> The House GOP refuses to allow actual bills calling
> for withdrawal that could garner significant vote
> support and instead proposes one designed to
> embarass withdrawal supporters-- and Counterpunch
> bashes the Democratic leadership rather than the
> GOP leadership. * * *
At the risk of belaboring the obvious (or is it too hard for too many to see the obvious?), if a majority of members of the House had voted for the GOP's bill, would it not have ben an "actual bill calling for withdrawal"?
Can someone answer without resorting to name-calling why it isn't it fair to say that the core (even if not openly stated) premise of the GOP's intent to embarrass withdrawal supporters was its (concededly: cynical) calcluation that the Dems. were too frightened and disorganized to vote for withdrawal?
(Note, BTW, how even Murtha back-pedaled in characterizing his block-buster speech.)