The events of the past week in the U.S. House of
Representatives have been rather dramatic. When Congressman John Murtha, from
my old home territory of Western Pennsylvania, called for a withdrawal of troops
from Iraq “at the earliest practicable date,” it set off a tidal wave in
Washington. This wasn’t, after all, a wild-eyed liberal, like Russ Feingold,
the Wisconsin Democrat
who had previously called for a timetable for withdrawal. This was a blue
collar Democrat, with a history of supporting the Pentagon in all of its
warmongering activities, including increasing defense budgets, new weapons
systems, “star wars” missile defense, and other pet projects so dear to defense
hawks. Lest his conservative bona fides be questioned, he even offered a
resolution this year seeking an
amendment to the Constitution to allow voluntary prayer in public schools.
While it isn’t clear whether or not Murtha was an
independent contractor in launching his broadside attack, or just the canary in
the mine for the Democrat caucus in the House, testing the to see whether there
might be support for a rapidly-phased withdrawal, it is clear that Murtha’s
announcement caught a number of folks by surprise, mostly the members of his own
party. Not, however, the members of the majority, who quickly figured out a way
to relegate Murtha’s proposal to parliamentary oblivion.
Murtha’s resolution was quickly referred to a committee so it couldn’t be
promptly considered or voted on by the House.
But the republicans’ simultaneously presented their own
version of the Murtha resolution, considerably abbreviated from the one Murtha
submitted, and notably lacking the qualifying language “at the earliest
practicable date,” of Murtha’s resolution, substituting instead the word
“immediately.” Here’s what the GOP resolution says:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of
United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
This resolution was submitted by Rep. Duncan Hunter, the
powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, whose finest moment was
undoubtedly when, at a press conference, he served (literally)
examples of the culinary delights the prisoners at Guantanamo were being
served to contradict the by-then ubiquitous assertions that those prisoners were
being abused.
The Republican resolution put the issue in the starkest
terms, and eliminated not only the important qualifier on Murtha’s resolution
(“at the earliest practicable date”), but also eliminated a detailed preamble
Murtha had placed in his version which recited all the reasons he had listed
during his press conference for his belief it was time for American forces to
leave Iraq (e.g., no progress, 2,079 deaths, G.I.’s the target of insurgents,
$277 billion appropriated, etc.).
Murtha’s resolution reflected
the reasoning that had already been expressed by military intelligence
experts
for prompt withdrawal, and also served to further debunk the notion that
withdrawal should be conditioned on the state of preparedness of the Iraqi army,
an illusory goal, according to
the authoritative piece by James Fallows in the December issue of The Atlantic
Monthly. And let’s not forget that the majority of Americans now favor a
short-term withdrawal from Iraq: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm.
But the Republicans couldn’t be bothered with such
details. They wanted to put the question, down and dirty, to the House, knowing
that, reworded as it was, there was no way their resolution would pass, and even
more importantly, that they could avoid a debate on the war that wasn’t based on
phony jingo-patriotism (the American equivalent of “Islamo-fascism”), which is
precisely what the “debate” that ensued on the House floor degenerated into.
In other words, the Republicans really weren’t interested
in debating the wisdom of a withdrawal on the terms, or for the reasons, Murtha
suggested; they wanted to rub Murtha’s face in the very idea of withdrawing
troops at all, in essence saying to the Democrats, “so you want withdrawal, do
you; well, we’ll give you withdrawal,” or as Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
put it:
Since they [Democrats] have been wanting it [debate], we’re going to have it.
They’re going to take the heat and take the debate.
The same resolution which shoved Murtha’s resolution off
the House agenda also placed the substitute resolution on that agenda for
immediate debate, without the necessity for committee action, one of the
privileges of majority rule. The Democrats, realizing they had been outflanked,
vociferously protested the substitution of the Republican resolution for
Murtha’s. “Give us a real debate, don’t bring this piece of garbage to the
floor,” said Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts.
And, of course, the flashpoint of the debate came when Rep.
Jean Schmidt (they don’t call her “mean Jean” for nothing) made her now-infamous
statement accusing Murtha of being a cut and run coward. Which, to his credit,
caused my congressman, Harold Ford, Jr., according to the account in the New
York Times, to “charge across the chamber’s center aisle to the Republican side
screaming that Ms. Schmidt’s attack had been unwarranted.” Unwarranted! Not
exactly “give me liberty or give me death,” but a fighting word nonetheless.
A different account of Ford’s outburst appeared in the
Washington Times: “Say it to Murtha,” Mr. Ford supposedly shouted at Rep.
Tancredo while he [Ford] was being restrained by other members. Ford also, by
some accounts, supposedly menacingly jabbed a finger at Tancredo during their
confrontation, coming dangerously close to kicking some Republican butt (now, that
would have been worth the price of basic cable C-Span). Ford, in spite of
his willingness to storm the Republican ramparts in support of his fellow
congressman, wasn’t willing to support him in a much more important way—by
co-sponsoring the bill, which 13 of his Democrat colleagues, including Reps.
Rangel, Jackson-Lee and the outspoken Rep. McGovern (see above), found the
kojones to do. Putting his vote where his mouth was apparently didn’t
interest Mr. Ford.
And as if to emphasize the point, here’s how Congressman
“Finger Jabber” Ford, characterized the discussion on the House floor during his
appearance on “Hardball:”
The Murtha, or should I say the withdrawal, resolution that J.D. [Hayworth]was a
part of bringing was the first time in more than three years that we‘ve had
an open, honest and essential debate about Iraq.
Open and honest? Debate? Oh really, Mr. Ford? I guess,
despite your theatrics, that scamming the congress into considering a resolution
that was not Murtha’s in an effort to discredit the resolution that was his, and
thereby evading the discussion of a responsible “exit strategy,” was your idea
of “open and honest.”
To show how “open and honest” the debate was, J.D.
Hayworth, Ford’s Republican counterpart on “Hardball,” during his remarks in the
well of the house floor displayed the front pages of the New York Times and
Washington Post from that day (November 18th), both of which led with headlines
that characterized Murtha’s announcement as calling for “immediate” withdrawal.
That the MSM got it wrong is one thing (we’re used to that), but the fact that
Hayworth didn’t have the integrity to refer to the actual wording of the Murtha
resolution speaks for itself. (I’m convinced Hayworth and Schmidt have their
hair wrapped too tightly—have you seen their “do’s”—and that’s what makes
them so bitter).
Ford’s remark may be why one of Matthews’ other guests on
the program, Stuart Rothenberg, of the Rothenberg Political Report,
said of Ford’s appearance:
[T]hey [Democrats) are divided. When you listen to Harold Ford and compare that
to Ted Kennedy or something, how many parties do we have here? Their problem is
that they don‘t have a single message.
Ford ‘s statement undercut his party’s righteous position
on the Murtha withdrawal proposal, and worse, contradicted his party’s leaders
on the floor, none of whom wanted a bogus debate on the bogus Hunter
resolution.
Nonetheless, when it came time for a vote, only three of the over 400 who voted
on the Hunter resolution voted in its favor. The rest of the Democrats ran
for cover, fearing that in the war against un-patriotism being waged so much
more successfully by the GOP than the war against terror, they would be the
victims, when they could (and should) have maintained their righteousness on the
Murtha proposal and refused to vote at all on Hunter’s. Six representatives
(including New York’s Jerry Nadler) did precisely that, bless their hearts (as
we say down here).
Sadly, as fractious and fractionated as the Republicans
have become, as low as the president’s poll numbers may be (or may be likely to
go), and as graphic as the picture of the party in power’s corruption is
becoming, the Democrats still haven’t figured out how to capitalize on their
adversaries’ weaknesses. And if Rep. Ford’s performance on “Hardball,” is any
indication, they won’t be ready to do so until they’ve figured out how to
minimize their own.
Want to respond? Send us an email here.