Congressman John Murtha

im sure most of us have heard the news of congressman john murtha's
disaproval of the course of war in iraq. keep in mind
for the video, click here and scroll down: http://www.bradblog.com/default.htm
and here is the transcript:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"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 ½ 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 US 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 serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out 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% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

the administration respoded with an 'all due respect' bullshit response, but *surprise-surprise* 2 days after:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha
By John Bresnahan
Roll Call Staff

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/11329-1.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

what are your opinions on murtha?

i know some dipshits will call him a coward, although he served in vietnam and has supported the majority of military operations in his career on the senate, and is well known to be a hawk...and although they will never have read the transcript or seen the video, but thats to be expected

so other then that, what do you think?

Personally I don't know much about him, however, from what I've read above, he seems to be on the ball regarding the "reality" that America currently faces having gone to war with Iraq. Unfortunately as usual, someone who points the truth of the problem, is somehow labeled as "Un American", and has their credibility attacked.

The sad thing is..when the "fit" really begins to hit the "shan"...I can gaurantee many prominent Republicans and Democrats who supported the war will be MIA. I'm sure most of them already have some sort of refuge set up if the war starts to take place on American soil.

What are the expectations of the public and what is are the expectations of the gov't? Start there and everything else is kinda inbetween.

I have met with several people some reserves some political and its amazing to hear the spread on reality to those involved vs those who choose to engage this.

update: looks like the iraqis are more comfortable with murtha's plan
than "stay the coarse" (coarse to where?)
------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

Tuesday November 22, 2005 3:16 AM

AP Photo XAN107

By SALAH NASRAWI

Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The participants in Cairo agreed on ``calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks.

The conference was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers, as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time - reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

``By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,'' he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position.

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

``Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships,'' the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all ``innocent detainees'' who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded ``an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order.''

The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.

``We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people,'' said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.

The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.

The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i guess iraq hates its freedom©

Originally posted by PVS
what are your opinions on murtha?

My opinion is that if Murtha is going to say all this stuff he should have joined the 3 people in the House who voted for a troop withdrawl from Iraq.

Originally posted by PVS
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

Oooohh, ouch! WTF?! That's saying a lot more than just the words that spell it out.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oooohh, ouch! WTF?! That's saying a lot more than just the words that spell it out.

What's even worse, is...I wonder how many news channels will report this?

Originally posted by Echuu
My opinion is that if Murtha is going to say all this stuff he should have joined the 3 people in the House who voted for a troop withdrawl from Iraq.

After troops have already invaded and ****ed the infrastructure? Go it the American Way!

Originally posted by Trickster
After troops have already invaded and ****ed the infrastructure? Go it the American Way!

I think you missed my point.

Originally posted by Trickster
After troops have already invaded and ****ed the infrastructure? Go it the American Way!

um Yeah the infrastructure there is crap. Yeah know about 4 years ago I would say just bomb them to a parking lot! Now I look at pictures that haven't even been attacked and think OMG that looks like a sunny bright mining camp from Alaskan gold rush days! They have no infrastructure to speak of.

All the polls in Rep John Murtha's presentation amounts to crap unless I can look at poll data. We do need an exit strategy. Most of what is being said by the "Leadership" in Iraq best benefits themselves as schools in Iraq are almost nil and who cares about unemplyment when they have no infrastructure to speak of and education whats that supposed to amount to?

USA get out of Iraq good idea we are not going to make that a New Middle Eastern USA. ALOT of what Rep John Murtha said otherwise was crap.

Originally posted by soleran30

USA get out of Iraq good idea we are not going to make that a New Middle Eastern USA. ALOT of what Rep John Murtha said otherwise was crap.

and can you quote what you feel is 'crap'

PVS thats such a lang post I am kinda surprised I even read it all. I do agree we need an action plan to decide our role in the middle-east.

Most of what Murtha said was more politcal look what I can do B.S. for instance....

-To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. (Please in Laymens terms and not more fluff)

-To create a quick reaction force in the region. (Once again is this with a "strike" force ie marines? Or Army they both have significantly different roles in "war" and this would give me MAYBE a better idea)

-To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. (Please define what over-the-horizon means)

-To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.(Total suck arse BS....this has been done for decades supposedly and due to religious factions this is impossible so force/police are required to even attempt this)

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering. (This was the lamest comment I have read seriously the wounded are suffering? What does he mean personalize is he going to arms?)

"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. (I sincerly doubt many if ANY of congress has children in the front line typical of all politicians)

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything ( The military's job is to do what we ask of them how does he know we cannot accomplish anything?)

Sloppy but thats a few pieces alot of other open ended comments smothered in politcal BS sauce as well but not worth it right now.

I have long said that the insurgency is largly due to US occupation and would decrease greatly after troops leave. We shouldnt have gone in the first place.

Originally posted by soleran30

Most of what Murtha said was more politcal look what I can do B.S. for instance....

-To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. (Please in Laymens terms and not more fluff)

-To create a quick reaction force in the region. (Once again is this with a "strike" force ie marines? Or Army they both have significantly different roles in "war" and this would give me MAYBE a better idea)

-To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. (Please define what over-the-horizon means)

the guy is just saying we should have troops ready to go in the area, in case it gets out of control. as opposed to walking the streets where everyone hates them. i think they would certainly be safe that way....everyone would be safe in fact.

Originally posted by soleran30

-To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.(Total suck arse BS....this has been done for decades supposedly and due to religious factions this is impossible so force/police are required to even attempt this)

yes, but how exactly are we helping to solve this by being there?

Originally posted by soleran30
"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering. (This was the lamest comment I have read seriously the wounded are suffering? What does he mean personalize is he going to arms?)

could be that he's vietnam veteran and know's a no-win war when he sees one? could just mean he visited with wounded soldiers (not too hard to find unfortunately)

Originally posted by soleran30
"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. (I sincerly doubt many if ANY of congress has children in the front line typical of all politicians)

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything ( The military's job is to do what we ask of them how does he know we cannot accomplish anything?)

he meant that we overthrew saddam hussein. that was their mission. their next mission was to help stabilise iraq. since our troops are now hated and seen as enemy occupiers, they are unable to help in that respect. its a stalemate and only bound to get far far worse. if you dont think in the right/left politicising mode, you can see that he only spoke the simple truth. this war is lost. you cant 'win' a war against the general population. never happened (without genocide involved) and never will

Ok well obviously I have a rather Jaded view of most politicians and their statements regardless of intent for the USA. This is simply because in my opinion the only war this guy needs to win is in congress, public speeches and announcements are fluff to me.

Some of the other things he has mentioned are insugents and things along those lines and we cannot win because of this is. Personally the longer this war continues and phrases are used more and more we will become more sensitive to them. IF we are in this war then once again in my opinion we need a clear strategy and it could take up to three years anyway

Originally posted by ESP07
I have long said that the insurgency is largly due to US occupation and would decrease greatly after troops leave. We shouldnt have gone in the first place.

And when we leave the terrorists are going to attack us in the United States of America on our soil and in our cities.

Originally posted by Echuu
And when we leave the terrorists are going to attack us in the United States of America on our soil and in our cities.

they will attack anyway.

the more we stay there, the more we will be hated, and thus more terrorists.
i dont understand the mentallity of staying there when CLEARLY we have done NOT A THING to stop global terrorism and have only managed to give it the means to spread. the world is less safe now because of this. nothing good can come out of staying. and saying "well if we get attacked its all your fault" is like saying "well if it rains its all your fault". really, we're going to face threats regardless.

for the life of me, i fail to see how turning iraq from a dictatorship into a chaotic terrorist breeding shithole was a wise choice and makes us safer.

Originally posted by PVS
they will attack anyway.

the more we stay there, the more we will be hated, and thus more terrorists.
i dont understand the mentallity of staying there when CLEARLY we have done NOT A THING to stop global terrorism and have only managed to give it the means to spread. the world is less safe now because of this. nothing good can come out of staying. and saying "well if we get attacked its all your fault" is like saying "well if it rains its all your fault". really, we're going to face threats regardless.

for the life of me, i fail to see how turning iraq from a dictatorship into a chaotic terrorist breeding shithole was a wise choice and makes us safer.

lol Iraq already was a 'terrorist breeding shithole' when we came in there. The terrorists are obviously going to try and attack us at home when we are over there but so far nothing has succeeded(though I'm sure many a Dem would have been happy if Bush was assassinated) and our troops have made a lot of progress.

Now think reasonably... if the Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism shouldn't we take steps to change the middle east? I'm not saying invade every country and push them around. Since the Iraq/Afghan war we have seen government changes in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. If we can cement the work in Iraq and Afghaistan maybe even Iran will change their ways without any military involvement.

Originally posted by PVS
they will attack anyway.

the more we stay there, the more we will be hated, and thus more terrorists.
i dont understand the mentallity of staying there when CLEARLY we have done NOT A THING to stop global terrorism and have only managed to give it the means to spread. the world is less safe now because of this. nothing good can come out of staying. and saying "well if we get attacked its all your fault" is like saying "well if it rains its all your fault". really, we're going to face threats regardless.

for the life of me, i fail to see how turning iraq from a dictatorship into a chaotic terrorist breeding shithole was a wise choice and makes us safer.

Yeah know at the end of the day your comment "really, we're going to face threats regardless." can be said about having troops in that region. So if we pull out terrorism will somehow stop or diminish, I don't think this is a reasonable expectation from that course of action.

I would like to see how the polls were created and the questions were asked and basically the demographics of the polls to better understand who really hates us in the middle east. From my limited perspective (pictures taken from national guard troops in my region and shared) I haven't seen as much hate as the media portrays. So perhaps the people screaming the loudest are the leaders of the groups that want us out of there so they can regain their power and put more of their people down.

However I am for removal of US troops in my perspective to finish our "secondary" mission of taking out terrorism (isn't going to happen) its still going to take 3 years. We have MAJOR restorations going on in that country rebuilding and even building in the middle east.

Originally posted by Echuu
lol Iraq already was a 'terrorist breeding shithole' when we came in there. The terrorists are obviously going to try and attack us at home when we are over there but so far nothing has succeeded(though I'm sure many a Dem would have been happy if Bush was assassinated) and our troops have made a lot of progress.

please, can we have a discussion without the "ZOMG LOLZ" nonesense?
bush and company have openly admitted that they were wrong about ties between iraq and global terrorism when saddam was in power. yet they somehow still manage to dupe people into thinking there was a link. and as far as anyone bush or ANY president to be assassinated, what an immature and reckless comment. the troops are unable to make progress. they are in a meat grinder dying every day in a war against a general population of insurgents.

Originally posted by Echuu
Now think reasonably... if the Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism shouldn't we take steps to change the middle east? I'm not saying invade every country and push them around. Since the Iraq/Afghan war we have seen government changes in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. If we can cement the work in Iraq and Afghaistan maybe even Iran will change their ways without any military involvement.

well thats such a pretty and flowery scenario, almost like communism.
we'll create a paradise for them at gunpoint and others will fall in line with joy.
in fact, we will not have to 'invade' but would rather be 'welcome as liberators'
please save the utopia theories for fairy tales.

the whole point is that we WILL NOT WIN THE WAR. thats the fact.
its not "i dont want us to win the war" or "you should not want us to win the war"
so lets just sober up from all the right/left nonesense and look at "what is happening" rather then "what we want to happen"

we are losing the war in afghanistan. the taliban are not "on the run" and we have not "smoked them outta their holes". maybe if we directed the resources where they belonged...IN AFGHANISTAN...where the guy who actually DID attack us and kill thousands of americans still relaxes in his bunker/cave sipping espresso and laughs in our faces...but that wont happen and mr. bin laden will die of old age.

thats reality