In a surprise move, House Majority Leader Roy Blount has decided to allow a vote on John Murtha's resolution demanding the withdrawl of troops from Iraq. I think he's thinking that this will force Democrats to go on record saying that they want to "cut and run" if they support it, and that they "have no plan of their own" if they reject it. A rejection also would be a slap in the face to Murtha. It might work, but for the Republicans it's kind of like going "all in" in poker and bluffing with a pair of twos. The Democrats have the better hand here, but the Republicans are betting that they'll fold and reject the resolution--taking the wind out of recent "war was a mistake" talking points.
Not sure what the best strategy is here . . . personally, I hope that they all support an immediate withdrawl of the troops (because that's what I want), but if even if they do, the resolution won't pass and it'll generate campaign ads for 2006 that say, "Rep. So and So didn't support the mission of our troops, and voted to cut and run from Iraq before the mission was finished." The opposite vote generates the "Rep. So an So voted to keep the troops in Iraq, but now he's saying that the war was a mistake."
In retrospect it was probably a mistake for Murtha to introduce it, but either way, a united front will look better that a split decision. The only really good outcome politically would be for the Resolution to pass with bi-partisan support--that would REALLY make Bush look bad--but Blount wouldn't let it come to a vote if he expected any Republican defectors.
How do you think Dems should vote?
--Tinfoil Out
Update: I misread the article. Murtha didn't propose the resolution. Still, the choices for the Dems remain the same.
3 comments:
It's a tricky business. I don't share your desire to see an immediate withdrawal of troops, mainly because I don't think Iraq is ready to stand on its own against Islamic fundamentalism or engage in multilateral government without likely descending into civil war. But I'll happily admit that I don't fully understand the situation, either. What do I know? I've based my career on talking about movies and videogames. I do think the Dems will have to show a united front, and will likely call for and fail in getting a withdrawal vote.
But this might not be as bad as you think. If Dems show a united front, call for a withdrawal and don't get it, come election time they can say "we voted to do the right thing and bring our troops home, but the Bush-led Republicans are unable to admit a mistake and stuck to an unpopular war based on trumped up lies." I think that's why Bushco is so concerned about portraying Dems who've switched their support as hypocrites; they know this whole affair is going to be shoved up their hoohas come November.
What I think is interesting is the growing sense I get that many Republicans are increasingly willing to let Bush roast on his own spit. He can't be re-elected, he's about as unpopular as a President can be without being in the middle of impeachment, and his handlers are getting tainted left and right. I'm starting to wonder if the Republican strategy is partially meant to allow them to distance themselves from him even further if necessary.
On further investigation, the vote being held is not on a measure to withdraw the troops, but a measure to express the House sentiment that they should be withdrawn. From this link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DV51A80.html):
"House Republicans planned to put to a vote - and reject - their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.""
The really key point being here that Republicans took Murtha's original measure and rewrote it; as worded now, even if it passed it would accomplish no direct influence on the president.
(Sorry about the pasted link. I couldn't figure out how to tag a live link in comments).
Actually, Murtha called for the troops to withdraw in 6 months and move to a more peripheral position. As he says, the job of the military is over. They got rid of Saddam and his regime and "stabilized" the country so they could form their own government. Now Iraq needs to stand up and do their own security work. As long as our military is there, what is the incentive for the Iraqi's to do anything? Murtha never said the troops should get out now. Imagine my surprise that the Republicans misled the country on Murtha's statements...
Post a Comment