Murtha's statement.

[Larry]

I understand that Murtha has overnight "converted" from a 27-year(?) US Marine to a communist, anti-american, cowardly terrorist-lover, but does anybody have any kind of link to what he actually said?

I understand that there's a lot of pressure to paint his comments as a demand that all US military must be withdrawn, worldwide, to US boarders, but I'd really like to read his actual words, rather than some spin.

(Not that I actually have any evidence of spin. It's just a hunch I have.)

[Thiebear]

The 1st link to the googled Murtha statement...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05322/608402.stm

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. 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 is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, 'the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, 'Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy.'

"For 2 1/2 years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait -- the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction -- but the U.S. forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.' We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being 'terrified' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a 'free' Iraq.

"My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"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."

[Underwater Ally]

The only part that I really disagree with is the "immediately" part. Also given the ethnic makup of Iraq, I'd question the numbers of that poll somewhat. The Kurds want us there, the Shias don't like it, but they are tolerating us because they recognize that foreign military presence is necessary for the time being. The Sunnis (about 20% of the population) are the main ones who want us gone ASAP.

A heavy presence is necessary for the next election in December. After that we can talk about making some significant troop reductions as Iraqi security forces take over. But Iraqi forces taking over immediately is simply not possible. It must come in stages.

The other wear and tear problems he discusses are real enough, but rapidly pulling out of Iraq will not help us in the big picture. As green as the pre 9-11/War on Terror/Iraq War grass may seem, it was still just a disaster waiting to happen. Some Sunnis can be placated by a withdrawl. Zarqawi and his group over there cannot be pacified or ignored. The failure of Murtha to discuss how best to deal with this is the glaring hole in his argument.

Edit: Also he fails to mention that a lot of the increase in terror attacks and the majority of casualties have been against Shia civilians. Will this subside once the US leaves or will it only intensify with a power vaccum? In this sense, the US military is not the sole target of the insurgency. They are attacking anything and everything that is not Sunni.

[Thiebear]

We can pull out 1/3rd of the troops in January.

And once we hit our next milestone of 100k troops we could do another 1/3rd.

then when they hit the final numbers say near December we can drop down to Murtha rather nicely put operations..

[Kilmer17]

I find it comical that the Left argues that Murtha should be allowed to say what he wants, but is offended when someone else exercises that same right.

Murtha has every right to say we should withdraw immediately. And other Congressman have EVERY right to say that doing so would be a cowardice thing to do.

[Thiebear]

My copied post for several threads:: This is how you win in IRAQ...

This and Electricity and Water and Roads and a future.

Iraqi Security Forces Reach Milestone

Iraqi security forces now number more than 200,000, significant

because they will be taking the lead in providing security for the Oct. 15 referendum.

By Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 11, 2005 — The effort to train, equip and mentor Iraq's security forces hit a milestone recently, with the number of men and women serving in uniform stretching past 200,000.

Currently the Iraqi Ministry of Interior has 106,112 personnel serving as part of security forces. The Ministry of Defense has 93,959 servicemembers in the military.

Reaching this landmark is especially significant given that Iraq's military and police forces will be taking the lead in providing security for the Oct. 15 referendum, officials said. There are now more than 60,000 additional Iraqi security forces available than there were for the highly-successful January election held earlier this year.

Since the effort to rebuild the country's forces began about 15 months ago, more than 115 special police and army combat battalions have been formed as well as regular police, border enforcement and highway patrol for the Ministry of Interior and motor transport regiments, Navy, Air Forces and numerous training organizations for the Ministry of Defense.

The majority of those combat battalions are fighting side-by-side coalition forces and several dozen are already taking the lead in operations, officials said.

[Joe Sick]

I find it comical that the Left argues that Murtha should be allowed to say what he wants, but is offended when someone else exercises that same right.

Murtha has every right to say we should withdraw immediately. And other Congressman have EVERY right to say that doing so would be a cowardice thing to do.

Yes, talking out of both sides of your mouth IS comical...

http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/11/bush_cheney_us.php

Rep. John Murtha's call for bringing home the troops last week, the tenor of the debate shifted irrevocably. First, Jeanne Schmidt called him a 'coward' and White House hand puppet Scott McClellan compared him to Michael Moore.

While all this was going on, President Bush was touring Asia and calling on the Chinese government to stop suppressing dissent. The irony was too much for even him to ignore and yesterday he came out to express his respect for "an honest, open debate," and gave a nod to Murtha.

...Bush on Sunday praised Murtha as "a fine man, a good man, who served our country with honor and distinction."

'I know the decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way,' Bush said in Beijing. 'I disagree with his position.'

This morning Cheney came out of hiding to show his own respect for our right to dissent and to address the American people about accusations that he and the President hyped the evidence in building their case for going to war in Iraq.

Cheney said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute that there is no problem debating whether the United States and its allies should have gone to war in Iraq, but he questioned the statements of some critics.

'What is not legitimate, and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence,' Cheney said.

Having given up on pretending they were demonstrably, quantitatively right about anything, the White House has fallen back on the timeless classic, Blame Clinton.

It started almost 3 weeks ago:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush in Latin America, said Sunday that Democrats and Republicans 'came to same conclusion — that Saddam was a threat and a threat that needed to be addressed.' He said that the U.N. and international allies shared the same conclusion.

'If Democrats want to talk about how intelligence was used, all they need to do is start by looking at their own comments that they made,' McClellan said. 'Many of their comments said we cannot wait to address this threat.'

This has since evolved into pointing out that Clinton had come to the same conclusions about Hussein. The difference they fail to recognize is that while Clinton maintained a no-fly zone and kept Hussein contained, the Bush administration went into an war undermanned while letting Osama Bin Laden make his getaway across Afghanistan.

[Larry]

Murtha has every right to say we should withdraw immediately.

Yes, he does.

But, he hasn't. (At least, not from what I read above.)

What he has proposed is moving the US forces to a situation in which they're no longer "the face on the street", but are, instead, the Iraqi's SWAT team: Not standing on the street corner any more, but available for rapid response when called by Iraqis.

Now, whether Iraq is ready for such a deployment is something that I certainly can't determine. (The things I've seen make me think that such a move might be years premature. But, I'm looking through a really long telescope.) It's not a dumb idea, but it may be premature.

And other Congressman have EVERY right to say that doing so would be a cowardice thing to do.

Yep.

And they also have a right to lie about what he said, run around throwing up their hands in mock outrage, use the mock outrage as the excuse for a stage-managed, publicity-stunt "vote", and engage in the usual GOP tactic of attacking the messenger.

And the people have the right to take note of their actions.

[Kilmer17]

Right, Im the hypocrite for trying to make the left apply their own standards to themselves.

suuuuuurrrrreeeeeee.

I also think it's appropriate and par for the course that the NON Liberal media completely spins what Schmidt said into her calling him a coward.

She didnt do anything CLOSE to that. She read a letter from a soldier that said Marines dont cut tail and run like cowards.

Now, I know most on the left dont care about facts or being accurate, but you would think that the media would try and get it right.

Murtha is a war hero, and an elected official. He has every right to say what he thinks is right. The hypocrites are those on the left who dont seem to think those opposed to his views have the same right.

Both sides of my mouth? Look in the mirror. Im applying the same standards, you are not.

[Larry]

I also think it's appropriate and par for the course that the NON Liberal media completely spins what Schmidt said into her calling him a coward.

She didnt do anything CLOSE to that. She read a letter from a soldier that said Marines dont cut tail and run like cowards.

Yep, you're right. Not even close.

[Air Force Cane]

Nice hunch there Larry-

could you tell me who the winners will be next sunday so I can pick the opposing teams? Thanks..

look at this SPIN: "the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation."

[JimboDaMan]

Right, Im the hypocrite for trying to make the left apply their own standards to themselves.

suuuuuurrrrreeeeeee.

I also think it's appropriate and par for the course that the NON Liberal media completely spins what Schmidt said into her calling him a coward.

She didnt do anything CLOSE to that. She read a letter from a soldier that said Marines dont cut tail and run like cowards.

Now, I know most on the left dont care about facts or being accurate, but you would think that the media would try and get it right.

Murtha is a war hero, and an elected official. He has every right to say what he thinks is right. The hypocrites are those on the left who dont seem to think those opposed to his views have the same right.

Both sides of my mouth? Look in the mirror. Im applying the same standards, you are not.

No, she was too gutless to do it outright so she used the time-dishonored machination of quoting somebody else just so she could get the work "coward" into the subject of Murtha without calling him one outright. So technically no, she didn't call him that, she drew the dots and left the audience to connect them.

Lemme ask you, did Dick Durbin compare the US to Hitler and Stalin a few months back? If memory serves correctly, you felt his words were a major story largely ignored by that bad old liberal media. You didn't seem to have trouble connecting the dots back then.

[Kilmer17]

Im fairly certain (though I admit to frequent episodes of forgettness) that Ive never posted anything about Dick Durbin and Hitler.

Can you point that out to me? If I did, I'll gladly own up to it.

The Marine didnt call him a coward either. The MArine said THEY would be cowards if they cut and run. At no point did EITHER call Murtha a coward.

[joe]

I think that describing Murtha as representing the left is comical. Murtha can best be described as a democrat whose politics are somewhat right of center. Just because he did not defect to the republican party like many of the southern democrats who leaned right, do not confuse him with an ACLU card carrying liberal, to paraphrase the competent Bush on Dukakis.

I know many former marines and I can describe none of them as liberal, although I know several who are registered democrats, just like Murtha.

I think that one should take the opinion of a guy who has been there seriously.

[Kilmer17]

I think we should take it seriously. And be able to criticize it.

[Thiebear]

Its easier to discuss this issue when the lefty and righty bomb-throwers don't show up.

He is saying we should get out of there as soon as possible: He was wrong a year ago and now he is correct.

She (the chick from where-ever) for saying cowards never run etc. she said but it has been taken out of context and turned around on her.. She is correct in her sentiment but incorrect if applied to Murtha "Personally".

I thought we were already entering into what Murhta said so it shouldnt be so fantastic a statement. HE did cause some of this by some of his comments that went along with the pull-out statement as some can't seperate the two...

Anyway: As part of the 80%, I disagree with his reasoning but agree with his tactics mentioned. He is both right and wrong and I think he has a point in the end.

If he stood up and JUST SAID:

"My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"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."

Most should have stood up and applauded and discussed a timetable and that would be it... its the 1 hour rhetoric that causes the problem.

And I'm not sure of deploying troops for "thier" safety, but its not a sticking point...

[@DCGoldPants]

Jean Schmidt has the right to say whatever she wants.

But, that right got her in trouble with her own party within 5 min of saying it.... and can be used against her when she runs again.

I ask wonder how many "letters" from folks in Iraq that are thrown around so easily on the floor, are legit.

[Kilmer17]

Legit as in written by a soldier on his own? With no prompting?

ZERO.

[@DCGoldPants]

Legit as in, a letter or email from years ago. Not from somebody watching CNN in Iraq the day before.

[@DCGoldPants]

I should add (Or fake, as in...written by somebody else over there and sent back)

as in the situation we had I think last year. With the same letter with different sigs getting sent home, and it was some Commanding Office doing it.

[Art Monk Fan]

I think that describing Murtha as representing the left is comical.

You may certainly "think" that, but you'd be wrong. Murtha has been steadily moving left for some time now and is one of Pelosi's closest advisors in the Congress.

[Air Force Cane]

Don't know how many of you war strategists realize the FACT that Murtha in 2004 called for the withdrawal of US forces because we were losing the war.

In his book last year, he stated that it would be a disaster for the US to leave Iraq before victory (Tim Russert threw this in his face yesterday).

which is it? He is a tool of Pelosi.

[Larry]

Don't know how many of you war strategists realize the FACT that Murtha in 2004 called for the withdrawal of US forces because we were losing the war.

Don't suppose you've got a quote of that FACT?

Not disputing you, but after this particular "fact" doesn't appear to have panned out . . . .

In his book last year, he stated that it would be a disaster for the US to leave Iraq before victory (Tim Russert threw this in his face yesterday).

A sentiment I agree with.

which is it? He is a tool of Pelosi.

Gotta love these well-supported statements of fact.

[Larry]

BTW, after further review:

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"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."

I would say that that last sentance does at least appear to advocate a complete withdrawal.

Now, that seems to me to be somewhat contradicted by his call for an "over the horizon" presence, which I interpret more as what I refer to as the SWAT team.

I'd still disagree with the folks claiming that he's yelling surrender. But I'd say that that last sentance, if you ignore the preceeding ones, could at least be regarded as being streatchable.

[visionary]

The media has all been reporting that Murtha wanted immediate withdrawel from the moment he made hsi statement. So if you want to blame soemone for POSSIBLY distorting his statement, blame the media for rushing to make Bush look bad and making up things to make thing sounds worse.

They made a big deal about how

one of the top Democrats (even though, I bet most people have never heard of him)

who was pro war (even though he supposedly called for withdrawing troops last year...not sure if that is true or not)

was now calling for immediate withdrawel (even though it seems he may not quite have been doing that at all).

So don't blame conservatives or Republicans for misrepresenting his statements, most are just going by what the media reported. (maybe not a smart approach)