John Murtha: America has had Enough of Bush's Iraq war

On the 1st Anniverary of Murtha's Call for An Iraq Pullout
On the 1st Anniverary of Murtha's Call for An Iraq Pullout
By Greg Mitchell
E & P
November 17, 2006

Exactly one year ago, Rep. John Murtha issued his surprising call for the start of a U.S. pullout from Iraq. Editorial writers and pundits declared: Not yet. Twelve months later, the death and violence have only increased. Now what will the opinion shapers say?

It has been exactly one year since Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) issued his sudden and startling call for the start of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Since then, troop levels have remained steady, death and violence have increased, and few editorials and pundits have echoed Murtha's call.

One more thing: Since that day, 790 Americans have been killed in Iraq and more than 6000 seriously wounded.

Ironically, Rep. Murtha is in the news right now because of his failed attempt to gain the #2 position in the House leadership. But the step he took last Nov. 17 , as it turned out, played a critical role in making that Democratic takeover possible.

One year later, we are again at a critical moment in the war. Despite the election results, reports surfaced this week that the White House wants to make another "final push" for victory in Iraq - and the long-awaited recommendations from Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group may very well endorse the notion of a "temporary" troop buildup. The Washington Post remains hawkish through it all, and even the dovish New York Times suggested last Sunday "one last push to stabilize Baghdad. That would require at least a temporary increase in American and Iraqi troops on Baghdad streets."

Sound like a good idea to you? Opinion writers are once again squarely on the spot.

Last Nov. 17, I was in the middle of writing yet another of my tireless, perhaps tiresome, columns suggesting that perhaps it was time for at least a few major newspapers to carry editorials calling for the start of a phased pullout from Iraq after more than two years of murder and incompetence. None of my previous efforts had produced much of a positive response, beyond the Seattle Times and Minneapolis Star Tribune and a few others, so my hopes were not exactly high.

Then came word that Rep. Murtha had suddenly called for a rapid "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq, and even introduced a bill to this effect. Murtha? Wasn't he that crusty old hawk and Pentagon water-carrier? Amazingly, it was true, and the media went wild - not endorsing his views, god forbid, but at least giving them serious play. Within hours, I had penned a column hinting that perhaps this would be this war's "Cronkite moment" - when a wholly establishment figure says, enough! That voice sure wasn't going to come from, say, The Washington Post.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha said then. "It is time to bring them home." He pointed out that more than half of Americans in polls wanted us out, and uttered these highly prescient words: "The public is way ahead of us."

In response, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore."

But hat's off to Rod Dreher, the conservative newspaper columnist, who quickly posted this at NRO Online, the National Review site: "If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to -- and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who's about the same age, and his hunting buddies -- then the president is in big trouble. I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously."

I closed my initial column by urging editorial and opinion writes to rise to the "Cronkite" challenge. So what happened after that? Most of them praised Murtha for showing some courage, but then came out against withdrawal or suggested that the U.S. give the Iraqis a few more months to get their act together. Of course, 12 months have passed since then -- and some of the same editorial writers now ask for another six months.

One year ago, USA Today, which had been critical of the conduct of the war, opined: "Murtha's call for withdrawal is as understandable as it is misguided." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, also no fan of the war, weighed in that Murtha's call "plays better as a heartfelt expression of frustration than as sound practical advice." The Washington Post ripped those who call for "an early pullout," adding "what we've mainly seen during the past two weeks is a shameful exercise in demagoguery and name-calling.... If there is to be any chance of that war being won, the United States will have to commit its own forces to the fight for years, though perhaps not at current levels. The alternative is to risk a defeat that would be devastating to U.S. security."

The San Antonio Express-News added: "A precipitous departure from Iraq is likely to create more problems than it will solve." Many other papers expressed the belief, or at least hope, that the upcoming elections in Iraq would turns things around. The Plain Dealer in Cleveland repeated its demand for the resignation of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld -- while opining that a "precipitous withdrawal risks the tragic waste of the blood investment we have in Iraq." The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel said Murtha is "surely on the right track," but "leaving Iraq now would be a mistake."

So here we are, 12 months and thousands of U.S. casualties later, with renewed calls for an American buildup, not a draw-down, in Iraq. So, editorial writers, what do you have to say?

Let's get to work
Let's get to work
by Rep. John Murtha
11.16.2006

While the most important thing in Washington, DC over the past few days has been an internal Party struggle, the American people never lost sight, even for a brief moment, of the most important conflict: Iraq. That's clear from the support of bloggers from across the country, phone calls and emails of support to my office and editorials in local papers endorsing our plan for change.

I ran for Majority Leader to put the issue of Iraq front and center and to push as hard as I could to change our war strategy. Like you, many of my colleagues understood that this race was about delivering on our promise we made to the American people a little over a week ago.

I am especially grateful for the support of our next House Speaker, and the first woman to hold the position, Nancy Pelosi. I just can't say enough nice things about her. And I congratulate Steny Hoyer and will work closely with him. While we didn't win, nothing has changed my commitment one bit.

Don't get me wrong, other things matter too, such as ethics reforms and the Democrats' agenda, and I'm going to keep my promise to work hard with Speaker Pelosi and the Leadership to pass those as well.

But Iraq is the key. Democrats won the election because we spoke up, and the real test of our leadership lies ahead. Thank you for your support, and now let's get to work.

& 2 to 1 the House dems voted against Murtha, ahhhh, how sweet it is.
Voted for Hoyer, a pro war dude.

There's something really sick about a person who seems to glorifiy war, especially when it is nothing more than an illegal invasion that has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents.

I wonder, how deep would one have to dig to locate a sense of morality?

You can't celebrate a republican victory, so you rejoice in a democratic defeat, a reverse for a brave and principled man. Why am I not surprised.

You apparently do not have the ability to understand, so if you figure it out, get back to me, mmm 'k?

Why would I celebrate a republican victory anymore than I would a democrat victory? I celebrate individuals that won their races, not a political party.

Sheesh, McJock, where's your head at boy--she isn't being partisan, she approves of anyone who supports war, murder and bloody-red death.

I certainly am a partisan, a very conservative partisan, you got a problem with that, too damn bad.
& if I do support this war, so what?

The "war" is a crime, illegal as well as immoral, stupid as well as pointless, counterproductive and wasteful. A blot on history.

That is your opinion, which you have every right to, others may differ.

No, Madam, that is fact. Follow the facts. No WMDs, no connection to Al Quaeda, no UN security council approval, UN inspectors within the country doing their job, USA inspectors there after finding nothing.

It is immoral to kill thousands of innocents based on a pack of lies.

No, it's your fact There have been WMDs found, a connection has been proven, & we don't need the UNs approval. As soon as a UN station got hit in Baghdad, the UN sledaddled out of there.
The UN, in fact, didn't do anything about the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam broke, & he fired at our pilots on a daliy basis before we went in. Now maybe you think it's ok for our planes to get shot at by an enemy & we do nothing, I certainly do not.

totally bullshit

What a hypocrite you are. You tell us the USA doesn't need the UN's approval but you think that Iraqi troops were doing something wrong firing at invaders in their country. Please Madam, exhibit a wee bit of consistency.

No there were no WMDs. Please provide sources for your opinions. No there was no connection to Al Quaeda. Please provide sources for your opinions.

Tell us how many resolutions Israel has ignored over the years. As far as I know there has been no invasion of Israel by any "coalition of the willing". Tell us about the resolutions that the USA has for years ignored. Do you recommend an invasion of the US?

Maybe you think it's okay for the USA to have been party to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children because of an immoral embargo on Iraq.

Maybe you think it's okay for the deaths of thousands of Cubans because of an immoral and illegal embargo on Cuba.

Read,

The US Attack on Cuba's Health by Dr Anthony F Kirkpatrick of the College of Medicine, University of South Florida, at,

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/157/3/281

for an illustrative background into just how compasionate the USA is.

"Totally BS"
That's what Germany said while Hitler was doing his "BS.

You are so uninformed or misinformed that i don't even know where to start with your erroneous MISconceptions.
Firstly, what a hypocrite you are Maybe you meant liar but are not honest enough to say that. Secondly, our pilots had UN approval to fly in the Iraqi no fly zone,
Over 500 hundered KNOWN WMDs have been found, look it up.
I don't need to go n because in just these few sentences you have been proven to have been drinking the kool-aid

Calling you a liar would be an assumption too far. I'm not at all sure that you're bright enough to realize how out to lunch you are. Right after I pointed out your hypocrisy, stunningly, you missed it completely. Then you repeat it.

How convenient that you use the UN when you feel it's to your advantage and then scream and whine that you don't need their approval to launch an illegal war.

You've given us a textbook example of hypocrite. Where do they find you people?

You didn't call me a liar because you don't know whether I am or not, you don't know the history of our problem with Iraq. Out to lunch? Me? At least i KNOW that Iraq broke 17 UN resolutions & that started shortly after Desert STorm. You really should at least try to brush up before you start accusing people of not knowing what they're talking about.
I did not use the UN, I said we don't need their approval, however, it was their resolutions that Saddam ignored when he SHOT AT OUR PLANES!!!
It was OUR PLANES, that is an act of war against us...GET IT?????????
Are you getting your propaganda from Al Jazeera?