"but the six-month "nuance" covers their butts from the nebulous "moderate vote.""
Maybe. But it also reflects more closely what Murtha had proposed. Here is the text from his proposal
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. (Introduced in House)
HJ 73 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 73
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005
Mr. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
JOINT RESOLUTION
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.
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 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified; and
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: Now, 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.
SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
thomas.loc.gov
To help clarify, here is the definition of 'practicable'...
prac·ti·ca·ble Audio pronunciation of "practicable" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkt-k-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See Synonyms at possible.
2. Usable for a specified purpose: a practicable way of entry.
[Medieval Latin prcticbilis, capable of being used, from prcticre, to practice, from prctica, practice, from Greek prktik, practical science, from feminine of prktikos, fit for action, practical, from prssein, prk-, to make, do.]practi·ca·bili·ty n.
practi·ca·bly adv.
Usage Note: It is easy to confuse practicable and practical because they look so much alike and overlap in meaning. Practicable means “feasible” as well as “usable,” and it cannot be applied to persons. Practical has at least eight meanings, including the sense “capable of being put into effect, useful,” wherein the confusion with practicable arises. But there is a subtle distinction between these words that is worth keeping. Someone with a practical knowledge of French may be able to order coffee in a café, though it may not be practicable to learn the language of every country in Europe.
dictionary.reference.com
This is very different from the measure that was voted on...
H.RES.571
Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (None)
thomas.loc.gov
Which is why it lost 403-3. It wasn't because the Democrats were trying to play both ends, although many may have been, but the two resolutions are totally different. It is like the Kerry statement that you so love to mock, the resolution that he voted for was very different than the one he voted against. Two different resolutions, two different votes. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. |
