You are incorrect....
Some news reports talked about it as sort of a phased thing, but the reality is both his (Murtha's) official statement (PR) and the resolution itself call for immediate withdrawal.
The resolution itself:
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.
And Murtha's PR:
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
[emphasis added]
democraticunderground.com
house.gov
dccc.org
The GOP-bashers are hanging their "it's not immediate" charade on the words "earliest practicable date", which of course only means it can't possibly be instantaneous (so no helicopter airlift from the embassy roof, I guess, thereby disappointing the "just like Vietnam" crowd;-), but rather would be orderly and, most importantly, ASAP. Murtha himself uses the word "immediate" and his resolution, if passed, would immediately terminate congressional authorization for troops to be deployed in Iraq, so Bush would have no choice but to order immediate withdrawal. Practically speaking, "immediate" means about what he was quoted elsewhere as saying - that is that all the troops would be out inside six months.
In short, the Demo-spin is BS as usual. |
