual facts, then let us know. Until then, keep your bullshit stories to yourself.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 21, 2005 11:28:48 AM
General Casey got reprimanded by the Prez himself for suggesting that a troop withdrawal plan be drawn up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/14/wirq14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/14/ixworld.html
Posted by: sprocket | Nov 21, 2005 2:37:34 PM
Thank you, sprocket. However, the person who asserted that didn't know about your post and admitted that he belived it conjecture and *still* presented it as relevant.
That being said, there is, indeed, a difference between giving an opinion to superiors of feasibility and a loose cannon publicly makes these statements without the knowledge of his superiors. I can understand why those in charge don't need those who are supposed to take orders to get involved politically. They are not elected and are not charged with making these decisions.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 21, 2005 5:19:43 PM
Ha! Great minds link alike:
I called them "Bad Murtha Fuckers" at Also Also.
Carry on!
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 22, 2005 1:55:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
