I think he understands better than you give him credit for, he advocates putting troops around the region so that our presence is not such a target, we have become the problem in Iraq not the solution.
Quote:MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, this is a profound change in your own thinking. Last year in the epilogue to your paperback book, you wrote this: "A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance." And this: "It would be an international disaster I think if we pulled out." Civil war, questioning America's perseverance, international disaster-- why is it any different now than it was a year ago?
REP. MURTHA: I'll tell you why it's different. It's different because there's no progress at all. When I went to Iraq about two months ago, I talked to the commanders. Now, I--the commanders say what they're supposed to say, but I can tell how discouraged they are. And this all started from the illusion it was going to be easy. For instance, in the first stage of it, they didn't have enough troops. You remember they fired General Shinseki because he complained, and then when they didn't have enough troops, they had people in the specialties they weren't supposed to be in. I found 40,000 troops without body armor when I went over the first time. I found unarmored Humvees. I found jammers that they needed and I came back and complained about it. It took us too much time to get that done. So the country got out of control.
So I'm convinced that we have to give the incentives to the Iraqis. We have to redeploy our troops to the periphery, and I've sat down with the former secretary of the Army, four distinguished officers who served in combat, and we've come up with a plan which we think will work. Since we've become the enemy, I don't think it'll work. Since they're attacking our troops and we've destabilized the area, I have changed my mind and have come to the conclusion now is the time to start to redeploy our troops to the periphery and let the Iraqis take over.
MR. RUSSERT: But if we did withdraw quickly, it could result in a civil war or a bloodbath.
REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm not sure of that. At one time I thought that, and at one time I thought Iran would have undue influence. But I tell you something, I've come to the conclusion these Iraqis are very proud people. They can run the country themselves. They've had a history of civilization that goes back much further than ours. And I think we just have to give them the incentive to take it over. They're going to let us do the fighting, as long as we're there, and, until we turn it over to them, they're not going to be up to standard. So I'm convinced that they can take over this battle and we could move our people to the periphery, out of danger. Here's the people being killed. They're--in the logistics, in supporting the troops who are out in the field, they--the convoys are being attacked every single day. And, of course, we lost six people yesterday. The troops don't complain. Members of Congress are the ones that can only send people to war and we have to be the ones to stand up, and we have to have a bipartisan approach to this thing. This can't be Republican and Democrat. It can't be recrimination. We got to work this thing out so that we come up with an equitable solution.
source
Lawmaker Returns Home, a Hawk Turned War Foe
November 22, 2005
The Representative
Lawmaker Returns Home, a Hawk Turned War Foe
By DAVID S. CLOUD
JOHNSTOWN, Pa.,
Representative John P. Murtha, the hawkish Democrat who spent his political career as a staunch Pentagon supporter, came home Monday as something entirely different: an antiwar symbol.
His call last week for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months took aback many of his own constituents and made the plainspoken former Marine colonel's homecoming on Monday a moment for re-evaluation - of the congressman, as well as of the Bush administration's strategy for Iraq.
"It's really surprising that you would see Mr. Murtha speaking out and saying that it's time to get out, and if he's saying it then it's probably so," said Becky Wicks, a Johnstown resident who said she and her family had supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
As recently as last year, Mr. Murtha was warning that "premature withdrawal" of American troops could lead to a civil war in Iraq and leave American foreign policy in "disarray," the exact critique Republicans lodge against him now.
The evolution of his views, he said, has been driven both by the pain of frequent visits to see injured soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center outside Washington and by his steady disillusionment with the Bush administration's handling of the war. But in some ways he is unsuited temperamentally to the role he has assumed.
"I just came to the conclusion finally that I had to speak out," he told reporters on Monday. "I had to focus this administration on an exit strategy."
"I'm hopeful I don't go too far," he said, adding that he "felt bad" last week after bringing up Vice President Dick Cheney's "five deferments" in the Vietnam era.
Mr. Cheney, in a speech on Monday in Washington in which he defended the administration's handling of the war, called Mr. Murtha "a good man, a marine, a patriot," and said Mr. Murtha was "taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."
An insider most comfortable in the backrooms of Congress, Mr. Murtha said his goal was only to force a dialogue with President Bush on the need to draw down American forces - not lead his party's antiwar wing. Many fellow Democrats are uneasy about his call for an immediate withdrawal, fearing it will give Republicans a chance to brand them as weak on national security.
Not everyone in Johnstown is comfortable with Mr. Murtha's new role.
At a speech Monday morning to local executives and elected officials, Mr. Murtha received three standing ovations. The talk focused almost entirely on all the federal aid Mr. Murtha has been able to deliver to his district from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee.
But when he spoke briefly about Iraq, the audience seemed unsure about how to react to their congressman's public break with the Bush administration. When Mr. Murtha invited questions after his remarks, no one in the audience of several hundred came forward.
"We're all kind of perplexed," said Robert A. Gleason Jr., an insurance executive and chairman of the local Republican Committee, who said he had put aside party loyalties and voted for Mr. Murtha in the past.
The first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, in 1974, Mr. Murtha rose to become the top Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, a post he has used to look after average soldiers' needs. He keeps a running count of the number of his constituents killed in Iraq: now 13.
Since shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, he has frequently visited wounded troops at Walter Reed, an experience that he said had gradually convinced him that the American troop presence was exacerbating the violence by giving insurgents more targets to attack.
In speeches over the last week, he has repeatedly referred to a constituent, Pfc. Salvatore Ross Jr., a combat engineer from Dunbar, Pa., who was badly wounded while landmines he was clearing near Baghdad went off. The explosion blinded him in both eyes and tore off his leg below the knee, Private Ross said in an interview. He spent more than a month in a coma at Walter Reed and later underwent more than a dozen surgeries.
Mr. Murtha visited him twice in the hospital and later arranged a ceremony in Private Ross's hometown, where he received a Purple Heart. He also arranged for Walter Reed to pick up many of his medical bills for special treatment at a private hospital, Johns Hopkins Medical Center.
Only a year ago, though, Mr. Murtha wrote in the epilogue to the paperback edition of a biography he wrote with a former aide that "an untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance."
But in several trips to Iraq in the last year, he said that he became convinced that the military was not making progress at defeating the insurgency. Yet, he said, the Bush administration ignored his efforts to open private discussions on devising a bipartisan course change.
A letter on Iraq that Mr. Murtha said he sent to Mr. Bush last year did not get a reply until five months later, and then from a underling at the Pentagon, he complained.
"I deserve more respect than that," he said.
Mr. Murtha said he began discussing his growing unease with the military presence in Iraq with longtime advisers, including two retired generals and a former secretary of the Army, whom he would not identify. They urged him not to call publicly for a withdrawal, he said, but as his doubts about the war grew, "they finally came around."
Even Mr. Gleason, the local Republican chairman, predicted that Mr. Murtha's stance would cause him no significant political problems in next November's elections.
Though most voters lean Democratic in this blue-collar region, they are generally conservative. President Bush only lost the district by 8,000 votes in 2004.
Even so, no Republican has yet announced a run against Mr. Murtha, although that may speak as much to Republican concerns over the political climate and the 2006 election as it does about Mr. Murtha's popularity in his district.
His break with the Bush administration could still entice a candidate into the race. But years of delivering federal money from his Appropriations Committee seat has made him all but invulnerable, Mr. Gleason conceded.
Colonel Denies Disparaging Murtha
By The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - A colonel in the Marine reserves has taken issue with how his views were represented in a Republican attack last week on Representative Murtha.
Speaking on the House floor on Friday, Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, asserted that the colonel had "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, marines never do."
But a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had misconstrued their conversation.
While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."
Asked to respond on Monday, the congresswoman's office said only, "Mrs. Schmidt's statement was never meant to disparage Congressman Murtha."
revel wrote:
Quote:I think he understands better than you give him credit for, he advocates putting troops around the region so that our presence is not such a target, we have become the problem in Iraq not the solution.
I still disagree with him...we are the target and Iraq is also, and did you know Murtha was very instrumental in Clinton pulling troops from Somalia? Read below what bin Laden said about that, and if he's around he has no doubt heard Murtha's latest retreat speech. Iraq is the central front on the war on terror, not just about getting Iraq on it's feet....granted that is a conundrum for the Admin. as far as pulling out. I realize there are many angles from which to look at this but as this war has evolved I think there are more implications as far as the war on terror than anything else. On the flip side the only way to know what would happen if we leave soon is to leave and see...I'm hesitant to recommend that at present.
Murtha on Somalia:
bin Laden on Somalia:
Quote: But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.
So, we can't withdraw because Osama will call us pussy?
FreeDuck wrote:So, we can't withdraw because Osama will call us pussy?
Hi FD,
hmmmmm......I think it's a bit deeper than that(did he say deeper?).
What OBL says is important to his followers, and he gave the clarion call with this kind of retaliation rhetoric years ago, eh.
Whoa, two pervy references in one thread.
I don't know. I can see how one could come to the conclusion that it is previous withdrawals (don't go there) that got them thinking we were weak enough to be attacked. But in reality, they know we're not weak. If we were weak we'd be no threat to them so what would be the point? I just don't think we should let our pride keep us in a situation if it's in the country's best interest to get out. Now, whether it actually is in our best interest is debatable and I don't have a strong position other than I don't think we should have gone there in the first place.
FreeDuck wrote:Whoa, two pervy references in one thread.
I don't know. I can see how one could come to the conclusion that it is previous withdrawals (don't go there) that got them thinking we were weak enough to be attacked. But in reality, they know we're not weak. If we were weak we'd be no threat to them so what would be the point? I just don't think we should let our pride keep us in a situation if it's in the country's best interest to get out. Now, whether it actually is in our best interest is debatable and I don't have a strong position other than I don't think we should have gone there in the first place.
Fair enough, hey, if these were easy decisions anyone could make them.
BBB- It annoys you when I reference Clinton-does it not.
Get used to it. I don't know what school you attended or where you took History Courses but if you do not know that the actions of a previous president INFLUENCE the trajectory of the policy of the succeeding president you are blind to History.
Indeed, the speech Clinton made on Dec. 16th 1998 with reference to his authorization of launching missles on Iraq has been quoted over and over in the media in the last six months. Would you like references?
If you don't realize that past actions and past legislation DO INDEED influence the present, you are indeed dim-witted.
Do you think that CAFTA would have been proposed and passed without President Clinton's signing of NAFTA?
Get real!!!!
Well, God Bless you, Free Duck. You say "You don't think we should have gone there in the first place>"
I see you are from Atlanta(Hotlanta).
I am sure you are sincere in your belief. I do hope that you contacted your Representative or Senator about your concerns.
You know, of course, that the US Congress, on Oct. 10th and 11th, 2001, voted to give George W. Bush "FULL AUTHORITY TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALlY. THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE WAS 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military 'AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE' TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"
QUOTE from Woodward- "Bush at War" P. 351.
If your Senators and Representative did vote to give Bush Authority, you have two choices--accept their decisions or work against them. Neither one of your Senators are running in 2006, so you will have to vent your ire on your Representative if he or she did not represent you.
If he or she did, then you have to try to convince others that, as you said, we should not have gone there in the first place.
Good luck.
Represenative Democracy is interesting, isn't it, Free Duck?
Actually, Mortkat, I happen to agree with your post so I hope it was not another example of your satirical skills or the lack thereof. Ironically, I just moved to Hotlanta from Pennsylvania. Yep, Murtha was my congressman. I wholeheartedly believe that congress is also responsible for us being where we are. It was their responsibility to investigate and ensure that the threat was real and that the outcome was desired. The constitution gave them the power to declare war and they have repeatedly given that away for lamer and lamer reasons and without the proper oversight. I realize that there was post-9/11 political pressure but that's no excuse.
Only Specter was up for re-election (Murtha was unopposed) in the last election. I voted for him because I saw him as a moderate and because I thought we'd be better served by a moderate who could work within the power source (republicans) than by a democrat who would be relegated to fetching balls for the team.
You are an honest man, Free Duck. Although I am not Diogenese, I appreciate that.
Let's be honest. Reams and reams are written on these threads about abortion, Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.etc. ad infinitum. I am convinced that for most people writing posts, the important thing is not the substance of what they are writing about but who has the power in the government.
Some people have special hobby horses---Abortion--Marriage Rights for Homosexuals-- Social Security Reform--the Patriot Act--etc. and they argue on and on about the issues but never reveal that the ultimate aim is not necessarily to mend the problem at hand but rather to take back or keep control of the levers of government so that either a conservative or liberal viewpoint will prevail. Those who do not live in our country may view the present administration as a threat, since it is considered by many to be the world's superpower, to their personal political agendas.
That's why I think all of this furor is useless until November 2006 rolls around. If the Democrats retake the Senate or the House, they will have convinced the populace that a change was needed. If they do not, all of this blah-blah has been useless.
Cheers-Free Duck
Cheers to you.
There is a third option. The republican party could expel the faction that is causing the most damage and nominate actual reformers. Cut off the diseased limb, so to speak. If there were a violent enough shake-up within the party to convince people that they had learned their lesson, then they could retain power.
You are too vague, Free Duck. Diseased Limb? I know of no diseased limb. Not even the Democrats have a diseased limb. Even Jackson and Sharpton and Farrakhan and Kennedy and Biden and Dean do not qualify as diseased limbs. They are merely on the fringes of the political continuum.
Anyway, you should know--"You can't kill an idea"
What's fascinating to me is how every Republican who initially reacted with horror at Murtha's suggestion and immediately attacked Murtha himself is now frantically backtracking and bending over backward to insist that they never even meant to criticise the sainted Murtha. Horrors! Heaven forbid! Even "Mean Jean", who came as close as possible to calling a fellow Congressman a coward and a traitor without actually using those words, now says she didn't mean to criticise Murtha. Who the hell did she think she was criticizing? The Dalai Lama for his pacifism?
It's the new Party line: Oh, Murtha's a great guy, one of us for sure. He's just wrong on this one small point.
It's hilarious. They are absolutely soiling their pants right now, scared out of their wits.
And I know, Mortkat, I know. Bill Clinton was more scared, soiled his pants more often etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Mortkat wrote:You are an honest man, Free Duck. Although I am not Diogenese, I appreciate that.
You mean you're not
Diogenese yet.
Give it some time,
Italkat, you'll probably adopt that identity eventually.
Merry Andrew wrote:What's fascinating to me is how every Republican who initially reacted with horror at Murtha's suggestion and immediately attacked Murtha himself is now frantically backtracking and bending over backward to insist that they never even meant to criticise the sainted Murtha. Horrors! Heaven forbid! Even "Mean Jean", who came as close as possible to calling a fellow Congressman a coward and a traitor without actually using those words, now says she didn't mean to criticise Murtha. Who the hell did she think she was criticizing? The Dalai Lama for his pacifism?
It's the new Party line: Oh, Murtha's a great guy, one of us for sure. He's just wrong on this one small point.
It's hilarious. They are absolutely soiling their pants right now, scared out of their wits.
And I know, Mortkat, I know. Bill Clinton was more scared, soiled his pants more often etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Murtha has done a bit of backtracking on his initial words too torward Bush and Cheney, whether it's all political posturing or not it helped talks get back to the issue at hand.
I am sure that Democrats do not backtrack. Merry Andrew suggests as much.
Merry Andrew may be right, They don't backtrack. They lie and obfuscate. Why their esteemed leader, Bill Clinton was ( and is?) the master.
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm
Bill Clinton's 1997 deposition in the Paula Jones case. His memory failed him 267 times. This is a partial list of his answers:
I don't remember- 71 times
I don't know--------62 times
I'm not sure--------17 times
I have no idea-----10 times
Significantly, Merry Andrew presents no evidence to back up his statement that "EVERY Republican is now frantically backtracking"
EVERY Republican??? Surely a ridiculous generalization!!!
Do you have proof or a link, Merry Andrew?
Every Republican????
Didn't you learn in school that broad sweeping generalizations are not only odious but usually WRONG??
Mortkat wrote:I am sure that Democrats do not backtrack. . .
They lie and obfuscate.
Democrats lie and obfuscate?
Perhaps you missed this little gem recently posted by one of our newbies:
Mortkat wrote:Didn't you learn in school that broad sweeping generalizations are not only odious but usually WRONG??
Well, where shall I begin. Debra Law? Shall I begin with the leader of the Democrats?
I think that I can show that Democrats do lie and obfuscate.--- ALL of them---- but you must give me time to prove it.
It should take a couple of years to do so.
Are you game?
