Theres a vote tonight to bring the troops home?

[brettdale]

Theres a vote tonight to bring the troops home?????

I guess I havent been paying much attention!

What is this about?????

[robbedvoter]

1. A GOP-er, Hunter, mocks Murtha - with a straw man resolution

"calling his bluff". A GOP sham. So far, not voted on. See here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5396650

[pocket]

2. sham or not, it is a time to take a principled stand!

vote yes or just go ahead and join the rethugs

[NYC Liberal]

Or do not vote at all and not let this become another

Terri Schiavo bill mess. The Repugs can stand alone in this if they want to.

[pocket]

12. no vote at all might work if every single dem cooperated

but a split party would be a disaster.

anyway, I urge principle over tactics

[NYC Liberal]

16. They managed to get a unanimous NO vote tonight

on the procedural vote. It can be done if the leadership really cracks the whip.

[robbedvoter]

6. No principles at stake - just blowing smoke here

I want the end of the war badly - but this is all about turning the tables on Bush criticism. Read first, raise your fist later.

[thereismore]

7. Exactly my thinking. If they push, grab the hand and PULL. n/t

[pocket]

14. Judo is a good analogy!

:)

[tsuki]

9. Fuck 'em. Don't vote.

I'd find a room, lay out a spread, talk, invite the gallery in for conversation, and let them have their pretend vote.

If the GOP wants to play "grown-up," let the spoiled little rich kids do so. I just would not participate. (Besides, I don't think I could stand to be that close to the Howdy-Doody-like Nimrod.)

[NYC Liberal]

3. Repugs introduced a "fake" nonbinding resolution saying it's the

House's wishes that they be brought home NOW.

It is a CHARICATURE of Murtha's plan, it is not binding, and they are forcing everyone to vote on it. IT IS A TRICK!!!

[Mutley]

4. They'll be voting on it tonight.

But it's nothing like Murtha's resolution.

[spuddonna]

5. It's a scam...

Duncan Hunter submitted a bill today that he calls the 'Murtha bill' - it demands the immediate withdrawal of troops, which is not what Murtha's bill proposed.

It's an attempt to say "Look, the Democrats wanted to vote on this! See! They want to cut and run!"

Here's Murtha's ammendment:
"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 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."

Here's Hunter's:
"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately."

[brettdale]

8. I think they should vote

and call the GOP bluff!

[spuddonna]

17. It's a nonbinding vote - it wouldn't matter if they all voted to get out.

It's an attempt to frame the Dems as 'cut and run' cowards. Jean Schmidt (Repug-OH) 'read an email' that called people like Murtha cowards. It shut down the house, and she was forced to apologize...

This is an attempt to slander Murtha and the Dems. I think the Dems should all vote 'present', and let the Repugs vote against their own amendment...

[pinto]

19. I agree. They'll have to vote no on their own amendment, and show the ploy

for what it is. Hunter's a few aces short of a full deck - let him ride this one down.

[pinto]

15. Thanks for the transcripts - Hunter's res is a slap at Murtha and the Dems

A gamesmanship scam, and given the Repub move to allow Hunter's "Sense of the House" ploy come to a vote today (that's the rule motion that just passed, btw) - it's easy for folks to confuse the issues.

[greiner3]

10. tit-for-tat?

I'd say it's in response to Reid's (last week?) ploy. What is the % of Americans who want the military here now? Under 50%. But if you add the % of Americans who want a planned deployment there is a decent majority. I would say that any way it's played, this will come back to haunt the Repubs Nov '06.

[brettdale]

11. when is the actual vote suppose to start?

when is the actual vote suppose to start?

[Mutley]

13. When the Rules Committee is done discussing it.

It will be voted on sometime tonight.

[gumby]

18. apples and oranges

Not tit-for-tat.