will batman be next? http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...may_be_a_big_problem_for_House_Democrats.html [rquoter]Murtha's comments on 'surge' are a problem for House Democrats Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the "surge is working." This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008. Murtha's latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense Subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge "is not working" and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq. Murtha told CNN on July 12, following a Bush speech, that the president's views on the success of surge in Iraq were "delusional." "Well it's delusional to say the least," Murtha told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war." Murtha added: "I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else. We called for extra troops two years ago. We put money in for 30,000 troops. They haven't even been able to raise the 30,000 troops they have. So they have to break all their guidelines. But there's no progress being made." Back on June 3, during an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Murtha bashed the White House for "making excuses" on Iraq. "They [the White House] keep saying the news media is being negative," Murtha said. "They keep making excuses for the lack of progress. I've been hearing this month after month and I'm absolutely convinced right now the surge isn't working and I'm convinced that if they don't pay attention to what I'm saying and a lot of other members of Congress are saying they're going to have a disaster on their hands because the American public want the troops out of Iraq." More Murtha comments from the same interview: "I'm absolutely convinced the first step to stability in Iraq is redeployment and what they're saying, when you look at the figure, the figures that you and I see, the figures that we use all the time, oil production below pre-war level, electricity below pre-war level, a couple of hours of electricity in Baghdad some days and 60 percent unemployment some parts of Iraq. I mean, there's no way you're going to have success." And here's Murtha from an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" on April 29: "The progress that they talk about is not there. Any of the economic things that I've seen doesn't show any progress. We've had 330 people killed since the surge began. More people killed in the last four months that were killed at any other time during the war. Fifty-three percent increase in American deaths. And this White House keeps saying we're making progress." Murtha even yelled at a reporter during a recent press conference, telling the reporter that the news coming out of the Pentagon regarding Iraq is not believable. "They don't need to do the things — you're missing the point — because the Pentagon says it, you believe it?," Murtha yelled. "You believe what the Pentagon says? Huh? With all the things that they have told us, you believe what — I mean, go back and look — 'mission accomplished,' Al Qaeda connection, weapons of mass destruction, on and on and on, and you believe the Pentagon?" To be fair, Murtha has pointed out that there has been a lack of poltical progress within Iraq to bring about permanent reconciliation between competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, despite the decreased violence within the country following Bush's decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. Even vocal war supporters like Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who is just back from a trip from Iraq himself, has complained about that situation as well, and Graham warned this week that unless there is tangible political progress within Iraq within the next two months, the United States may be forced to withdraw its support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak to a Democratic National Committee event in Virginia on Friday, will surely face tough questions from reporters regarding Murtha's statement on the surge. "This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious." [/rquoter]
Need additional quotes other than just "the surge is working" to get a true sense of what he believes in now.
CNN: "In other news tonight U.S. Rep. John Murtha said the surge is working. And now for the lighter side of the news."
Let me get this straight. Murtha is bat sh*t crazy unless he says something we like; then he is the smartest guy on the planet. To be fair, Murtha has pointed out that there has been a lack of poltical progress within Iraq to bring about permanent reconciliation between competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, despite the decreased violence within the country following Bush's decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. By all means, be a little fair.
Agree, except you already added a word. According to site, Murtha just walked up to a microphone and blurted "surge is working," and left. Will be interested in his full statements, as I have a lot of respect for him, *and* hopes that the surge is indeed improving conditions, as per several recent reports.
First, Murtha is undoubtedly being honest. But based on the existance of this thread is clear to me why it would upset Pelosi. To do anything that even hints that there might be some short term positive news gives free reign to people like Basso who use it as "proof" that the US is winning and that the Democrats hate America. There is no such thing as nuance or shades of gray. The level of political discourse is pretty pathetic in the USA these days. Hope you're proud that you are contributing to it, basso.
Man, the libs have egg on their face, after hoisting Murtha up on a pedestal for so long. What will the libs do now that their entire policy platform has been ruined by the troops' success? Pretty sad that this is how the Democrats have positioned themselves.
I knew you would be sad when the troops succeeded. You hate America, and based on your very public posts, you hate Hillary Clinton and her campaign even more than you hate the troops, if that is possible. That is what's sad.
basso, I hope you get something soon that's mainstream and not taken out of context, to pump up your hero, George W. Bush. I'm starting to feel sorry for you, bro. At least we both agree on some issues, like sexual hangups are for losers. Kindest regards, Deckard PS: Impeach Bush!!!
Did you hear what Biden said today? -- Biden: Impeach if Bush bombs Iran PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval. "The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience. Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president. http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NEWS/711300432
I would applaud him for doing so, and Bush would deserve it, besides his other actions that he should be charged with. Impeach Bush! Yesterday!!
it's really rather sad, actually, that a senator of biden's long term presence, doesn't actually understand how the constitution works. there is no senatorial "perogative to impeach." that responsibility lies with the house. and mark, i expected better from you as well.
You've hurled pretty much every possible insult you could think of at ol'marky mark - you've called him a traitor, a communist, a sadr-ist, if that is even a word, and all sorts of other things. Did you really, truly expect better of him?
i never doubted his intellect. i'm just surprised to see him subvert it in support of a blowhard like biden.
And you don't understand how politics work, much less the Senate. Biden, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, can initiate hearings and investigations with the express aim of highlighting impeachable offenses. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he can do the same things from the legal angle. Biden, as a senior Senator, can begin lobbying other senators for conviction votes. Biden, as a candidate and frequent guest on the political talk shows, can make the case for impeachment to a national audience. Biden, as a Dem leader and presidential candidate, can bring pressure on the House leadership. He didn't say "I'm going to impeach," but rather that he would "move to" meaning to "work towards" impeachment. I don't think impeachment is feasible at this late stage, but someone of Biden's position and ability could move it forward quite a bit if he chose to do so. (And I really didn't expect better from you.)
Of course the House votes to impeach and the Senate holds the trial. Biden often gets his words mangled, but he feels strongly about this. He has reason to. His son is a National Guard captain, whose unit has orders for Iraq. 2007-11-17 Impeachment | Iran By NICOLE GAUDIANO, Gannett News Service WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Biden said during the CNN Democratic debate Thursday that he told President Bush personally he should be impeached if he takes the country to war with Iran. Biden's comments came in response to a question from an audience member, who feared her Marine son might have to serve in Iran after having served three tours of duty in Iraq. Asked how he would keep the country out of an additional war, Biden said he wouldn't "ratchet up the winds of war" as the Senate did with its vote declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. "The way to do this is, keep quiet, hush up and do what I told the president personally ... If he takes the country to war in (Iran) without a vote in Congress, which will not exist, then he should be impeached," Biden said. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28792 I'm sure Bush enjoyed hearing that from Biden. I agree with him, although Bush already deserves impeachment. The right to declare war, like the right to impeach and try the President and Vice-President, rests with Congress. It is way past time to give nebulous blank checks to Presidents in situations that could lead to war. If we are going to war and not reponding to a direct attack, as happened with Bush's adventure in Iraq, Congress should declare war. To not do so is shirking its responsibility under the Constitution. We should have done it in Korea and in Vietnam. We should have done it before the Gulf War. If Congress had actually held a vote on a war resolution, a war many members didn't believe would occur, sober thought might have, and in my opinion, would have prevented this disaster. Impeach Bush.
i actually agree with you, but this is an example of congress failing to live up to its responsibility, not the executive/ perhaps we can impeach biden (and the rest of congress)?
For the record, here's Murtha's complete original quote: "I think the surge is working but that's only one element. It's working because of the increase in troops. But the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves." In the same conference call with reporters, he also said... "The impression I got was that the central government was pretty close to dysfunctional." and... "I keep stressing we can no longer afford to spend 14 billion a month on the war and let our readiness slip in other parts of the country." and, on the mercenaries we've employed... "They are out of control." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/30/what-murtha-really-said-a_n_74751.html These are hardly the quotes of a man who has experienced a huge change in his thinking about the war, as some here would like you to believe.
