Ohio Congressperson plays "Coward" card on 37 Year Marine Veteran...

[kddani]

Originally posted by hoosier
The absolute defense of "libel" charges is truth.

Cynthia is proud of her reputation as the Al Quaeda rep in Congress.

And as usual, what you say either lacks in truth or is such a twisted, convoluted version of "truth" that it can no longer be considered as such. And furthermore, you don't back your big mouth up with any actual proof.

[kddani]

Originally posted by kddani
And as usual, what you say either lacks in truth or is such a twisted, convoluted version of "truth" that it can no longer be considered as such. And furthermore, you don't back your big mouth up with any actual proof.

Bump, because Dale refuses to provide proof for ANYTHING he says. Yeah, quality journalism

[IIOA]

Pardon me for butting in, but it appears that Congressman Murtha has voted against his own proposal:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by IIOA
Pardon me for butting in, but it appears that Congressman Murtha has voted against his own proposal:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

See Above:

"OK, but let's tell the whole story just for the sake of keeping it straight.

The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (sp?) told everyone to vote against that particular resolution for parliamentary reasons. The vote probably doesn't reflect the spirit of either party at this point."

[hoosier]

To bring a little accuracy back to this thread, I post a portion of Opinion Journal's comment today.

Murtha did ask for "immediate" pullout (re-deploy).

He and his 187 Dem buddies then voted against the resolution.

I salute Murtha and the others for realizing that an immediate withdrawal is about the worst possible thing.

===================================
From OJ:

Last Thursday Murtha held a press conference, at which he advocated the following course of action:

"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy--immediately redeploy.

"No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target._._._.

"My plan calls for immediate redeployment of 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, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."

Here's how the Associated Press reported the story:

"An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict."

This made more news than it should have, since, as we noted Friday, Murtha, although he did vote to liberate Iraq, has been a frequent critic of the idea, even before casting that vote. In any case, Rep. Duncan Hunter responded to the Murtha proposal and the attendant hype by putting up for a vote in the House a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." This the House rejected, 403-3, with Murtha among the 99.3% voting against what he had proposed the previous day.

Some of our readers say it was unfair of us to label the Hunter resolution "the Murtha proposal" because Murtha actually offered a resolution of his own, which did not use the word immediate but instead called for withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date." That resolution appears at the bottom of this page on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blog, which one of our critical readers e-mailed us triumphantly.

The same page, however, features Murtha's comments from his press conference, including repeated references to immediate withdrawal. It's fascinating how those who claim to be Murtha's defenders are now hiding behind the text of his resolution to claim he never called for immediate withdrawal, when in fact that is exactly what he did. Here's an AP dispatch from yesterday that confirms the point:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

"The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: "I think that would cause more problems for us in America." "

Hillary Clinton opposes immediate withdrawal. So did 187 Democratic members of the House last Friday. The defense of Murtha consists of falsely denying he ever called for any such thing.

Give Murtha credit for helping to clarify the debate. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is something no serious person favors. Even those who think they do, like Murtha, change their minds upon reflection.

[kddani]

Originally posted by hoosier
To bring a little accuracy back to this thread,

You know, you could just make accurate postings to begin with.

And again, you refuse to provide any justification for what you said earlier.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Murtha did ask for "immediate" pullout (re-deploy).

He and his 187 Dem buddies then voted against the resolution.

Come on. Read the thread. Nobody is arguing with you about the above. The reason all of the Democrats voted against it, though, is because they were asked to by the Democratic leaders to circumvent a parliamentary move by the GOP.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
To bring a little accuracy back to this thread, I post a portion of Opinion Journal's comment today.

Hehehehe Opinion Journal bringing in accuracy,,, well only if you think quoting Micheal Moore is bring back the accuracy as well....

[IIOA]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
See Above:

"OK, but let's tell the whole story just for the sake of keeping it straight.

The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (sp?) told everyone to vote against that particular resolution for parliamentary reasons. The vote probably doesn't reflect the spirit of either party at this point."

First, let me say that I have the utmost respect for anyone who has served in any of the branches of the Armed Forces. However, I don't know if Murtha made his proposal for "parliamentary reasons" in the first place. In fact, I thought his proposal was based upon his strong personal conviction that our troops should be removed from Iraq.

So, if he made his proposal for a philosophical reason but then turned around and voted against it for "parliamentary reasons", it gives the appearance of.....intellectual inconsistency at best.
The fact that he changed his vote simply because Pelosi told him to is even less impressive.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by IIOA
However, I don't know if Murtha made his proposal for "parliamentary reasons" in the first place. In fact, I thought his proposal was based upon his strong personal conviction that our troops should be removed from Iraq.

It does not appear that Murpha made his proposal for parliamentary reasons, but Democratic Leaderships decision to vote against the measure was. It appears that Murpha feels very strongly that our troops should be pulled out. As for your other point, strict following of party leadership, while not always followed to the letter, is pretty much the way of the world in Congress. In this case, the parliamentary move on the part of the Democrats was to foil a GOP counter-move which would have followed.

Following are a couple of excerpts of Representative Schmidt's appology and the denial of an Ohio State Representative that he made the comment about Murpha.

CINCINNATI (Nov. 23) - Ohio Republican Jean Schmidt said Tuesday she should have rephrased her sharp critique...

Schmidt was booed off the floor of the U.S. House on Friday after she criticized Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., saying that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

When Schmidt made the comment, Democrats rose in protest at the suggestion that Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, was a coward.

Schmidt said the comment was prompted by a conversation she had with state Rep. Danny Bubp, though he denies discussing Murtha with Schmidt...

(A typical political "He said/She said.")

...Schmidt, who sent Murtha a note of apology on Friday moments after her speech, said in a statement Tuesday that she never intended to attack Murtha personally...

(Although she mentioned him by name in her comment)

...Bubp said in a statement of his own Tuesday that his conversation with Schmidt "was based strictly on the proposal to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq and the consequences of such a proposal..."

(He also said that, as a Marine, he would never question the courage of another Marine officer)

...Murtha has called Schmidt's comment ridiculous.

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said Monday when asked about her remarks at a news conference in Pennsylvania. "This is not a war of words, this is a war..."

...President Bush and other administration officials have since said that while they don't agree with Murtha, they do not question his patriotism..."


So, it appears to me (opinion) that either Rep. Schmidt was either remarkably uninformed, or dumb, for not realizing that one of the top Democrats on Defense is a decorated veteran or 37 years in the Marines -- or she is a sacraficial lamb (the newest member of Congress) on the part of the GOP leadership who were running up a "trial balloon" attack on the Democrats. Her bio and nickname, Mean Jean, doesn't make her sound like the easiest person to like.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper
Hehehehe Opinion Journal bringing in accuracy,,, well only if you think quoting Micheal Moore is bring back the accuracy as well....

We all know about MM's errors/exagerations in his movie, and in his speeches/support for Kerry.

Can you give me a few examples of OJ being inaccurate?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
We all know about MM's errors/exagerations in his movie, and in his speeches/support for Kerry.

Can you give me a few examples of OJ being inaccurate?

Oct 11th article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007390
"...we have seen no convincing evidence to back up the assumption, commonly accepted in the media, that the Swift Boat Veterans unfairly maligned him."

Sorry but this assertion is too laughable to even bother with rehashing the whole Swift Boat lies again...


or more recently -
Nov 21st article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007581
"Late Friday night the House took a vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The vote was 403-3 against, with Murtha among the 403. The only congressmen favoring Murtha's idea were three far-left Democrats: Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York and Robert Wexler of Florida. Six Dems voted "present": Michael Capuano (Mass.), William Clay (Mo.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Major Owens (N.Y.).

Some Republicans have labeled Murtha a "coward," which strikes us as unduly personal. But he does seem to lack the courage of his convictions."

Umm... I thought the House voted on House Joint Resolution 571 - not Murtha's House Joint Resolution 73.

[IIOA]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
...It appears that Murpha feels very strongly that our troops should be pulled out. As for your other point, strict following of party leadership, while not always followed to the letter, is pretty much the way of the world in Congress. In this case, the parliamentary move on the part of the Democrats was to foil a GOP counter-move which would have followed.

I admit that I hadn't been following this issue that closely. What GOP counter-move were the Democrats worried about?

I'm not surprised that any political party can be mobilized to vote a certain way for a certain political purpose; however, the fact stands that McKinney, Serrano, and Wexler still voted for it even though they didn't propose in the first place. It makes Murtha look either confused or malleable.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by IIOA
What GOP counter-move were the Democrats worried about?

I don't really understand it myself. There was some procedural move which would have precluded voting later for this resolution -- or perhaps reintroducing it(?)

Anyway, it was in the party's best interest for it to lose this time.

Seems strange, but then that's often the case in Congress.

[Tom Earp]

D A You addressed the point very well. No one knows what a Politcal will say and for what reason.

It seems that the smaller Democratic Delegation will say and do anything to stir up Problems. They dont seem to realize that it harms them more than the Republican Party. It just makes them look sorrier.

I was not a True Democrate or a True Republican, I do not ever vote on Party Lines. There are Idiots, liars, and Crooks in Both.

Everytime I turn around, The Middle Class are getting screwed and just trying to make a living before it is taken away from them!

That is why the Golden Years Suck. Screw the People who with the sweat and hard work are hurting today!

Small Business has More People working in it. But, how to hurt a small business, tax the hell out of them, change the tax structure, the new proposal, Who does it Help? Not Me for damn sure!

I truely Hope it all comes out for the Legislatures who have been there for Years and Why!

Term Limits!!!!
I wonder what the Founders would think of todays Poloticians?


Do VULTURE SOUND GOOD?