House Democrat calls for immediate troop withdrawal

You may or may not know that my first option is to get the proper help, and support we need to accomplish the mission successfully. I will directly address emboldening our enemy in this post as well.

Bush has shown neither the inclination nor the ability to do this. He won't send in more troops, and wouldn't go in the the proper troop strength to begin with. He didn't use the plans drawn up by his own state department that accounted for a huge Iraq security force, Iraqi elections, an Iraqi constitution, protecting the infrastructure, making repairs, and even as detailed as garbage collection. Bush and the pentagon tossed the plans out and got rid of the people that made them. His has blown our nations credibility, won't take foreign offers of help in training Iraqi security forces, and is unable to persuade enough allies to get troops on the field in Iraq.

That was blown a long time ago. Bush has opted to stay the course. He wont' even admit things aren't going well. Meanwhile we can't control the the territory between Baghdad and the airport, the green zone is scarecely in control and nothing outside of it is. We have troops performing bravely, but in a strategy that doesn't give them a chance of winning. It isn't changing or improving yet Bush won't do anything about it, or admit his plans aren't working.

I say that allowing our troops to stay in Iraq and not win is the biggest morale boost that the terrorists in Iraq and around the world can have. The longer we stay there not winning the more the whole world can see the number one super power in Iraq bogged down, not able to gain and hold new areas under control, and being killed daily by terrorists. That is what is a huge boost to our enemy. I am very serious. Staying bogged down in a quagmire is huge boost to our enemy. Everyday that more Americans die, and aren't able to gain control of the situation in Iraq is a victory for them. The two ways to end those victories are to stabilize Iraq, or get out of there.

So given that this administration won't take the steps to win, then the second best option is get out. It doesn't need to be all at once, but it should be sometime in the very immediate future.

 

The story in the Houston Chronicle:




Nov. 17, 2005, 4:51PM

Unease over Iraq war grows in Congress

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called today for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."

House Republicans assailed Murtha's position as one of abandonment and surrender, and accused Democrats of playing politics with the war. "They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement.

Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. A decorated Vietnam veteran, he choked back tears during his remarks to reporters.

Murtha's comments came just two days after the Senate voted to approve a statement that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" to create the conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a "cut and run" strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

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

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress. He planned to introduce a resolution Thursday that, if passed by both the House and the Senate, would force the president to withdraw U.S. troops.

Murtha could not say whether his caucus supports his position. And, although he is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., she was absent from his news conference. She was expected to endorse his position later Thursday.

For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for an immediate troop pullout. Some Senate Democrats have called for an immediate or phased withdrawal.

Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 but in recent months has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said Murtha's call for withdrawal was "reprehensible and irresponsible."

"It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq," Granger said.

First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform.

Known to shun publicity, Murtha said he was standing up because he had a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops.

His voice cracked and tears filled his eyes as he related several stories of visiting wounded troops, including one who was blinded and lost both his hands but had been denied a Purple Heart because friendly fire caused his injuries.

"I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart," said Murtha, who has two.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3467808


Like I said, this is powerful stuff. Sadly, the reaction was what one would expect from this Republican crew. The idea that Cheney is a heartbeat away from the Presidency is damned frightening.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

If dissent can affect change, then Bush not having the inclination or ability to do so shouldn't matter.

You are looking at that in a vaccuum. First there is not an area we cannot take and control. But more on point you aren't factoring in the damage AQ and their ilk are now taking as a result of the backlash from Muslim on Muslim violence. Not only are is the support for AQ's tactics decreasing among Muslims because of that violence, but the support for suicide bombings against coalition troops is also decreasing. Those are positives for us. I agree that an indefinite inability to gain stability in Iraq is not good, but even the current course is neither as bad as you're making it out to be nor as hopeless and you indicate.

 

Iraqis need to sack up and take care of their problems without us.

 

How bad does it have to get before it is OK to leave?

What we are doing in Iraq aint working. We need to find a better way or leave. GWB's resume is not filled with 'finding a better way', so leaving has to be a realistic option at this time.

Or do we gut it for the next 10-15 years and hope this mess resolves itself? Nobody signed up for that.

 

We are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we don't.

The US does not need to use *casualties* as the reason for leaving. Our presense is attracting AQ et al. A new generation of Muslim fundamental fanatics are now getting *field tested* thanks to our presense. The US could state that our presense has made Iraq a recruiting and training ground for Muslim terrorist groups and leaving now would be the best interest of Iraqis, the Middle East, and the World.

Leaving has its risks as you noted.

What to do? It is really a catch-22. "Staying the course" has both positives and negatives. At some point, the Iraqis need to carry their own water. As long as we are there in numbers, the Iraqis may lack the sense of urgency of getting their act together.

 

Does anyone have a picture of the Republican Convention where the die hards were wearing purple heart *band-aids*? That would be a great picture to put beside the picture above.

 

A thing of beauty!

Murtha's pushback on Cheney yesterday.

 

He's right about the war, and he's right about Cheney.

 

Really? You feel we don't control the strip between the airport and the green zone because we don't want to? Early on during the occupation people used to drive from the green zone to the airport. They had to cancel that and use only helicopters because they we can't keep that area under control.

Do you think the US only wants control of the greenzone and nothing else? Does that help stability.

Dissent can have an effect on change, sometimes, but it can't present figures and have those matched up. Dissent has a rather general area of effect. Even if dissent couldn't have any effect it should still be voiced.

I also believe that if Bush would admit mistakes and take action to correct them much of the dissent would dissappear. But at this point he has blown his goodwill. People won't trust him to make the changes necessary.

 

That strategy worked brilliantly with Afganistan.

May I also remind you that more civilians died on 9/11 then military deaths sustained thus far...so the evidence and historical record still demonstrates that leaving a state in a state of anarchy can come back to haunt us big time.

 

It's not about what we signed-up for - it's about what we have. It's called a quagmire for a reason - because the risks of leaving are greater then the risks of not. This isn't Vietnam - this is far higher stakes.

We do not need another Afganistan where when the U.S. left the Taliban was allowed to take over and we all know what happened.

Everyone says how bad things are getting - but politically, the country is making progress. The Sunnis are beginning to participate in the gov't - so I think staying the course may actually be advisable right now.

 

two things about Murtha. He gave much the same speech in 2004, yet it got no where near the attention it's getting this year. why? the media's depiction of him as a "reliable hawk?" hardly...

second, he was recently redistricted into a much more liberal district. this new tone is about him keeping his seat as much as anything.

 

Got proof of these two things? Links? It's not that I don't trust your word...I'd just like to see a little proof. Thanks!

 

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache...l&w=murtha+iraq&d=WASTJY6CLwSO&icp=1&.intl=us

Murtha: Iraq ‘Unwinnable’
By Erin P. Billings and Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff
May 6, 2004

Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.”

and from 2002, before the war:

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1

the reditricting news is from instapundit, a reader email:

http://instapundit.com/

 

Thanks basso!

 

You'll see a lot of this with the 2006 election less then a year away.

 

basso, what he said before the war was damned good common sense. I wish Bush had listened. And that he voted for the resolution has no bearing on this statement. Would anyone expect anything less from a man such as this? He knew it was going to pass, and there was no way he was going to not get behind the President and the troops, regardless of how wrong he felt Bush was handling it.

Here it is...


Sep 24, 2002

Congressman who led the charge in '91 hangs back for now

Eleven years ago, Murtha was one of the first President Bush's chief Democratic supporters in the effort to win congressional approval for plans to take on Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites). He was a member of the president's inner council, advising Bush and his aides on congressional strategy. It was a role that put Murtha at odds with the leaders of his own party.



Today, the powerful backroom dealmaker finds himself in an even more politically lonely position: questioning a war-powers resolution that even most Democratic leaders seem reluctant to oppose. ''All of us want to get rid of Saddam,'' Murtha says. But he believes that the younger Bush ''went about it the wrong way.''



Bush's father ''had his coalition built before he came to Congress,'' Murtha says. As a result, most of the by U.S. allies. Those nations shouldered more than $53 billion of the $61 billion war burden, according to the White House budget office.



This time, ''it will all be expended by the United States,'' says Murtha, the top-ranking Democrat on the House panel that funds the Pentagon . He says another war with Iraq would cost at least $50 billion. Other estimates put the price as high as $200 billion.



Murtha's concerns are all the more striking given his impeccably hawkish credentials. Murtha, 70, is one of the military's best friends on Capitol Hill. He's also one of the few lawmakers who has experienced ground combat firsthand, which is one reason his views command so much respect. Murtha enlisted in the Marines during the Korean War, then volunteered for another two-year stint in Vietnam.



His western Pennsylvania district suffered more casualties than any other in the Gulf War he supported. A Greensburg, Pa., reserve unit, assigned to water-purification duties, was hit by a Scud missile that killed 28 soldiers.



''One guy lived a block away from me,'' Murtha says. Another casualty he remembers: a young woman who was called up for duty just as she was about to enroll in college, the first member of her family to do so.



Murtha says a key reason for questioning a second Iraq war is strategic. He's worried that it would cost the United States not only money and lives, but also important allies. By moving without international support, Bush could alienate Arab allies, and ''we could lose access to the intelligence we need to fight the war on terrorism.''



As a veteran of wars both legislative and literal, Murtha is puzzled by all the bellicose talk in Washington. Fewer than one-third of members of Congress are veterans; the percentage was more than double that when Murtha arrived on Capitol Hill 30 years ago. He says that makes a difference.



''I have found that the guys who haven't been there are more likely to vote to go to war,'' he says.



Nothing he has seen in intelligence reports has convinced him that Bush needs to rush through a resolution, Murtha says. Even so, he has not decided how he will vote. Although he has doubts about the president's plans, Murtha says he's reluctant to leave his commander-in-chief isolated in the face of the international community.



''I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but he has put the country in such a box,'' Murtha says. ''He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.' ''



The casualties could be much higher this time, particularly if there is ''street-by-street'' fighting in Baghdad, Murtha says. But he has no doubts about who will win: ''We do have adequate military force to pull this off.''

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1


The man looks damned brilliant, to me. I don't know that I've read such a precient statement by a member of government regarding this conflict. He predicted just about everything that has happened. What he said Bush wasn't doing has been clearly shown to be what he should have done. And his explanation about why it was difficult to vote against the resolution is dead-on accurate, and how I wish that idiot Kerry had used it in his campaign. Damn, I'm more impressed with the man than before. Thanks for the link, basso.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I've seen this mentioned several times and I wonder how valid it is. Do we really think the Iraqis have no sense of urgency to stabilize the country, stop the insurgency, work out a political framework acceptable to the major groups? Why do we believe that?

 

Murtha: Troops' pain, not politics, behind stance
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
Fri Nov 18, 7:32 AM ET

Every week, Rep. John Murtha makes the rounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to stand at the bedside of soldiers wounded in Iraq.

On Thursday, the Pennsylvania Democrat could stand by no more. Belying his reputation as one of Congress' most hawkish members, Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I feel very passionate about this," Murtha said in an emotional interview hours after his remarks. "I see a kid blown apart, and it breaks my heart."

Democrats have long assailed President Bush's Iraq policy. But this is the top Democrat on the House panel that pays for Pentagon programs, a former Marine who was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress and one of the most influential members of his party on military matters.

"It's a turning point in the growing opposition to the war," said Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), a liberal Democrat from Michigan. He said Murtha's time in military hospital wards "had a profound impact on him, and he's finally come to the point where he cannot rationalize us staying over there any longer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20...0sOxB.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-