Murtha’s Resolution Did Call For Immediate Withdrawal Of Troops From Iraq
Ever since the House vote on Friday that overwhelmingly rejected a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq Democrats and their sycophants have been trying to spin the issue by saying that Murtha was not really calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
They're wrong. To me it is clear that he was.
Here's the full text of Murtha's resolution:
Note the bolded sections.
The resolution calls for the removal of troops from Iraq at the earliest time practicable. That, to me, means that the troops should depart as soon as they can be made ready for shipping out. How is that not a call for immediate departure?
Also, this resolution would seem to hinder our abilities to wage war in Iraq. It calls for the pursuit of security in Iraq "through diplomacy." Diplomacy with who? Zarqawi? How do we get in touch with him? And even if we could, do you think he's up for negotiations?
That monster has made it clear that he will not stand for a free and democratic Iraq. How can we negotiate with that? Do we hand him Falujah and Mosul and tell him that he can establish his Islamic theocracy there as long as he leaves the rest of Iraq democratic?
As you can see, the idea that we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq through diplomacy is nonsense. As is Murtha's resolution. But that's not how the Dems are spinning it. Suddenly Murtha's resolution was not about immediate withdrawal. They're revising history again, just like they've revised it on pre-war intelligence.
There's not a lot of room for equivocation on this issue. Either you are for staying in Iraq until the country is stable and capable of defending itself (a/k/a: "victory") or you are for immediate withdrawal. There's nothing in between, though that is the ground Democrats are trying to occupy.
They're wrong. To me it is clear that he was.
Here's the full text of 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";
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
1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
2) Congress assembled,
3) That:
4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines
8 ) shall be deployed in the region.
9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10) through diplomacy.
Note the bolded sections.
The resolution calls for the removal of troops from Iraq at the earliest time practicable. That, to me, means that the troops should depart as soon as they can be made ready for shipping out. How is that not a call for immediate departure?
Also, this resolution would seem to hinder our abilities to wage war in Iraq. It calls for the pursuit of security in Iraq "through diplomacy." Diplomacy with who? Zarqawi? How do we get in touch with him? And even if we could, do you think he's up for negotiations?
That monster has made it clear that he will not stand for a free and democratic Iraq. How can we negotiate with that? Do we hand him Falujah and Mosul and tell him that he can establish his Islamic theocracy there as long as he leaves the rest of Iraq democratic?
As you can see, the idea that we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq through diplomacy is nonsense. As is Murtha's resolution. But that's not how the Dems are spinning it. Suddenly Murtha's resolution was not about immediate withdrawal. They're revising history again, just like they've revised it on pre-war intelligence.
There's not a lot of room for equivocation on this issue. Either you are for staying in Iraq until the country is stable and capable of defending itself (a/k/a: "victory") or you are for immediate withdrawal. There's nothing in between, though that is the ground Democrats are trying to occupy.
HG
Proof
Neiman
realitybasedbob
ManofFireandLight
robert108
Zsa Zsa
