A day after Rep. John Murtha introduced a resolution calling for the removal of American troops from Iraq, House Republicans countered by agreeing to take a vote on the withdrawal resolution. Murtha raised. Republicans called. We'll find out who is bluffing, and who holds the best hand, tonight. Politics is more exciting than any card game because the stakes are so much greater.

UPDATE: It turns out the Republicans folded before the cards were dealt. The withdrawal resolution the House will be voting on will not be Murtha's, which calls for troop removal "at the earliest practicable date," but a Republican strawman, which demands that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." Murtha, appearing on Hardball today, was furious and called the imitation resolution "ridiculous" and "reprehensible." It is and it is.

The GOP showed a truly shameful side of itself today.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

The proposal comes as tension grows in both Washington and Baghdad following a call by a senior House Democrat to bring U.S. troops home and the deaths of scores of people by suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities.

House Republicans were looking for a showdown Friday after Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and well-respected Vietnam veteran, presented a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date." (Watch Murtha urge legislators to sign off on pulling out troops -- 1:37)

Murtha on Thursday called the administration's management of the conflict "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" that is "uniting the enemy against us."

"It's time to bring the troops home," he said.

Republicans were looking to lock horns with Democrats after Murtha's remarks.

Rather than distancing themselves from Friday's resolution, House majority leader Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, welcomed a debate and vote, forcing Democrats to stand alongside Murtha or go on record against the withdrawal. (Read about the House showdown)

Meanwhile, at least 90 people were killed in two suicide bombings in Iraq, according to hospital officials. The U.S. military put the casualties at 150, without giving a breakdown. (Full story)

The deadliest of the attacks took place in Khanaqin, a Shiite-Kurdish town about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Baquba. Two suicide bombers detonated bombs near or inside Shiite Muslim mosques, destroying both of the structures, Iraqi and U.S. authorities said.

Scores of people were killed.

The attacks came during midday prayer services, when the mosques were full of worshippers, many of them children, the Khanaqin mayor said.

Also Friday, two suicide car bombings in Baghdad killed at least six people near a hotel, police said. (Watch security camera video of suicide car bomb -- :30)

The hotel is near the Iraqi Interior Ministry compound, where about 170 detainees were found last weekend, some with signs of torture, according to Iraqi officials. There were no reports of damage to the compound, and the U.S. military said the hotel was the target of the attack.

Rumsfeld has yet to sign Casey's withdrawal plan but, the senior defense official said, implementation of the plan, if approved, would start after the December 15 Iraqi elections so as not to discourage voters from going to the polls.

The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn.

Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.

CNN's Dana Bash, Arwa Damon, Enes Dulami and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

Ben-T, what was so shameful? The fact that they said put your vote where your mouth is or that the resolution was a bit more than the Dems would have created? Or was it relaying a statement from one of Murtha's fellow Marines: "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

There all playing politics, including Murtha. The Dems are just as guilty and shameful for their actions.

Ben T is right. Calling a 37-year Marine vet a "scumbag," a "pansy," and a "coward" is completely sickening. This was today's reaction from two bloggers, and an inexperienced GOP Congresswoman, who, in a technical defense of her, did invoke the Murtha-is-coward smear in the act of quoting a constituent.

The Republicans DID NOT challenge Democrats to "put your vote where your mouth is." Instead of considering Murtha's well considered resolution (What's so extreme about pulling troops out six months from now?), they put forth their own strawman resolution. Why didn't they put Murtha's resolution to a vote? What are the Republicans so afraid of? Why did they pull such a transparent political stunt when lives are at stake? Shouldn't we leave such shameless grandstanding to the Democrats? As a lifelong Republican, I have never been more ashamed of my party than during the last 24 hours.

Dan,

The "scumbag" and "pansy" comments were reprehensible, but shouldn't be attributed to the GOP as a whole.

Jean Schmidt's comments, while bad because it gives ammunition to the DNC, weren't that upsetting. Equating the immediate termination of all deployments in Iraq to an act of cowardice isn't a far stretch. Murtha shouldn't be shelled from criticism because of is past actions.

Sure it was, many Dems indirectly (if not directly) support immediate withdrawal. Anti-war organization have complained that the immediate withdrawal idea is getting marginalize and have pointed to it's widespread popularity among the hard left.

The Paris Peace Accords were well considered to. You've seen the problems we've had taking and retaking the same cities, do you really think an "over-the-horizon" approach would be more effective? His third point is troubled because our diplomacy with Iran is linked to our success in Iraq. It's very plausible that diplomacy with both countries would fall apart. The only diplomatic options we would have would be through a Euro/Japan alliance and a promise to hold Israel back.

Nothing, let the commanders decide that. Withdrawal shouldn't be tied to the "earliest possible date", but to actual success in Iraq's own security force. What is so extreme about that?

"Why didn't they put Murtha's resolution to a vote?"

To delegitimize it.

"Why did they pull such a transparent political stunt when lives are at stake?"

I'm sure the troops appreciate showing that the talk of immediate withdrawal is just that. They don't have to worry that the success we have had will be undermined.

Who: I clearly identified who called Murtha a "pansy" and a "scumbag" (bloggers sympathetic to the president), so there is no issue of anyone here trying to attribute those words to office-holding GOPers. In addition to the reprehensible attack of one congresswoman on Murtha, the White House linked him to Michael Moore and claimed that he wished to surrender to the terrorists. This is hyperbole. Murtha is fair game for criticism. But it's not fair game to attack as a "coward" a Vietnam vet with two legitimately earned purple hearts. This, coming as it does from the cultish followers of two men who avoided wartime service, is not only disgraceful but it will backfire. It's bad politics. That is some bold spinning you do when you suggest that the Republicans held yesterday's strawman vote for the benefit of "the troops." Are you going to argue that they raised their own pay for the benefit of "the troops" too? They did the former for their political benefit and the latter for their own economic benefit.

Exactly what good does it do to set a "predictable" withdrawl date except tell the enemy if they hold on long enough we'll turn tail and run?

Exactly what good does it do to set a "predictable" withdrawl date except tell the enemy if they hold on long enough we'll turn tail and run?

"so there is no issue of anyone here trying to attribute those words to office-holding GOPers."

Then why is this a reason to be ashamed of the GOP?

"But it's not fair game to attack as a "coward" a Vietnam vet with two legitimately earned purple hearts."

I don't think it's advisable to call anyone a coward to win a debate, however if you are then there is no reason to avoid someone with a distinguished military record. If their purposed policy is cowardly then why not say so? Military experience doesn't equate to good wartime policy making (who were the greatest war-time presidents and what was their military experience).

"This, coming as it does from the cultish followers of two men who avoided wartime service"

Once again, why are you so concerned with everyone's military experience? You’re wrong that they "avoid" service. Bush served and Cheney was never drafted considering he was married w/one child.

"That is some bold spinning you do when you suggest"

Is it really that big of a stretch to claim that a overwhelming defeat of a bill about immediate withdrawal would help the morale of the troops it concerns. I think we both know the troops are particularly proud of the job they've done over there and simply want the opportunity to finish it.

Who: Dick Cheney sought and received five deferments from the draft. That is, by any definition, avoiding military service. Four deferments were student deferments--one for being a grad student--that had absolutely nothing to do with being a father. The final deferment was because his wife was pregnant (his daughter hadn't been born at that point). Perhaps you are okay with Cheney avoiding military service (avoiding military service is what getting repeated deferments from the draft is) but it doesn't erase the fact that Cheney did avoid military service and left an official paper trail to prove it.

Dan: I was using Wikipedia as a source in which they only cover from May '65 until he received his 3-A status.

You are right, but receiving legal deferments are hardly anything to be ashamed of. I go back to my point that you don't have to have served to have good wartime policy and those that have served aren't particularly apt at making good wartime policy.

On a side note, would your consider criticizing Smedly Butler for his political stance?

Who, you are missing the point. Calling John Murtha a spineless, "scumbag," "coward," and using his name in the same sentence as Michael Moore's, isn't attacking his political stance. It's attacking him. You say: "Murtha shouldn't be [shielded] from criticism because of [his] past actions." No one said otherwise. Murtha should be immune from being called a "coward" and a "pansy," because his past actions--his courageous service in Vietnam--have shown him to be the opposite of a coward and a pansy. Neither of the posts on Murtha suggested that he or his plan should be immune from criticism. What the posts state plainly is the type of criticism Murtha is receiving is way out of line and will backfire on the GOP. No one has stated that Murtha should be immune from criticism. Do you believe the GOP should be immune from criticism?

"What the posts state plainly is the type of criticism Murtha is receiving is way out of line and will backfire on the GOP."

I've agreed that it wasn't a good move and that I personally don't think calling someone a coward is going to win you points. If someone IS going to call someone a coward based on their CURRENT policy then it shouldn't matter what they did in the past. Whether the proposed policy is an act of cowardice should have nothing to do with the politicians past actions (whether Murtha or Waxman, it makes no difference to me).

"Do you believe the GOP should be immune from criticism?"

No, but I don't appreciate misdirected hostilities. I know you disagree with the war for many different reasons, but this shouldn't persuade you to accept bad policy.

For what it's worth, John O'Neil had similar sentiments. http://www.nysun.com/article/23341

"Mr. Murtha's distinguished military record does not mean he is not wildly and completely wrong in his pullout proposal. Despite Mr. Murtha's effort to present himself as speaking for our troops, all serious data is to the contrary."

Although this doesn't touch on the "coward" issue directly, he does touch on the fact that the Dems like to hid behind people that are supposedly invulnerable to critics about the war (Kerry, Shehan, Murtha).

Most troops that I know simply want to know that the US is indeed behind them and maybe a pat on the back with a job well done. I personally see immediate withdrawal as a sign of cowardice and also care less about someone's previous actions so I don't really care if it is Murtha or Waxman. To call this to attention on the floor of the House is distasteful and tacky, but I wouldn't call it shameful.