On The Head Of A Pin
Google Image search for
“Withdrawal Resolution Wording”
Yeah, yet another Murtha post, this one because Bad Bob said I should.
I saw two counterarguments during the debate of last week’s resolution.
- This Resolution Isn’t What Murtha Proposed
- We Don’t Have Time To Debate
The second one is silly on its face. No time to debate? In how many years?
The first one, though, seems to have captured the attention of Alfred Glenstein (a new blogger, from the looks of it). He’s got a long comment here, I think a hit-and-run rebuttal, followed by a few hundred words on my part. Glenstein is unhappy that I think “immediate withdrawal” and “withdrawal at the earliest practicable date” have the same political-military effects. One point of mine:
Immediate withdrawal was not only Murtha’s words during his PR blitz but also the crux of the House argument. The difference between “earliest practicable†and “immediate†is not large enough to change the actions of our enemy if we cut and ran, unless the definition of the “practicable†is stretched to the Bosnian “out by Christmas†level of untruth. The true difference in phrasing is negligible; any small scale difference in withdrawal time would be actually worse for the country in the “practicable†wording because any delay just allows our guys on the ground to watch the bloodletting start without the ability to help. It is imperative in the decision calculus of the enemy to understand we won’t go away just because the job is hard–see Osama bin Laden’s discussion of Somalia in his declaration of war for why. The resolution voted upon was a ‘call’ move; a ‘put up or shut up’. The two feeble counters to the resolution (â€different from Murtha’s†and “not enough time to debateâ€) didn’t wash.
Oh, and by the way, the guys on the ground in Iraq do have a pretty good idea of which Iraqis are ready and which ones are next and where they’re being stood up and trained. You can read about this, but it doesn’t seem to appear in many newspapers. I guess you just have to check the milblogs.
I have talked about this Murtha guy entirely too much lately. Time for something else, I think.
5 Responses to “On The Head Of A Pin”
Trackback URL for On The Head Of A Pin: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=1341
November 29th, 2005 at 9:38 am
And the big strategy seems to be that “Bush Lied” has run it’s course and been “embedded” in the collective psyche (NOT). The latest is “The War in Iraq is Lost”. In their pinheaded logic Murtha provides grist for the mill.
Of course the arguments you present above support this latest ‘newspeak’, don’t they….
BTW, I knew/know an ex navy pilot named “Pinhead” from his 1st day in the squadron. His handle came from the physical size of his head ( 6 7/8) vice the breadth of his intellect as an LSO. Next time you fly the friendly skies, look for him- a good guy.
B2
November 29th, 2005 at 11:16 am
This seems somewhat like repetition and last wordism. Despite your interpretation of the minimally different meanings of the words, the difference was large enough to spur the entire battle in the Senate, which deserves to be acknowledged.
The Republicans changed the wording of Murtha’s resolution. If it was so insignificant, why didn’t they let it reach the floor for debate? Why were Democrats outraged that the Republicans?
From th AP:
“Furious Democrats accused the GOP of orchestrating a political stunt, leaving little time for debate and changing the meaning of a withdrawal resolution offered by Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania.
…
But Democrats claimed the effort had backfired because their party members planned to vote against withdrawal _ and the GOP version of Murtha’s resolution.
Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq “at the earliest practicable date.” It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
But House Republicans planned to put to a vote _ and reject _ their own symbolic alternative resolution that simply said: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”
With stinging rhetoric, Democrats criticized the GOP alternative. They said House Repub”lican leaders killed Murtha’s thoughtful approach.”
That difference was what the entire debate was about, and I do NOT think you are objectively representing this debate by minimizing this difference.
And, by that same logic wouldn’t you have to say that the Republican sponsored Senate vote was to “cut and run”?
url: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-16T053916Z_01_EIC568208_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA.xml
It called for a “phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” Hardly a difference from cutting and running, right? If so you have the entire Senate to complain about, and you would be characterizing the vote very different from how the rest of the entire country is, which would merit an explanation.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Too bad there’s no there there. Nice try.
December 2nd, 2005 at 5:21 pm
??
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:22 am
A.G.: I gather from reading your comments that you are convinced of the rightness of your current position despite both presented evidence to the contrary and lack of supporting information for claims. It is also clear you do not understand what redeployment does or what strategic communications are. I do not desire to regurgitate my entire previous blog to teach you the subtleties of the argumentation I am putting forth.
Take a look at your own string of comments. Aside from exhibiting a passing knowledge of a List Of Logical Fallacies and a habit of unknowingly insulting people in their own blog, you have managed to either avoided recognizing a line of argument that is about the best I plan to spend time with, or attempted a troll.