Joshua Frank on Rep. John Murtha’s call for troop “redeploy[ment] at the earliest predictable date” is worth reading in multiple respects:
- Murtha’s language has plenty of wiggle room but is misinterpreted by many (even those who favored not invading & occupying Iraq in the first place, and who want to get out of Iraq now). Murtha is not calling for “out of Iraq now”. What’s to prevent “the earliest predictable date” from being 130 years from now?
- From Frank’s essay: “Senator John Kerry and even Donald Rumsfeld are calling for a reduction of US troops after December. But the troops they both want to bring home are the ones they sent over to monitor Iraq elections in the first place. Pulling them out afterward was the plan all along.”. It should be clear to anyone now that Kerry’s would-be presidency wouldn’t have changed anything of substance in the illegal and unethical occupation of Iraq.
- Frank’s article is archived in numerous places online in case you need to refer back to it before election day. You might want to refresh a friend’s memory on why the Democrats don’t deserve your vote.
For reference, here is the complete text of Murtha’s non-binding resolution which received a 403-3 vote against:
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.
The Duncan Hunter (R-CA) resolution offered in response read
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.
Also, check out Jeff Chester’s response to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s fundraising request and ask yourself if any of your anti-war buddies would have the guts to not vote for a pro-war candidate. “But she’s a woman!” and “But she’s a Democrat!” will start in earnest if she runs for President and if the Republicans don’t have a woman candidate too (Condoleeza Rice would give us a real race to the bottom). Who will have the guts to oppose a woman’s run for office and point out that they’re not being misogynistic, but staying true to their anti-war, pro-universal health care, anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA politics?
It’s perfectly fine to not vote for a woman if that woman is a poor candidate. If we’re compelled to vote for women or minorities in the name of diversity, then we’re really screwed because it’s so easy to find women and/or minorities who will work for all the things that aren’t in the public’s best interest.