Congressman Murtha Calls for Immediate Withdrawal

[Mercy!]

Maybe I’m way off, but I think Congressman Murtha might just have opened the floodgates. Someone of stature and courage finally had the guts to say: get our troops out of Iraq now. I watched an interview with Murtha on The News Hour. He was really a breath of fresh air. Not real telegenic, maybe a little hard of hearing or else impatient because he frequently interrupted his questioner, impeccable and decorated service in the Marines for 37 years including two wars, respected by both parties for his expertise (until now, anyway). He apparently caught everybody by surprise.

 

He made some pretty basic points on TV – Bush war planning and implementation was inadequate; there was no terrorist activity in Iraq before we toppled Saddam; now WE have become the enemy and a catalyst for the violence; 80% of Iraqis want us out of there; the Iraqis will have no real motivation to take over their defense as long as we remain willing to do the fighting for them.

 

New York Times article

 

Transcript of Rep. Murtha's interview on The News Hour yesterday

 

Text of his speech:

 

For Immediate Release

November 17, 2005 

   

The Honorable John P. Murtha

War in Iraq 

     

(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised.  It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.  The American public is way ahead of us.  The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction.  Our military is suffering.  The future of our country is at risk.  We can not continue on the present course.  It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. 

 

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.”  General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” 

 

For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq.  I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns.  The main reason for going to war has been discredited.  A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared.  They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear. 

 

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP.  But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong.  It is not a world intelligence failure.  It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

 

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War.  And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support. 

 

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored.  We must be prepared to face all threats.  The future of our military is at risk.  Our military and their families are stretched thin.  Many say that the Army is broken.  Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards.  Defense budgets are being cut.  Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care.  Choices will have to be made.  We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away.  Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away.  We must be prepared.  The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. 

Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement.  George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.”  We must rebuild our Army.  Our deficit is growing out of control.  The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades.  This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft.  The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden. 

 

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years.  Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty.    Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates.  But the war continues to intensify.  Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths.  Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue.  There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

 

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground.  Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq.  We have now received two reports.  I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas.  Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels.  Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation.  Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent.  Unemployment remains at about 60 percent.  Clean water is scarce.  Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent.  And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year.  Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically.  Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled.    An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

 

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.”  I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize.  I believe the same today.  But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. 

 

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency.  They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence.  U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists.  I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control.  A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified.  I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. 

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.  All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free.  Free from United States occupation.  I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq. 

 

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 

 

This war needs to be personalized.  As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war.  They are suffering.

 

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them.  That’s why I am speaking out. 

 

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

 

(####)

[FlaSoxxJim]

You are not off. And the White House immediately had Scotty Mac on the job attacking Murtha and calling him unpatriotic and the saame tired old bit.

 

Attack the war vets when they oppose is something the administration has a lot of experience at.

 

Murtha is as hawkish as a Dem can be, and he's really very conservative. But certainly he expected he would be attacked. He won't let them Swiftboat him and get away with it.

[kapkomet]

To me, it's all about the way you do this. And this guy was pretty genuine, and heartfelt. This wasn't some pandering bull s*** from John Kerry running in a presidential campaign. This was a true call to look at what's going on here, and probably one of the first ones that is not some dickhead hanging off the camera teat.

 

The problem now is, we can't leave. If we leave now, we lose. Period. So what do we do?

[Texsox]

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.

 

"They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

 

Referring to President Bush, Murtha said, "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

 

"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, with Bush in South Korea for a meeting with Asian leaders. "So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

 

Well the attack dogs are out, which is very sad. Honest debate should be encouraged.

 

I don't see where leaving soon is a defeat. Isn't Sadaam removed from power? I keep seeing him in a court room, not commanding.

 

Maybe it's a defeat to military suppliers who are hoping for a multi-year involvement to boost the bottom line. Until we say, what will it take to get out? And honestly answer that, why is the default a presumed defeat?

[Texsox]

"See the mission through" doesn't Rep. Johnson know it's accomplished??

 

[kapkomet]

Well the attack dogs are out, which is very sad. Honest debate should be encouraged.

 

I don't see where leaving soon is a defeat. Isn't Sadaam removed from power? I keep seeing him in a court room, not commanding.

 

Maybe it's a defeat to military suppliers who are hoping for a multi-year involvement to boost the bottom line. Until we say, what will it take to get out? And honestly answer that, why is the default a presumed defeat?

Because now that we're there, all the extremeists are there. If we leave, the power vacuum is such that you will have a United Islamist State of Iraq, with their new best friends Iran. And that CANNOT happen.

[Texsox]

Because now that we're there, all the extremists are there.  If we leave, the power vacuum is such that you will have a United Islamist State of Iraq, with their new best friends Iran.  And that CANNOT happen.

 

In a democracy, if that is who they vote in, don't we have to accept that?

 

And the point that some proponents of withdrawing are making is the criminals are there because we are there. Remember even the pro-war folks claim that because we are there, the terrorists aren't attacking here?

 

I love this irony.

 

Hawk " we are winning the war on terror by engaging the enemy in Iraq. They will not come to America while we are in Iraq.

 

Dove "so Iraq would be better off if we were gone and the terrorists left to battle us in another area. We are there to help Iraq, right?!"

 

It seems as if we are using Iraq as a shooting range and US military personnel as targets.

 

I believe we need to have serious dialog with the goal being getting out by the end of 2006. That has got to be better than a "stay until whenever plan".

 

Plan your work, work your plan.

Failure to plan your work, is preparing for failure.

Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

[Texsox]

Kap, here is one thing I am very disappointed in President Bush. I cannot remember an administration that smears people faster who disagree. Reagan was a master at not doing that, yet always getting his way. Bush Sr. was decent at it, Clinton somewhere in between. But this administration reacts like a rapid dog as soon as anyone dares to disagree.

 

His first month in office led me to believe he would be one of the greatest at building bridges, but it hasn't worked out that way. I can't imagine what he would have done if the Dems had control of either house.

[kapkomet]

In a democracy, if that is who they vote in, don't we have to accept that?

 

And the point that some proponents of withdrawing are making is the criminals are there because we are there. Remember even the pro-war folks claim that because we are there, the terrorists aren't attacking here?

 

I love this irony.

 

Hawk " we are winning the war on terror by engaging the enemy in Iraq. They will not come to America while we are in Iraq.

 

Dove "so Iraq would be better off if we were gone and the terrorists left to battle us in another area. We are there to help Iraq, right?!"

 

It seems as if we are using Iraq as a shooting range and US military personnel as targets.

 

I believe we need to have serious dialog with the goal being getting out by the end of 2006. That has got to be better than a "stay until whenever plan".

 

Plan your work, work your plan.

Failure to plan your work, is preparing for failure.

Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

I agree with the fact that basically the current plan is to draw the "Terrorists" into Iraq and fight them there. It's all but said. And to tell you the truth, that's probably what needs to happen, at least in the short order... until they get their army in gear - which is closer to happening then it was 6 months ago by all accounts.

 

Again, from some of the rhetoric that I have seen here - 80-90% of the Iraqi's "hate us and don't want us there"... where do people get this? I just do not hear that from people that have been over there for extended periods of time.

[Texsox]

I agree with the fact that basically the current plan is to draw the "Terrorists" into Iraq and fight them there.  It's all but said.  And to tell you the truth, that's probably what needs to happen, at least in the short order... until they get their army in gear - which is closer to happening then it was 6 months ago by all accounts.

 

Again, from some of the rhetoric that I have seen here - 80-90% of the Iraqi's "hate us and don't want us there"... where do people get this?  I just do not hear that from people that have been over there for extended periods of time.

 

If we were using their country as a magnet for terrorists to come and shoot at us, should they be happy?

 

If the theory that all the terorrists are content to shoot at us in Iraq, (which just doesn't make sense to me), aren't we being unfair to Iraq?

[kapkomet]

Kap, here is one thing I am very disappointed in President Bush. I cannot remember an administration that smears people faster who disagree. Reagan was a master at not doing that, yet always getting his way. Bush Sr. was decent at it, Clinton somewhere in between. But this administration reacts like a rapid dog as soon as anyone dares to disagree.

 

His first month in office led me to believe he would be one of the greatest at building bridges, but it hasn't worked out that way. I can't imagine what he would have done if the Dems had control of either house.

That I disagree with 100% - on only one aspect. Clinton did it just as bad as Bush does now. Other then that, I agree... but another part of it is the political climate is so poisoned now.

 

Insert (Republican) here... vs. insert (Democrat) here... is SO damn poisoned. The smear from both sides is so repugnant. That's why I keep posting over and over and over - we see countless threads and posts around here about GWB is this and this and this and this and this (all negative)... but for every negative article about GWB there should be one about Democrats, because they are just as bad.

 

Our government is rotten at the core. The power grabs and glimmer of the spotlight is too much for these narrow-minded asshats. The United States/Roman Empire anyone?

[kapkomet]

If we were using their country as a magnet for terrorists to come and shoot at us, should they be happy?

 

If the theory that all the terorrists are content to shoot at us in Iraq, (which just doesn't make sense to me), aren't we being unfair to Iraq?

Yes and no. It's a part of a bigger picture, or fantasy, if you ask me. The bigger piece of this was to "plant democracy" in the middle east. Really, im my opinion, Iraq was nothing but an excuse to get 180,000 US soldiers in the Middle East so that we could set up (more) covert operations to infiltrate Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordon, and Iran.

 

We all know that the policies of this country mandates that we "control" the Middle East for the next 50 years, until we run them out of oil, then we run from there faster then we came in. I think, as alluded to above, the Iraq war was nothing but a platform for this.

 

I also think that there's more going on over there then the media hounds let on. And that's the part I keep trying to say here. Iraq is bigger then Iraq - and to think otherwise is too short sighted, IMO... which is why it's difficult to pull the guys and gals of our military out right now.

[Texsox]

Bush has used this tactic much more than anyone since Nixon. What Bush did to McCain was wrong on so many levels. And that style has not changed. I can't remember anyone outing a CIA agent for political gain. Clinton spent much of his second term deflecting attacks, he never was in a position to smear.

 

At the minimum, Bush has been the most successful at this since Nixon's first term and re-election.

 

And I say Bush's administration, but I believe the entire GOP party is in that mode. Did it start at the top or was it grass roots?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Tex raised a very good point about our stated goal of giving a democratic voice to the Iraqi people, but then really doing what we say and letting them determine their own destiny.

 

Kap, you said we can't just leave and let Iraq become Iran Junior, but is that really our call? If you search this site as far back as two years ago, it was intimated by myself and others that we might just get what we are wishing for, but in the worst way possible: a Shi'a majority Iraqi voice that says, OK we vote to be a Islamist theocracy.

 

It would of course be the single biggest irony to come out of our bumbling invasion to have Iraq trade a tyrannical dictatorship for a Islamist state. But if self-determination for Iraq is what our presence is all about, do we have an obligation to keep it from happening?

 

Of course, kap, you're as on the ball as any of us. You accept that the Iraq war is about stabilizing the Middle East for American ends, not about the high ideals of Iraqi self-determination.

 

A defintae rock and a hard place. Which is why Cheney and Rummy were stuck playing hide the Chalabi last week. Despite the fact that the guy swindled us on so many fronts, dealing with him is still seen as better than the unthinkable; that we were the ones to tip 'Free Iraq' toward theocracy.

[kapkomet]

A defintae rock and a hard place.  Which is why Cheney and Rummy were stuck playing hide the Chalabi last week.  Despite the fact that the guy swindled us on so many fronts, dealing with him is still seen as better than the unthinkable; that we were the ones to tip 'Free Iraq' toward theocracy.

 

I noticed that too. It was kind of like - "we know you're the devil, but you're not THE devil, so (cough cough) get the hell back in here so we can do "buiiiissssssssssnesssssss." :rolly

[YASNY]

Kap, here is one thing I am very disappointed in President Bush. I cannot remember an administration that smears people faster who disagree. Reagan was a master at not doing that, yet always getting his way. Bush Sr. was decent at it, Clinton somewhere in between. But this administration reacts like a rapid dog as soon as anyone dares to disagree.

 

His first month in office led me to believe he would be one of the greatest at building bridges, but it hasn't worked out that way. I can't imagine what he would have done if the Dems had control of either house.

 

If you were the target over every Democrat across the country, you'd go into attack mode too. The guy can't fart without some democratic jerk taking a pot shot at him. Yet, when he fires back, he "smears people". That's just a bias crock of s***.

[Steff]

If you were the target over every Democrat across the country, you'd go into attack mode too.  The guy can't fart without some democratic jerk taking a pot shot at him.  Yet, when he fires back, he "smears people".  That's just a bias crock of s***.

 

 

I don't care how "on edge" he is.. Talking s*** about Congressman Murtha is pretty effing stupid, and will cost him at the end of the day.

[YASNY]

I don't care how "on edge" he is.. Talking s*** about Congressman Murtha is pretty effing stupid, and will cost him at the end of the day.

 

My point was that anybody can take a shot at Bush, and it's all cool. He fights back and he "smear people".

[southsider2k5]

I don't care how "on edge" he is.. Talking s*** about Congressman Murtha is pretty effing stupid, and will cost him at the end of the day.

 

The sad thing is it won't. Negative politics is all a part of the game now a days. Ask John McCain how much Bush paid for his negative portrayals of him.

[southsider2k5]

My point was that anybody can take a shot at Bush, and it's all cool.  He fights back and he "smear people".

^

Good point.

[Steff]

My point was that anybody can take a shot at Bush, and it's all cool.  He fights back and he "smear people".

 

 

Your point is, I would guess, extremely exaggerated.

[YASNY]

Your point is, I would guess, extremely exaggerated.

 

Guess again, I guess.

[Steff]

The sad thing is it won't.  Negative politics is all a part of the game now a days.  Ask John McCain how much Bush paid for his negative portrayals of him.

 

 

Murtha is a different animal I would say. He's beloved by both parties (was). Extremely respected (I would guess still is), and 37 years of experience under his belt. He signed off on going.. and now he's saying he made a mistake. He's being honest... go figure.

[Steff]

Guess again, I guess.

 

 

I guess... you're acting like an ass lately.

[YASNY]

Murtha is a different animal I would say. He's beloved by both parties (was). Extremely respected (I would guess still is), and 37 years of experience under his belt. He signed off on going.. and now he's saying he made a mistake. He's being honest... go figure.

 

I've got nothing against Murtha. He's quality from what I can tell about him.