Why John Murtha Is Right re Iraq War

I suppose it depends on what his goals are. We got WWII by pulling out immediately after WWI. Seems irresponsible to fail to learn from that mistake. I suspect his rhetoric is more about getting some national attention rather than because he truly wants an immediate withdrawal. The things that politicians say don't have a lot of basis in reality.

Bush will go down in history as the moronic, arrogant, trigger-happy president who took a bad situation and made it worse for the entire world. Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.) is an abysmal failure for everyone except the war profiteers.

Bush will go down in history as quite possibly the worst chief executive that this country has ever suffered under. (Until now, that dubious honor could, arguably, have been claimed by his father.) The sad thing is that it will take a generation to fix all the damage he has done to the economy and to the US image abroad. As for Murtha, I think it took a great deal of courage for him to say what he did. It carries all the more weight because he cannot be accused of being a 'peacenik' or 'left-wing liberal dove.' The man is a decorated combat veteran of two wars -- Korea and Vietnam. This gives his opinions all the more credence. AliceInWonderland has suggested that his motives may have been less than pure. That, too, is possible. But I wonder whether it is relevant in this instance.

MerryAndrew says that:

"Bush will go down in History as quite possibly the worst chief executive that this country has ever suffered under( Until now, that dubious honor could, arguably have been claimed by his father")

MerryAndrew is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I am very much afraid, that he is egregiously mistaken.

l. It takes quite a poor chief executive to match a man who was only the second chief executive to have been impeached.

2. It would appear that if party survival and augmentation is an important aspect of a chief executive's tenure, then President Bush is miles ahead of Bill Clinton since Clinton lost the House and Senate which the Democrats had held on to for years. They have not regained it and Bush has won two presidencies while remarkably adding to the Republican numbers in the House and Senate.

3. I am not aware of MerryAndrew's area of expertise but unless he is a presidential historian, his comment about President Bush's father is not borne out by the findings of Presidential Historians in the CSPAN survey.
In that survey, DONE BY EXPERTS, George Herbert Walker Bush was ranked twentieth and William Jefferson Clinton twenty-first.


MerryAndrew's opinion about George Herbert Walker Bush is not borne out by experts.

I don't think so. A lot of the blame for WWII are laid at the feet of the Treaty of Versailles, not merely "pulling out immediately after WWI". It wasn't so much the timing of the the Armistice as the negotiated outcome.

It made the Germans bitter as the Versailles Treaty saddled them with the cost of the war, war reparations, and were forbidden to make armor and armament which they of course secretly did with the Soviets like developing tanks.

Morkat
Morkat, apparently you didn't get the Memo. Anyone citing Clinton in a kneejerk reaction to comments about Bush is banned from A2K for one day for the first offense. Second offense, one week. Third offense, one month. Fourth offense, for life.

Given your apparent compulsion, I think you should read the Memo.

BBB :wink:

After Murtha Pullout Call, Editorials Confront War
UPDATE: After Murtha Pullout Call, Editorials Confront War
Aya Kawano
By E&P Staff
Published: November 18, 2005 9:30 PM ET updated frequently
NEW YORK

In the wake of the newly-charged debate over the Iraq war, sparked on Thursday by the call of hawkish Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for the beginning of an American withdrawal, will newspapers in their editorials take a strong stand one way or the other? All weekend we will be posting the results in this space.

While many newspapers have fully backed the war since its start, many others have been critical of how it has been conducted and expressed concerns for future success. Yet few of those papers expressing doubts have advocated even a phased pullout. As recently as Thursday, just hours before Murtha's announcmement, The New York Times, while extremely critical of President Bush, once again came out against withdrawal or any kind timetable for exiting.

Now, will papers often critical of the war finally call for a change in direction? Will papers that have strongly backed the war have a change of heart or affirm that support?

In Friday's debate in Congress, several representatives apologized for shirking their responsibility to raise questions about the war earlier and failing to press their oversight role.

Indeed, E&P Editor Greg Mitchell, in his opinion column on this site, Pressing Issues, has urged newspapers for two years to expand their own oversight role, and also consider urging a change in direction in Iraq (in their editorials). His three latest columns on this subject can be found at this site in the Columns section.

We will publish excerpts from editorials around the nation this weekend, the latest at the top, updated as we learn of them.

***

Asheville (N.C.)Citizen-Times:

We hope that Rep. Murtha's comments begin a debate that is going to happen sooner rather than later.

First, a decision that could have a large impact on national security should be made in a sober atmosphere, rather than in the heat of a campaign season.

Second, we are very nearly out of corners to turn, at least for a while. Parliamentary elections are set for Dec. 15. Under the new constitution, another election may not happen until 2009. In other words, if this election doesn't work out to our satisfaction, we've got four years to live with it.

In the meantime, violence continues as old scores are settled in a new environment in Iraq. Bombings Friday claimed scores at Shiite mosques. Such violence may increase after a U.S. withdrawal. But it's obvious the U.S. presence isn't preventing it. The heroism and dedication and resilience of American service personnel on the ground in Iraq is beyond question.

In the meantime, Rep. Murtha's concluding comment last week are worth pondering: "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.'&#x2019

That has of course always been the goal. The question on the table now is as simple as it it complex: "When?'&#x2019

*
The Philadelphia Inquirer and other Knight Ridder papers, Nov. 20:

Despite the semantic games and counterfactual bluster, this is the real issue: Bush made the most momentous decision a President can make, sending American sons and daughters to war, without doing as much skeptical research as most Americans put into buying a car.

This White House's reflexive response to constructive criticism is to attack the critic. Last week, the respected Murtha was the target. The congressman, who had supported the war, now urges immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He said that the U.S. presence there had become "a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

A Bush team that was happy to plaster the traitor label on decorated Vietnam veterans such as Max Cleland and Sen. John Kerry had no qualms about training its smear guns on Murtha, a former Marine. Press Secretary Scott McClellan accused him of waving the white flag to terrorists.

Administration officials hope their fog machine will obscure Americans' deepening discontent with their incompetence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina. Fewer and fewer seem to be falling for their games.

The Senate should proceed with its long-delayed look into mishandling of prewar intelligence. The topic still matters. What Bush and his team did tragically eroded the standard a president should have to meet before taking the nation to war.

*

Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, Nov. 20:

When more and more members of his own party are ready to defy the president in Congress, you know it, too. And when the president can't think of anything to say in response to the growing unease about the war except the same old bluster, you know something's changing.

Americans are waking up. About time.
*

The Chicago Tribune, in a lengthy editorial (part one of a series on the roots of the war), Nov. 20:

Absent new disclosures in future reports, memoirs or other evidence, history's likely verdict is that the president overplayed the weak hand that the intelligence services dealt him. Those agencies had their own nightmares to live down: Prior to the Gulf war, they had underestimated Iraq's progress toward building nuclear bombs.

But there was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's sins. This page stands by an opinion argued here in January 2004:

In putting so much emphasis on weapons, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed. With his support for Palestinian and other terrorists, Hussein was a destabilizing force in the Middle East. His ballistic missiles program, which threatened such U.S. allies as Israel, Kuwait and Turkey, grossly violated the UN's last-chance Resolution 1441?-as did his refusal even to divulge the status of his weapons programs. Worse, with the UN failing to enforce its demands, Hussein freely perpetuated the genocidal slaughter of his people.

Based on Hussein's indisputable record, the president had ample cause to want regime change in Iraq. Put short, the bumper-sticker accusation that "Bush lied?--People died" would be moot today if the president had stuck to known truths.

*
The Journal News (White Plains, N.Y.), Nov. 19:

The White House is making a huge mistake in attempting to demonize those who disagree with Bush administration policy on the Iraq war ?- including new critic Rep. John Murtha, R- Pa., who said Thursday that "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home."

The administration should face it: There is growing concern, in Congress and the nation, about the way the war is not going....We have not stopped Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from killing our troops and murdering Iraqi civilians at will. We have not caught Osama bin Laden four years after 9/11.

We also have not stopped being Americans whose representatives have a right to disagree with each other, and the White House.
*

Boston Herald, Nov. 19:

Now we have no reason to question the sincerity of Murtha's change of heart. Vietnam did indeed leave scars on the psyche of a generation - Murtha's generation - that simply won't go away. But did we learn nothing from that tragic war about pulling the rug out from under our own troops, about denigrating the job they have been given and about setting a timetable for surrender?

And while Murtha's timing might have made sense to him, as he prepared to face the losses of his constituents, it couldn't have been worse on the ground in Iraq with elections scheduled next month.
*

Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Nov. 18:

Withdrawal would make America neither less safe nor more. That's not Murtha's point. His concern, which so many supporters of the war miss to their dishonor, is for the troops. The lesson of Vietnam is that America's very first duty, a sacred duty, is to never, ever put troops unnecessarily in harm's way. Murtha strongly supported sending the troops to Iraq, but he says now we have a duty to bring them home.

In his reflection of that duty, if not in his call for immediate withdrawal, he is so right and so refreshing to hear. If not today, then as soon as humanly possible, our troops need to come home. Most Americans now believe that, too.

*
Houston Chronicle, Nov. 17:

President Bush's approval ratings have paralleled falling public support for the war, emboldening Democrats and some Republicans to speak out against current policy. Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Wednesday called for the start of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in the near future. Murtha is a Vietnam veteran, a respected advocate for the nation's armed services and an expert on military affairs. His decision to sponsor a resolution calling for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq is an indication that mainstream support for the war, in Washington and outside the capital, is fading fast.

If Iraqis cannot take over the responsibility for their defense within a specified period, ongoing American involvement will only delay the inevitable fragmentation of the country into semi-independent ethnic and religious entities.

Forestalling that outcome is not a goal worthy of the continuing sacrifice of the lives of U.S. soldiers and and billions of dollars that could be better spent on Americans' needs.

*
Boston Globe, Nov. 17:

Few politicians are calling for an abrupt withdrawal, but, as Republican Senator John Warner said, its time to let the Iraqi government "establish for themselves a formal democracy." The Iraqis will be holding parliamentary elections Dec. 15. Once a government is established, the administration needs to set a timetable for withdrawal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525247

Murtha Meets Russert, Predicts U.S. Forces Will Be Out of Iraq Next Year
By E&P Staff
Published: November 20, 2005
NEW YORK

Appearing with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has caused a firestorm in recent days with a call for a speedy withdrawal in Iraq, predicted that, despite the mixed reaction to the proposal, U.S. forces would essentially be out of that country by the end of 2006.

Asked pointedly by Russert if they would be gone by Election Day 2006, Murtha replied, "Tim, you have hit the nail on the head there."

He said his proposal had "only been out there for a couple days" and could gain wide support since it is, he said, not a partisan plan.

"Iraqi's will let us do the fighting as long as we're there," he said. He said he regretted his vote backing the war three years ago.

He also said "people should be fired" for mishandling the war but, pressed by Russert, would not specifically say that Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld should be one of them, although he remains highly critical of him. He called Vice President Cheney "a friend" but "he is wrong."

Murtha also refused to say that the administration had deliberately "mislead" the country into war, choosing instead the words "exagerated intelligence."

He said that he had never received such an outpouring of support for anything he has done in his 32 years in Congress. The public, he said, was "thirsting for a solution" to the war.

Referring to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) calling him a coward on the floor of Congress, he pointed out that she is a new member of the House and maybe someone simply gave her something to read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525271

Is Morkat the NYZinger in Abuzz?

Nahh, Mortkat is far more polite than NYZinger ever was.

I will cite Clinton when I wish to cite him, Bumblebeeboogie. I took History courses at the University of Chicago. My professor, Dr. Mann, who was probably five times a better scholar than anyone you ever had the fortune to hear, repeatedly taught us that there is no wall between one adminstration and the next one and that the events that took place in the previous administration inexorably affect the next one.

If you don't know that, I feel sorry for you.

I am sure that you do not think that Clinton's statements before he ordered a missle strike on Iraq did not affect the strategy and planning of the Bush Administration.

You forget that Clinton said( 12/16/1998)

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world"

And you are so naive as to think that the statement was not taken into account????

Those who follow the news know that President Bush said that John Murtha has a PERFECT RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS OPINION. The President does not agree with that opinion, however. We shall see whether the American people agree with President Bush or John Murtha in November 2006. In the meantime, as the President has announced, the commanders in the field will make the decisions about movement of troops if any.

I hope all know that there are 160,000 in the field now and that there were 135,000 before the Constitution Election. There may indeed be some brigades(2,000 in each brigade) rotated out as has been announced.
But the bulk will remain for a long time. After 2008, President Hillary may withdraw the troops.

We shall see.

Oh please- Ny ZInger- Mortkat- whoever- respond to the substance of the posts- rebut them if you can with evidence or find another thread.

After hearing Murtha's speech, I was prepared to believe that the Republicans had mischaracterized his proposal...In fact, I was OK by his proposal which states that US troops will be "redeployed at the earliest practical date". Of course the exit criteria needs to be well defined.

But then I go to Murtha's website where he says:



This seems to ignore any measured evaluation of exit criteria and instead urges immediate withdraw before mid-December. That is a position I cannot support.

Give it up, Mortkat. Your hatred of Bill (what's the definition of "is") Clinton is every bit as silly and tiresome as some other A2Kers irrational hatred of George ("they did so have a nucular capability") Bush. Your grasp of history is second-rate and your understanding of logic in debate non-existent. You actually bring up Clinton's pecadillos as excuses for Bush's megalomania. If that's the best you can do, again, give it up.

My so called "hatred" of Bill Clinton does not even begin to match the "hatred" of George W. Bush expressed by the left wing loonies

If you think that my grasp of History is lacking and my logic is insufficient, REBUT MY POSTS ONE POINT AT A TIME. If you can't, dry up!!!

The fact that Reagan helped arm Saddam must also be considered if you want to look at the complete history. And the fact that GHWBush left Saddam in power must also be considered. For a pretty good reason in fact. But you are selective in your history Mortkat. You seem to only select the portions that support your theory. The same problem that this administration had. You aren't George Bush by some chance are you?

Mortkat ,
Clinton's statement and the bombing was in response to Saddam no longer allowing inspectors access.

Bush's invasion was after inspector access had been granted.

Clinton's response along with Congress in 1998 was to provide funding for anti Saddam groups in Iraq. Bush's response was for the US to invade and do the job ourselves. Clinton's was more practical from an historical sense. There have been lots of countries that have overthrown their dictators and installed a different govt. At no time has an outside force come in and forced democracy on a country at the point of a gun.