I wonder if Murtha's plan would've been better received had it been presented less as an exit strategy and more as simply a different approach.

especially given Murtha's unique position as a combat wounded former Marine (both enlisted and officer, i THINK), hawkish Democrat.

11/21/2005 7:31:04 PM

I agree. He's just putting out what a hell of alot of folks are getting around to now. Either load for bear and take care of shit or get the hell out and let them deal with it.

Too bad it's taken 2000+ lives, 250 billion+ dollas, and a whole lot of kicking and screaming to get to this point. The invasion went very well. The nation-building is a big goatfuck. Be nice to actually have Afganistan taken care of as well. That steams me up more than Iraq to be honest.

bush and co. ain't into alternate suggestions from what I can see though. They're the second coming of Robert Macnamara. (sp)

11/21/2005 7:39:23 PM

Today he called it his "redeployment plan"

So I think he's already trying to do this.

11/21/2005 8:16:44 PM

His plan would've been better received if anybody in the news media had bothered to fucking read it.

11/21/2005 8:23:52 PM

i haven't really carefully studied his plan, and i haven't really heard serious debate about it, so i'm hesitant to give my final opinion, but it sounds like something i'd be cool with, with the exception of having a hard deadline.

which isn't all that much different from what the current plan is, really...it's more along the lines of just getting on with the show instead of refining our plans to death.

11/21/2005 10:32:48 PM

^what about letting the Iraqi's vote on whether we stay or not? theres an interesting opinion column, out of chicago i think, that proposes this
hell, theyve got an election coming up in a month, it wouldn't be hard to put an extra tab on the ballot

11/21/2005 11:02:05 PM

This is all his plan was:

Quote :

"Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That: Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the 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."

I have yet to see the difference between his plan and complete withdrawel.

well, unless you quibble over "ASAP" versus "immediate"

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2005 11:10:56 PM

^link plz

that looks like a resolution

11/21/2005 11:14:49 PM

he proposed one:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/18/163220/03

11/21/2005 11:17:03 PM

the initial difference is the 2 other sections resolved

the major difference is the fact that there is a big difference between (to use your words) "ASAP" and "immediate"

11/21/2005 11:19:55 PM

Well congress has no power in regards to Section 2 and 3 so its useless. (Section 1 could be accomplished through the power of the purse)

Quote :

"the major difference is the fact that there is a big difference between (to use your words) "ASAP" and "immediate" "

Not in this context.

Because first of all the first clause in section 1 (The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated) does bring an immediate end to the occupation.

And the second clause is basically calling for the forces to be redeployed as soon as they can pack up and get out.

Since this resolution stated that the goals could not be achieved and called for the immediate termination of force deployment, I really dont see how the language in the second clause is all that different from saying "immediately" unless to borrow from Smoker4 you think immediate means the troops using transporters to get out of there.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2005 11:32:49 PM