Tonight Congress Resembles PM Question in Parliament

tomahawk6 said:

Things are looking rather nasty as the Republicans decided to put the dem's on the record for voting for/against the war in Iraq.
"Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- House Republicans sought to kill any talk of immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by planning a quick vote on the matter later tonight. They outnumber Democrats in the chamber by a margin of 231-202."

"Republicans to Test Call for Quick Pullout From Iraq (Update2)"
I suppose the story here , will be if any Republicans vote against the motion?
Funnily enough I do actually agree that the Democrats who voted for the war have no right to complain.

Anyone with half a brain cell between them could see out that the WMD argument was overblown.
However the Democrats can rightly complain that they didn't expect the administration to make such a dog's breakfast of the post-war planning.
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.
Therein lies the problem. When, exactly, will "through" be? And can we finally admit that the original "through" timeline was based on some pretty generous assumptions, and now nobody knows what the resolution is?
The vote went 403-3 against.

From the New York Times:
The battle came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha's measure and left little time for meaningful debate.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, denied that there were any political tricks involved and said pulling forces out of Iraq so rashly would hurt troop morale overseas. "We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

The measure's fate was sealed - and the vote count's significance minimized - when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.
Note again, the linkage of Iraq and Afghanistan (like they're two sides of the same coin) by Hastert. Ollie North made the same argument. It appears to be one of the week's talking points. In reality, it's a near consensus opinion among senior military officials and analysts that the ability of the US to deal with Afghanistan was severly hampered by the redeployment in anticipation of the Shaved Chimp's Desert Adventure. That's the link, chaps.

Call me daft, but I fail to see the correlation between supporting the troops and sending them to die in a war that was based on (and I'm going to give you a choice here, based on your political views) a) a pack of lies, b) duff gen.
Tanky - its far too much to hope for that Bash, Rumsfieldmarshal and Cheney (couldnt think of anything clever) would admit that they werent worried about VX in DC but against better advice thought that getting rid of Saddam would prove to be cheaper than containing him.

The really shite thing is that there's no real way back. I have a rotten horrible feeling that if the Coalition pulls out before the insurgency is beaten or severely contained, we will find outselves back there in a few years against the Islamic Emirate of Al-Anbar/Mesopotamia/Greater Syria doing it all over again. Iraq is now far more important than Afghanistan. It didnt have to be that way, but joy o joy a lot of chaps are going to have to die just to restore the situation to 20-03-2003. If the Yanks arent prepared to pay their part of the butchers bill they might as well just go all the way right away and bring home every serviceman anywhere overseas, and so should we. Why mess about?

Latest Threads