In in Sunday's newspaper, the Marine veteran-turned-Congressman confronted the White House on being stubborn and unrealistic:
Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis wanttheir occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at theearliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remainingthere safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOPstart working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonabletimetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over tothe Iraqis.
The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases isnothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. WeDemocrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength,refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards athome and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world.That is not defeatist. It is a call to formulate and execute a winninggame plan for the War on Terror.
It's about realism, and whether the Bush White House is willing to accept it. Up until now, all they are willing to accept is their own narrow-minded idealism. You can't stay the course if that course leads right into a brick wall.
Many Americans thought the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group disliked John Kerry because he allegedly abandoned his unit -- even though those that were actually in John Kerry's unit said otherwise. But apparently it turned out to be much deeper than that. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as it was later learned, was a GOP front group used to attack one of John Kerry's key qualifications: the fact that he put his life on the line for his country.
Now the same thing is happening yet again -- this time to John Murtha, who is a Marine Veteran of 34 years. The swift boaters plan to pay him back for his opposition to the Iraq war. The goes into detail:
In a fight that organizers say will feature rallies, TV ads and anaggressive Internet campaign, these activists are promising to makeMurtha pay for his criticism of the Iraq war.
"I will do my best to 'Swift boat' John Murtha," retired Navy Capt.Larry Bailey said at a recent news conference here, invoking the 2004campaign against Kerry that took its name from Vietnam War-era Navyvessels.
The put it best:
As Yogi Berra would say, "it's like Deja Vu all over again."
But the grassroots advocacy group MoveOn.org is :
"Twoyears ago, Republican operatives calling themselves 'Swift BoatVeterans' smeared John Kerry," MoveOn's Political Action Team wrote inan e-mail to members, referring to the group of Vietnam veterans whoquestioned Kerry's account of his service in Vietnam. "This year, thesame people are at it again -- starting with attacks on John Murtha."
Thee-mail states there is "no damn way we're going to let them get awaywith it" and pledges to "go on offense" against Republicans in theNovember elections. "John Murtha is a hero to millions of Americans,and the best way to honor him is to beat the Republicans who smear him."
is trying to air a television ad in certain parts of the country that will help defend Murtha and other lawmakers that have had the guts to stand up to President Bush on Iraq. We know there is no way that the Republicans will pressure Bush to get the troops out. They lack the courage to change course. Our only alternative is to kick the bums out this November, and start fresh with a blue Congress this January that promotes the idea that international coalitions and 21st century technology, not just military power alone, are needed in order to win the war on terrorism. Our presence in Iraq is polarizing the Arab world, and it's time to try a new alternative. so they can air a television ad that promotes ideas like this is important because only a people powered democracy can defeat the GOP's message of fear this November. ---------------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about John Murtha: , , , , , , .
and many other Democrats believe that the continuing battle between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont is bad for our party. I would respond by contending that Bush-lite Democrats like Lieberman are actually the ones that are bad for our party. But still, even though many including myself disagree with Clinton's support for Lieberman, the former president is still that we are in a better position when our resources are not diverted from taking back the Senate and the House.
If that logic is indeed the case, then the intra-party feud between Democratic House Minority Whip and retired Marine-turned-Congressman actually helps the Democrats. Don't have the faintest idea of what I am referring to? Well, a few months ago, John Murtha announced that if the Democrats take back the House in November, assuming that Nancy Pelosi will run for the Speaker position, Murtha will want to run for the majority leader position. This puts him at odds with Steny Hoyer, who as far as the chain of command goes is the one in line for that job.
On one hand, you'd think, "The Democrats are fighting amongst themselves."
But in reality, what this is doing is forcing John Murtha and Steny Hoyer to win the support of their House Democratic colleagues. In order to win them over, they are all across the country. This added energy is helping bring in more money for the party than had there not been a feud at all.
So if an intra-party feud means that money will be raised, therefore helping build the party infrastructure, then this is something all Democrats ought to be happy about. ----------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , .
Even though everyone is pretty much focused on the war between Israel and the backers of Hezbollah, there is still a war in Iraq -- and that war is still chaotic. It is a civil war, regardless of what anyone in the Pentagon tries to spin. Let me put things in perspective. In the months of May and June alone, have been killed. And in July, the violence is much worse, as have been killed per day.
Yesterday, the United Nations issued a report concluding the obvious reality that Iraq is in the middle of a :
"The emerging phenomenon of Iraqis killing Iraqis on a daily basis isnothing less than a catastrophe and a national tragedy for the peopleof Iraq," warned Ashraf Qazi, Kofi Annan's special representative inthe country. The bloodshed "threatens to erode the government'sauthority to enforce security and the rule of law without which noinitiatives and no reforms can be implemented," he said.
Listen, we are done there. Until just a few months ago, I was one of those loyalists advocating for the U.S. to stay there until the Iraqi military was fully trained. Now, as back in June on Meet the Press, because of our presence we're killing less insurgents than the number that are being recruited each day.
Finally, at least one Republican is coming to his senses. wants us out:
Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), once a strong supporter of the war,returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad werefar worse "than we'd been led to believe" and urging that troopwithdrawals begin immediately.
In the end, this is all about the Administration following a stay the course policy just so that they could say they were right all along. Why can't they admit mistakes? I was for this war. Now I know that I was naive and dead wrong. I wish our politicians would toss their egoes aside and do what is best for our brave men and women in uniform.
The truth can hurt sometimes. Last week, the Senate Republicans voted down a Democratic Party proposal for a timetable in Iraq, saying that it would be the equivalent of from the enemy. But only a few days later, General George Casey surprised Republicans when he also for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. So while the Democrats are with the generals on this one, Republicans are out of touch by promoting the same stay the course policy, which in three years has hurt our efforts in the war against terrorism.
Monday's :
At issue was a report yesterday in the New York Times that Caseypresented a private briefing at the Pentagon last week in which heprojected that the number of U.S. combat brigades -- each with about3,500 troops --would decrease from 14 to five or six by the end of2007. About 127,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, including many supporttroops beyond the combat brigades.
White House and Pentagonofficials declined to confirm the projections, saying only that Caseymet with President Bush on Friday to discuss how the military mightproceed in Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forms a newgovernment.
The fact that one of the military community's highest generals took the Democratic position was no surprise to John Murtha. The retired Marine-turned-Congressman on Meet the Press that the Administration would eventually adopt the Democratic position on Iraq ():
MURTHA: "I, I’m convinced, though, Tim, I believe this,I believe the president’s sounding tough, but the president’s alsosaying it’s now up to the Iraqis. You watch what I’m saying. He’ssaying—and the vice-president and the president of Iraq, 80 percent ofthe Iraqis want us out of there. And the vice-president, president ofIraq said, 'We want a time table to get out.' That’s what we need andthe president knows that and that’s what he’s going to come up with."
MR. RUSSERT: "You expect a significant American troop withdrawal by the midterm elections?"
REP. MURTHA: "I expect a significant troop withdrawal. They’re trying to find a way to do this."
So, as usual, the Administration's plan is to bash the Democrats on Iraq and then eventually adopt their position. This tactic is no different than when the . The Democrats can combat this tactic by being more specific when outlining their foreign policy strategy, so that when the Administration copies it the real copycats will be exposed.
------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , .
After Republicans stalled yesterday, the Senate is getting ready today to hold a fierce debate on the Iraq war, and ultimately vote on two resolutions. The first resolution is supported by Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership. The second resolution, the one written by John Kerry and Russ Feingold, sets a specific deadline to remove all forces and will be voted on later in the day.
The first resolution is nonbinding, and asks the Administration to :
It would call for -- but not require -- the administration to begin "aphased redeployment of U.S. forces" this year, and would not set a firmdeadline by which time all forces must be out of the war zone.
Even though the resolution will obviously not pass, it is supported by almost all Democrats.
The second resolution is the more detailed one, and is -- which was why it will be voted on later in the day:
One proposal offered by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusettsand Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would set a hard pullout deadline ofJuly 2007.
Many are criticizing John Kerry and Russ Feingold for offering this second resolution. But as John Murtha explained Sunday on Meet the Press, will not hamper the efforts to help the Iraqi government combat terrorism. For example, the air strike that killed Zarqawi was based out of Qatar, and the intelligence gathering that led to the air strike was conducted by Iraqis.
Senate Democrats are more or less retaliating for last week's obvious display of political positioning by House Republicans on the issue of Iraq. This time around, Senate Democrats today are unveiling a resolution that would call for the beginning of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq sometime this year. Keep in mind that this is different than the House resolution, which dealt with whether or not to completely withdraw forces.
the bill:
"The administration's policy to date — that we'll be there for as longas Iraq needs us — will result in Iraq's depending upon us longer,"said of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, whohas been designated by the Democratic leadership to present the party'sstrategy on Iraq. "Three and a half years into the conflict, we shouldtell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."
So, while this bill does not take a page out of John Murtha's playbook, it definitely does slap the Republicans back after last week. A vast majority of the public would agree with this proposal because it calls for a significant transition this year, and also at least some guarantee that the U.S. will not be in Iraq forever. If Republicans do not support the bill, they will be advocating the same stay the course Bush policy that .
I have some very quick strategy advice for the Democrats -- since, obviously, they seem to always need it. We all know that President Bush and Karl Rove want to turn this election into a question of whether or not cutting and running is the right policy. But Democrats need to turn it right around and make this election a referendum on corrupt elitists like Karl Rove. :
He’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting inhis air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside, saying stay thecourse. That’s not a plan. … We’ve got to change direction. You can’tsit there in the air-conditioned office and tell troops carrying 70pounds on their backs, inside these armored vessels hit with IEDs everyday, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up — and hesays stay the course? Easy to say that from Washington, DC.
If Democrats were smart, this election is about whether of not to trust spin doctors like Karl Rove that have no clue what it is like for soldiers in harm's way. Contrast Rove's lavish office with the 70 pounds of gear our soldiers are carrying around. Contrast the safety Rove has of not being indicted with young men and women that face the danger each day of getting killed. Imagine a political strategist making a military decision, and then imagine a military man making a military decision. Which is better? Karl Rove is a political strategist, and John Murtha is a military man. Who would you trust?
If this election turns into a showdown between Karl Rove and John Murtha, that is precisely what we want. There is a stark contrast between the out-of-touch Washington "deciders" and the soldiers on the ground being forced to implement a broken policy. Polls have indicated that American politics is trending toward both populism and realism -- and that is exactly the opposite of the message that Karl Rove is trying to send. His message is both elitist ('trust us' mentality) and idealistic. We can return the favor by sending straight-talking realistic populists like John Murtha our there to champion our message. I'd take our chances with this approach any day!
John Murtha appeared on Sunday's episode of Meet the Press on NBC. From Karl Rove's speech last week to the possibility of a civil war if U.S. troops leave, host Tim Russert questioned the Pennsylvania Democrat about his plan to redeploy troops to the periphery in order to both lessen the strain on our soldiers and be better equipped to respond anywhere else in the world, including Iraq, just in case a situation arises:
---------- Partial Transcript ---------
MURTHA: "Stay the course is stay and pay, and this is the thing that has worried me all along. We're spending eight billion dollars a month, three-hundred million dollars a day. And to give you some perspective on what that means. Gates said, 'I am going to quit the corporation..would give away thirty billion dollars.' That's four months of the cost of this war. This port security: if you want to spend more money, it takes forty-seven years the way we are spending. Education, the no child left behind: a couple months of the war would pay for that. Who is going to pay for this down the road? Our children and grandchildren are paying for this war.
"And then you have the emotional strain, the people who are being hurt. On the floor the other day, you may have heard, this one fellow said, 'We're fighting this war.' We're not fighting this war. 1% of the American people -- these men and women are fighting this war with heavy packs, with seventy pounds of equipment, with helmets on in 130 degrees, that's who is fighting this war. And they say, 'Stay the course.' There's no plan. You open up this plan for victory and there's no plan there. It's just stay the course, that doesn't solve any problem.
"It's worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke our initially. When I spoke out, the garbage wasn't being collected, the oil production was below prewar level. All those things indicated to me we weren't winning this. And it's the same today, if not worse. Ambar Province, there's not one project that's been done. And in Amber Province, two million people live there, they have no water at all, no oil production, they have no electricity in that province where is in the heartland of the defense. The first six months we went in there, not a shot was fired. So it shows you how it's changed. It's getting worse. That's why I feel so strongly."
By far, John Murtha and are doing the finest job of any House Democrats at articulating the party's foreign policy position. One month ago, . Putting it lightly, Murtha went above and beyond the call of duty when it came to helping his party provide the country with a convincing reason why just staying the course is not an actual military policy.
Democrats, for the first time since September 11th, are showing signs that they are confident that unveiling a fresh new national security strategy that acts as a clear alternative to Bush's foreign policy can work to their benefit this November.
Following a Republican procedural tactic last week that forced House Democrats to expose the rifts in their party over Iraq, John Murtha led a group of allies on a political offensive. Just a few days later, other Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who plans to run for House Majority leader if the Democrats can regain a majority this fall, :
"He’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting inhis air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside, saying stay thecourse. That’s not a plan. … We’ve got to change direction. You can't sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell troops carrying 70 pounds on their backs, inside these armored vessels hit with IED's every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up -- and he says stay the course? Easy to say that in Washington."
The anti-Washington, pro-populist rhetoric coming from Murtha is something that Senate Democrats are beginning to embrace. that would call for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Like Murtha and a growing number in her party, she believes that this is a winning issue:
"Three years and three months and a bogging down, I think, suggeststhat the time has come for some discussion on where we go from here,"Feinstein said, also interviewed on CNN.
"I don't know why we are so afraid to stand up and say, 'look, we want to see an end to this thing'," she said.
However, that the media should only focus on the good news coming out of Iraq:
"We do need to do a better job," said Graham, who appeared with Bidenon CBS' "Face the Nation." "We are having progress in Iraq. Zarqawi'sdeath is a sea change. If we're going to go on these shows every Sundayand talk about every mistake ever made in a war, we're going to losethis war."
But that is a losing issue for Republicans, say some political analysts. Offering an alternative to the current situation in Iraq that is based on realism is much better than staying the course and wanting to censor the truth. With Bush's approval rating at 33%, other Democratic Senators are smelling blood. Maria Cantwell, a Democratic Senator from the state of Washington, is calling for a new strategy that would to take the U.S. face off the occupation:
"Wehave to get about the larger task of getting more internationalsupport,"Cantwell said in an interview. "Now that there is agovernment formed, there is an opportunity to put pressure" on othernations, including and members of the Arab League, to step in, she said.
This unusual offensive on Iraq coming from the Democrats would not have been possible had it not been for John Murtha.
This is what happens when politicians with a populist spine speak up. Other like-minded individuals follow.
Recent Comments