<p>“In a broadside issued Thursday night, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said that it is “baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.””</p>
<p>From Jean Schmidt, the congresswoman from Ohio, reading a letter from a marine in Iraq:
“He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course,” Ms. Schmidt said. “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”</p>
<p>During the session several congressman kept holding up Al Jezeera newspapers with Murtha’s resolution on the front page declaring that he was undermining the troops. </p>
<p>What happened to politicians like this?..
During the Second World War, Senator Robert Taft:</p>
<pre><code>'I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government… Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy… If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
</code></pre>
<p>To browninfall - Calling those who oppose the policies of this administration “Bush haters” is on par with the tactics of the republicans I quoted above. Your party is in power and you have to resort to calling the minority names? Think about it.</p>
<p>I know that you are just parroting the Rovian talking point, but I do not think you would be so smug if you had watched yesterday’s CSPAN coverage of the House.</p>
<p>Rep. Murtha did not come forward to push for a debate without the blessing of the generals in the field. His buddies in the Pentagon are clearly telling him that this thing isn’t working. His resolution was brilliantly worded to force Bush out of the foxhole to articulate some plan beyond “stay the course”. As someone who has given Bush the benefit of the doubt on his war policy, I think the time has come that he needs to either sell the American people on a rationale for indefinite occupation of Iraq or demonstrate measurable progress towards a defined end-game. </p>
<p>If his purpose in going to Iraq is to establish permanent military bases (which is what I have assumed), I would support that. But, only if he stands up and articulates the objective, a cost/benefit analysis that justifies the continuued effort, and a strategy for actually making progress. He’s got to sell me; particularly now that it is becoming abundantly clear that the administration intentionally misled the country on the WMD intelligence. I don’t know that I would have supported the war had I known that Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN was a fraud. I don’t know that I would have supported the war had I known that there was no post-invasion strategy.</p>
<p>I think that at this point, Sen. Levin probably has it about right. What incentive is there for the Iraqi people to get it together as long as we have an open-ended commitment to sit there and take casualities? It is absurd that, $400 billion later, electrical production in Iraq is no higher today that it was 22 months ago. Where is the measurable progress?</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, the only thing in Iraq we are fighting for at the moment is the political representation for Sunni minority. Yet, they appear to be the group most determined to undermine the effort. I’m pretty sure that, if we weren’t in their way, the Shiia would make quick work of reducing the Sunni “insurgency”. Lacking any indication that the Sunni leadership (and their allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia) have any intention of ever helping stabilize Iraq, I grow more and more inclined to just let the Shiias handle it. If stabilizing the country is sufficiently in our national interest to justify the continuing price, then somebody in the administration needs to show sufficient leadership to lay out a case for increasing the military presence to whatever level is required to get the job done.</p>
<p>Either way, the administration has some decision-making to share with the American people.</p>
<p>For you NPR fans out there, this weekend’s This American Life show has some very good readings by Iraq military vets. Heard it last night. One of the best in a while.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to the summary. Next week, you can listen for free.</p>
<p>It’s a pretty sad situation over there. Yea, Iraquis can vote now. Yea, they’re free. Too bad voting may get them blown up. Too bad they have freedom but no jobs, and a country that is collapsing. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, in order to pay for the hundred billion or so a year it costs, we’re cutting health care for poor folks and student loans.</p>
<p>BTW, don’t think the health care cuts are harmless to us or just leading to tax savings. It is more complex. Because no one can be denied needed medical care, they will be treated, usually in ERs. They can’t pay, so it will be charity care. Guess who pays, indirectly, for charity care? You and me, through state and local taxes and higher costs for our medical care. Just food for thought.</p>
<p>"If you want to understand what happened instead of believing browninfall’s summary, read this article with an excerpt below:</p>
<p>What really happened was a bunch of Democrats running for cover, fearful of losing their nice, cushy nests. </p>
<p>In the long run though, it doesn’t really make any difference. Just as what happened in Viet Nam was ultimately determined by the Vietnamese, so what happens in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis. The very last this Al-Qaeda wants in Iraq is for the U.S. to leave - it would mean a loss of easy targets, and their best recruiting tool. Sistani would then mop them up - or not, as the case may be. Would the U.S. prefer a pro-Iranian Shiite theocracy, a Taliban-style state, or perpetual civil war? Gotta pick one - those are the available choices.</p>
<p>It’s interesting to see the U.S. and Al-Qaeda essentially on the same side.</p>
<p>If it weren’t for the oil-thing, I’m starting to think that an extended, wide-spread Sunni/Shiia warfare might have potential.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for the Iraqi people, many of whom would love to have stability and a role in a world economy. But, the fact of the matter is that we will never see an end to the “insurgency” without Iraqi assistance and that has clearly not been forthcoming. At some point, we will have to step aside and let the Shiias clean it up. I have little doubt they could and would, in fairly short order.</p>
<p>I was afraid this would be the scenario when Sadaam’s forces disappeared into the scenery without much of a fight during the invasion. I did expect the Iraqis to step up to the plate a little more forcefully in the reconstruction effort.</p>
<p>At this point, our best option may be to cut the best possible deal with Sistani in exchange for handing the country over to him to do as he sees fit. If we’ve been smart (a big if), we’ve used the last two years to establish some ties. Sistani, at least publicly, has been more moderate than he could have been. We’ve given the Sunnis ample opportunity to get with the program and that clearly isn’t happening. </p>
<p>The closer the Iraqis get to a functioning economy, the better our chances for a working relationship, no matter who is running the show. We have the least leverage when there is no functioning economy, because nobody is invested in stability and making money. To the extent that we have “allies” in the Middle East, it is because it is in their financial self-interest to be a part of the world economy.</p>
<p>I think Mini is right in one sense: the Democrats were glad they weren’t being asked to vote on Murtha’s resolution.</p>
<p>However, my sense from watching the session was that the Republican leadership knew it had made a mistake and was distancing itself from “swift-boating” of Murtha as fast as they could run. Other than Harry Hyde’s tribute to Murtha, the Republican “big dogs” were nowhere to be seen.</p>
<p>“Did you watch the session? Have you read Murtha’s resolution?”</p>
<p>I certainly did watch the session, and read Murtha’s resolution, and it was substantively no different than the one offered by the Republicans. It calls for immediate withdrawal “when practicable” - well, “when practicable” would have been for the Administration to decide in any case. And since the President, and not Congress, is charged with the conduct of war, it isn’t Congress’ responsibility to be dictating the details. “Immediate” is for the executive to decide.</p>
<p>Just a bunch of cowards (Democrats) and fools (Republicans). Some times they exchange places. ;)</p>
<p>Mini,
Calling the two resolutions “substantively no different than the one offered by the Republicans” is naive at best. The resolution introduced by the Republicans was one line. One. Line. Immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That was it. (read for yourself the two resolutions: <a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/18/163220/03[/url]”>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/18/163220/03</a>) The whole point of the Republican version was to quash any debate on the issue. It was a stunt, and nothing more. In fact, it was cowardly, so how you can call the Democrats cowards on this issue when they’re the ones screaming for a debate is beyond me.</p>
<p>As I said, I DID read the two resolutions, and they are substantively the same. The Dems embellished theirs with a bunch of irrelevant, over-politicized “whereas” clauses aimed at nothing but scoring political points off the Administration (and pointedly leaving out how they voted for the War, and, that further, both Hilary Clinton and Charles Schumer say that, knowing what they know now, they would have voted for the war anyway.)</p>
<p>The three action clauses:</p>
<p>Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.</p>
<p>Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.</p>
<p>Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.</p>
<p>Clause one says the deployment is terminated IMMMEDIATELY (“hereby”) - same as the Republican resolution; the second part of the sentence calls for “practicable redeployment” (which is the President’s prerogrative.) The second section is an elaboration of the first - how the troops are to be redeployed (that’s the job of the President, not Congress.) The third section is support of the President’s current stated position, which is to seek stability and security through diplomacy.</p>
<p>It was a stunt, yes. It offered Democrats a chance to “get off the pot”, with a resolution substantively the same as their own. There were Democrats who voted as such. The rest are just a bunch of cowards who would prefer to see more Americans die rather than risk their own re-election. They covered their butts pretty well, I’d say.</p>
<p>Actually, I believe the substantive parts of Murtha’s resolution were the “whereas” clauses. Specifically, the lack of measurable progress. The financial cost of an open-ended war. And, the toll on our military readiness.</p>
<p>The last thing the Republicans and the administration can afford right now is any discussion of these substantive issues. Because they do not have answers to any of these questions, they have no choice but to frame the question in the most simplistic of terms, “cut and run” versus “stay the course.” So, they submitted a substitute resolution that left no congressman actually interested in finding a solution a place to vote. </p>
<p>The problem the administration faces is that, due to their inability to sell a coherent strategy to the American people, the substantive questions will not go away and will be addressed in the mid-term elections. My guess is that the real message of yesterday’s house session will be a steady stream of Republican candidates for reelection marching to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and saying, “with all due respect, Mr. President, you are killing us…” </p>
<p>Their party controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. They have nowhere to hide if they don’t deliver the goods, although I suppose they could always fall back on the old “family vaalyooos” schtick.</p>
<p>Nope. An opportunity to “get off the pot” would require the votes to pass a resolution. The Democrats do not control the votes in the House to pass a pizza order, let alone change administration policy. The Republicans are driving the wagon.</p>
<p>It seems I’ve stirred things up a bit here. Why didn’t the Democrats support Murtha? I know what the Republicans proposed wasn’t exactly what he proposed but the principles were the same. Why didn’t the Democrats say “stop the war”?</p>
<p>No. What the Republicans did with their stunt was not the same as Murtha had in mind. He submitted his resolution with the specific intent of forcing a set of hearings and deliberation over a period of time. If you watched his press conference on Thursday, it was anything but a cheap, cynical ploy. He was in tears. </p>
<p>He specifically planned to file the resolution by himself without asking for the support of the Democratic leadership because as the House’s most ardent supporter of the military over three decades and a 37 year career in the Marines, and a man infinitely well-connected in the Pentagon, he felt so strongly about what he was being told by the uniformed brass in the field.</p>
<p>He compared Bush I to Bush II, detailing the hours of consultations with Bush I on the first Iraq war, some of which the President agreed with and some he didn’t. He said that Bush II isn’t interested in anything anybody has to say. When Murtha wrote a letter to the administration recently outlining his concerns (remember, this guy is the ranking member and former chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommitttee and has served in Congress for 31 years). He got a response to his letter five months later from an Undersecretary of Defense. In short, he can’t get anyone in the administration to come up out of the foxhole and present a strategy.</p>
<p>The Republicans knew that they could not, under any circumstances, give Murtha the opportunity to ask the hard questions. So, they cut him off at the knees – basically humiliated him – with their cheap stunt. And, had the gaul to have a woman who has been in the House for two weeks stand up on the floor of the House and call him a coward for wanting to “cut and run”.</p>
<p>The Republicans have apparently let their power go to their heads. They are so sure that their own you know what doesn’t stink that they humiliate the ranking member of the House Defense Appropriations Committee while the country is fighting a $100 billion a year war. Murtha doesn’t have the votes; the Republicans do indeed have full responsibility for the government. But, it is amazingly stupid to kick a guy like that to the curb. If Bush had one ounce of leadership in him, he would have been inviting Murtha to the White House to try to sell him on a viable strategy, if not at least listen to Murtha’s first hand observations. He has to know that Murtha’s opinion carries a lot of weight on the Democratic side of the aisle. Wouldn’t you want to keep the channels of communication open? But, Bush doesn’t want to hear it.</p>
<p>What the heck are they going to do if the Dems take control of the house in 12 months and Murtha is back in charge of the Defense Appropriations committee? Have they even considered that? For being politicians, they sure are lousy at the schmooze.</p>
<p>“Actually, I believe the substantive parts of Murtha’s resolution were the “whereas” clauses. Specifically, the lack of measurable progress. The financial cost of an open-ended war. And, the toll on our military readiness.”</p>
<p>The “whereas” clauses were a Democratic political stunt. They knew it sunk Murtha’s version before it even was introduced. The Dems didn’t need to “pass” their Resolution - they needed to get on paper as supporting withdrawal. </p>
<p>Actually, the Dems don’t “need” to do anything, but sit back and watch the government in power shoot itself in the foot. They don’t really have a role in governing the country right now. The Republicans are in charge. Bush will run like a scalded dog from Iraq, using the Dec elections there as a pretext. He has no choice.</p>
<p>Have you seen the recent polls? They are consistently 60% to 65% disapprove of Bush’s war. </p>
<p>Now about 55% believe that the Bush administration intentionally misled the American public about the pre-war intelligence instead of making an honest mistake. </p>
<p>Or the one that I’m sure the Republican congressmen are looking at: Would the country be better off if the Democrats or Republicans controlled Congress:
48% Dem.
34% Republican</p>
<p>"Have you seen the recent polls? They are consistently 60% to 65% disapprove of Bush’s war. "</p>
<p>Right. And the Democrats don’t even have the guts to follow and call for withdrawal. </p>
<p>“Why didn’t the Democrats support Murtha? I know what the Republicans proposed wasn’t exactly what he proposed but the principles were the same. Why didn’t the Democrats say “stop the war”?”</p>
<p>Because they’re cowards. As ID notes, they don’t have to do anything. And because they don’t have to do anything, they won’t. Instead, they are willing to watch as more people die, without “having to” open their mouths.</p>
<p>The reality is that Iraqis are not itching to get themselves killed in order to support a U.S. agenda. Doesn’t matter if they are Shiites or Sunnis. All of them - either in their immediate or extended family - had a child (or multiple children) killed by Bill Clinton, and they remember it quite well. (If one of your children was so killed, wouldn’t you?) And they know the U.S. is going to leave sooner or later anyway, so why fight for them now? Meanwhile, according to the Pentagon, the number of Iraqis in the insurgency has quadrupled in 18 months, with foreign fighters amounting to less than 2% of them. We are doing better at recruiting insurgents than in filling Pentagon quotas.</p>
<p>They were never given the opportunity to voice an opinion on Murtha’s resolution. He submitted his resolution on Thursday afternoon.</p>
<p>24 hours later, the Republicans had submitted a substitute resolution along with a rules-change that prevented any consideration or floor debate of the Republican proposal to call for immediate troop withdrawal.</p>
<p>The more pertinent question is, “why didn’t the Republicans support their own resolution?”</p>
<p>In order for this war to bring about the defeat of one party rule Democrats are going to have to field and fund viable candidates during the next 11+months.</p>
<p>As for job growth and how well off America is…sometimes one job isn’t the same as two…as too many familes have had to find out. Some people did not pay attention to Katrina’s lesson about poverty in this country.</p>
<p>As for this war vs. Vietnam…Rich, White men sending poor peoples kids to war for a lie…same old, same old.</p>