The Black Republican

Do you really think that that idiotic "trick" (which, admittedly, was employed by Democrats in introducing the "draft" bill a couple of years ago) was revealing something? If the Republicans really wanted to show the true character of the Democratic party, they would have allowed Murtha's bill to go to the floor, unaltered. He asked for a six month time frame. The republicans changed it to IMMEDIATELY (knowing that was unsupportable by anyone, even the most virulent critics of the war).

You should really think before you post such drivel. It was a political stunt. Both parties play that for time on the five o'clock news. However, the stakes are higher in this case. Fortunately, everyone saw though it. We also know now, that the Bush administration is now preparing to "declare victory" very soon and pull out in six months, like Murtha proposed. Funny how that happened.

Lisa,

How on Earth is this a "trick?"

All of the reporting and commentary, including Murhtha's comments at his press conference, focused on the immediate withdrawal from Iraq. That was the nature of the reporting, and that was the message sent around the world, especially to our troops and our enemies.

I don't seem to recall an aggressive effort by Murtha and the rest of the Democrats to clarify the reporting on his bill . . . until, of course, the Republicans put forth a bill that clearly removed any doubts that the Congress (House) was entertaining an "immediate withdrawal."

I also don't get why this was so hotly debated. What is wrong with the bill?

Militarily speaking, how is an announced pullout in six months different from an immediate pullout? Answer: With a six-month warning, the enemy has six months to kill every soldier and Marine they can before we retreat. At least with an immediate pullout, our troops would be safe, wherever they end up hiding from Zarqawi.

No retreat or surrender is possible from terrorism. We must fight, and we must win. We've been hearing for years now how the President was supposedly going to pull out and declare victory - first it was immediately after the invasion, then it was in six months, then a year, then just before the election to ensure he'll win. "Funny" is how each time that prediction is made, it doesn't happen.

And I say thank God it's been wrong each time, because we cannot settle for anything less than total victory. If you're ever finally right (I note that you Lisa, like so many others, don't bother to provide a link where you're getting this drivel), and if we have not achieved victory before we leave, then who does that help? It doesn't help the Iraqis, and doesn't help the Republican Party (because we'd be calling for George Bush's head before you could). No, this would only help the Democrats, the MSM who would spin it in their favor, and - of course - the enemy, who would be emboldened, revitalized, and prepared to bring the fight back to our own shores.

OK Lisa, just a bit of advice. It's always a good idea to check your facts before you post a comment somewhere. You state:

Do you really think that that idiotic "trick" (which, admittedly, was employed by Democrats in introducing the "draft" bill a couple of years ago) was revealing something? If the Republicans really wanted to show the true character of the Democratic party, they would have allowed Murtha's bill to go to the floor, unaltered. He asked for a six month time frame. The republicans changed it to IMMEDIATELY (knowing that was unsupportable by anyone, even the most virulent critics of the war).

Ummm... wrong! Here are John Murtha EXACT words:

"Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months, but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops."

My question is, what part of "immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq" do you not understand? BTW... in the military, a complete re-deployment of forces away from a theater of operation is called surrender. Perhaps you should move to France! You then chide:

You should really think before you post such drivel.

Pot, please meet kettle! Ahh... but you're not done:

We also know now, that the Bush administration is now preparing to "declare victory" very soon and pull out in six months, like Murtha proposed. Funny how that happened.

Now this could be real news... too bad you provide absolutely zero proof that it's true. If you have such proof, please provide the link and your comments will gain a lot more credibility. Otherwise, I'm affraid we'll just have to assume you've willingly swallowed the Kool-aid.

Yesterday, James Taranto spelled out clearly how the Murtha apologists are playing this game.