While I have no trouble believing that some sincerely believe that a rapid pullout of US troops from Iraq is the proper policy option, it seems blatantly clear that such a pullout, especially with elections pending, would be disastrous.
What has been especially vexatious about the pullout debate is that it is clear that some have semi-endorsed a pullout , not because they really favor one, but because it is a way to attempt and score political points. For example, just read the first several questions and answers from Minority Leader Pelosi’s November 17th press conference
in which she dances around whether Congressman’s Murtha’s proposal for an immediate pullout is a good one or not. Now, I will grant, some of that is her playing the Leader role, but some of it keeping an issue alive for political, not policy, purposes.
However, such rhetoric has been a hallmark (unfortunately) of the debate over Iraq almost from the beginning–the opposition to the administration’s policies (and there is plenty to criticize, I will grant) simply wish to highlight problems without suggesting any real alternatives (for further study see: Kerry, John, 2004 Campaign for President).
As such, while it clearly was a stunt on some levels (insofar as it was for PR and political purposes), it also strikes me as a vote that provides, as Glenn Reynolds noted, a moment of clarity. If in fact there was substantial widespread sentiment for such a pullout, then a vote of this nature could have exposed it. However, all it exposed, it would seem, was the fact that talk of a pullout, as much as it may appeal to some sectors of the Democratic base, is not really especially popular. The resolution, based on the Murtha proposal failed 403-3.
Yes, I understand that by making it an all-or-nothing proposal that the this forced the hands of the Democrats. However, if it is so blatantly obvious that such a proposal cannot be undertaken at this time, why give the Murtha proposal so much credence earlier in the week? If a proposal is given at least a public nod of support by the minority party, then being asked to vote on it isn’t unreasonable.
Nevertheless, the entire affair was considered outrageous by Leader Pelosi, despite her willingness to entertain the Murtha proposal on a day before:
The measure’s fate was sealed – and the vote count’s significance minimized – when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.“Just when you thought you’d seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them,” said Ms. Pelosi, who assailed Republicans as impugning Mr. Murtha’s patriotism.
I will confess to perhaps having missed something, but it seems that the harshest thing that has been said about Murtha was that his proposal was in sync with Michael Moore’s. This may be an unpleasant comparison, but it is factually accurate–Moore also has called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. And given that Moore was invited to the Presidential box at the Democratic National Convention and that many prominent Democrats, including then Minority Leader Daschle, attended the DC premiere of Fahrenheit 911, I am not sure how such a comment rising to the level of grave insult.
Beyond that there has been statements that a rapid, immediate withdrawal would be interpreted as cutting and running/surrender to the insurgents. While I suppose those are debatable issues (although I think they are correct assessments), such statements can hardly be construed as questioning the Congressman’s patriotism.
Both sides played politics here (which should be no surprise, given that there are all, well, politicians), but the level of outrage on the Democratic side strikes me as out of line, unless what they are really angry over is going on the record.
More from the NYT
Republicans and Democrats shouted, howled and slung insults on the House floor on Friday as a debate over whether to withdraw American troops from Iraq descended into a fury over President Bush’s handling of the war and a leading Democrat’s call to bring the troops home.
Who do they think they, the British House of Commons? Perhaps if they did more of this the rating on C-SPAN would increase…
Along the same lines, there’s this from the WaPo story on the subject:
As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war.
James Joyner has a few comments as well, and lists those voting for withdrawal, as well as those who simply voted “present”.
November 19th, 2005 at 11:38 am
I’m curious. What is your view, as a political scientist, of the current state of politics in the United States as compared to historical trends?
The need to “physically restrain” someone in Congress reminds me of what I have read of the atmosphere in Congress in the days immediately before the Civil War. While I don’t anticipate a fragmentation such as in that era, I wonder if in truth we are more divided than even we appeared to be in the Vietnam era.
November 19th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Hey, at least noone was beaten to death in the seats with a cane or killed in a duel afterwards.
I also see a kind of irony in someone having to be physically restrained because the other side is “playing politics” with the war, when all the other side did was replace his sides political stunt of a non-binding resolution with their own political stunt of a resolution.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
“The resolution, based on the Murtha proposal failed 403-3.”
This is false. The resolution was not “based” on Murtha’s proposal. The Republican resolution was not an act of legislation–as opposed to what Murtha has introduced. It also called for immediate withdrawl–which is not what Murtha advocates.
Congress was right to reject a stupid “sense of the house” resolution when serious issues of US viability in Iraq are being raised by Murtha. He offers a specific plan. To conflate Murtha’s bill with what was voted on last night is wrong and misleading.
November 19th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
While I take your point, I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “based on” is.
And regardless, my general point stands.