[lbo-talk] A Pathetic Congress (and Opposition)

knowknot at mindspring.com knowknot at mindspring.com
Sat Nov 19 12:31:02 PST 2005


On 11/19/05, Nathan Newman wrote:

> 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.)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list