Posted on 11/20/2005 8:26:47 AM PST by SmithL
BEIJING - U.S. President George W. Bush on Sunday all but apologized to a hawkish Democrat who the White House had called a liberal like American moviemaker Michael Moore for demanding an immediate U.S. pullout from Iraq.
Bush, dogged by questions about Iraq during a week-long Asia tour, tried to cool partisan tempers in Washington that flared over the withdrawal demand by Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record). One Republican had called Murtha a coward.
"Congressman Murtha is a fine man, a good man who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a U.S. congressman," Bush said.
He did not repeat the White House accusation that Murtha was from the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party like Moore, the "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker who is a liberal celebrity loathed by American conservatives.
"I know that the decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops by congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way. I disagree with his position," Bush said.
Many Democrats have called on Bush to present a plan to end the war and an estimate of when U.S. forces can start to be withdrawn based on conditions on the ground. Only a few have called for a set timetable for withdrawal.
Murtha has said Iraq cannot be won militarily and the United States must withdraw to send a signal to Iraqis that they are "free from the United States occupation."
Murtha's opposition broadened a partisan divide in Washington and prompted the Republican-led House of Representatives to engineer a vote on Friday on a resolution to pull U.S. troops immediately from Iraq.
It was defeated nearly unanimously in what Democrats called a political stunt.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll this week said 63 percent of Americans oppose Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and 52 percent say troops should be pulled out now or within 12 months.
Bush said a premature withdrawal would have "terrible consequences," but that he recognized Iraqis would like to defend their country on their own and he looked forward to that day.
"As the Iraqi security forces gain strength and experience we can lessen our troop presence in the country without losing our capability to effectively defeat the terrorists," Bush said.
"A reduced presence of coalition force would clearly demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no ambition to occupy their country. As I've often said we'll stay as long as necessary but not one day more," Bush said.
Bush, speaking to reporters after talks with Chinese leaders, said no one should question Murtha's patriotism and that it was his right to express his opinion.
"People should feel comfortable expressing their opinions about Iraq," he sai
Unbelievably, he still doesn't get it. I mean, making nice to these a__holes has been such a raging success in the past, hasn't it?
They always respond positively and never see it as a sign of weakness, do they?
Mr. President, let them stew in this mess of their own making, but above all let them really fear you instead of just saying they do.
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
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. (emphasis his)
Find all this near the bottom of Murtha's own web page.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html
Wish I could agree with you Willy, but there's no way I can respect this guy after what he has said.
Our troops are the enemy?
Terrorism started in 2003?
Immediate redeployment?
Diplomatic remedy?
Time to bring them home, now?
Where did you get the idea that he was not asking for immediate withdrawel?
This guy has lost it. Our troops are NOT the enemy. If he can't respect them, I cannot respect him. The terrorist campaign stated on 09/11/2001. I shouldn't have to remind Murtha of that, and the fact that I obviously need to displays a mental lapse which calls into question his abilty to think cogently.
The call for immediate redeployment and handing over the situation completely to the Iraqis, with us only supporting a diplomatic remedy, is a complete surrender to terrorism IMO. We leave when the Iraqi govenment and our military leaders say so, not one moment sooner. The Iraqi government, voted for by the people, and just weeks from formal installation has asked us to stay for a while longer. Murtha has disgraced himself with his comments.
As a general rule, I appreciate the issues you raise on this forum. Can't always agree. You take care bud.
I think they'd be more "comfortable" if we gave them the actual support they need to accomplish their mission rather than just sitting around, passing resolutions that say "Attaboy".
Take no prisoners
I'd be more comfortable if the Democrats stopped rooting for the terrorists to win.
I'd be more comfortable if our MSM would actually report how drastically life has improved for the Iraqi's.
I'd be more comfortable if the Democrats didn't provide terrorist recruiting sound bites that get worldwide distribution.
I'd be more comfortable if our MSM wasn't actively attempting to bring down our president in time of war by reporting bogus Koran flushing stories and reporting where our secret prisons are.
I agree with your premise regarding when the terrorism began. The reason I gave 09/11/2001 as a start date, is that we didn't have any hard plans to invade Iraq prior to that. Thus 09/11/2005 became the catalyst and the opening shot of the War on Terrorism. And to clarify for Congressman Murtha, we didn't make it.
Your words, not Murtha's.
Terrorism started in 2003?
Yes. That's the year that we won, Saddam lost and the insurgency started.
If you want to put on your "I-am-a-dummy-and-don't-understand-what-he's-saying" T-shirt, go right ahead.
Immediate redeployment?
Yes, "redeployment" reflects that there IS a plan more than a simple "pullout" or "withdrawel".
Diplomatic remedy?
Yes. The Iraqis have a government.
It's time for them to start governing.
Time to bring them home, now?
Either that, or supply them with the troops necessary to END the insurgency.
And everybody knows Dubya made the political decision not to do that.
They don't come any more patriotic than this guy.
GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1524953/posts
Our troops could use less support if this is Murtha's definition.
The "NO" Vote - Peterson, Murtha Screw Our Soldiers
http://www.seamuspress.com/archives/rep_john_murtha/
Your words, not Murtha's.
That was a direct quote.
Terrorism started in 2003?
Yes. That's the year that we won, Saddam lost and the insurgency started.
If you want to put on your "I-am-a-dummy-and-don't-understand-what-he's-saying" T-shirt, go right ahead.
We had no plans to enter Iraq until after 09/11/2001. I would just like to go on the record stating the events of 09/11/20001 were acts of terrorism. Subsequent to them, we formulated a plan to enter Iraq and executed that plan.
Immediate redeployment?
Yes, "redeployment" reflects that there IS a plan more than a simple "pullout" or "withdrawel".
And I quote from the Congressman's own web site. "BRING THEM HOME NOW" What is your definition of the word now?
Diplomatic remedy?
Yes. The Iraqis have a government. It's time for them to start governing.
The Iraqi government is governing. It's has been not been an easy task drafting a Constitution that was acceptable to all parties. Individual office holders haven't even been voted into office yet. That takes place on the 15th of December 2005.
The Iraqi armed forces have grown from a very paultry number a year ago. Today about 1/3rd of Iraqs security can be provided by domestic forces. If we leave today, they will be over-run in short order. What will that achieve?
Time to bring them home, now?Either that, or supply them with the troops necessary to END the insurgency. And everybody knows Dubya made the political decision not to do that.
Even Israel hasn't been able to stop terrorism perpetrated against it. If the Iraqis government wants us there, our military leaders want us there, our Commander in Chief wants us there, our troops want to be there and keep reinlisting to stay, that's good enough for me.
LOL! And we're supposed to believe that the "ethics probe" isn't politically motivated?
Sheeeesh.... that one's so transparent that it's obvious that the amateurs are in charge.
.....Why make nice-nice with traitors?....
The President has clean hands. He has many others including me who can raise continuous hell with the pisspoor American Rats
My fax machine has tried umpteen times to send the congressman a fax but it is always busy. He is getting his cumuppance I think.
So what size T-shirt do you wear, large or extra-large?
Could be a good reason he was chosen to be Pelosi's mouth piece.
They're saying it already.
"See! Anyone who questions this administration is attacked!" "This ethics investigation is politically motivated."
Convenient.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:7UHODPfnNcIJ:construct.haifa.ac.il/~danielp/soc/sims.htm+Murtha+ethically+challenged&hl=en
In some more extreme--and definitely ethically questionable--situations, such actions are designed to reward some large-scale campaign contributors in the home district. A case in point is the Maxi Cube cargo handling system. Funds for testing the Maxi Cube cargo handling system were written into the fiscal 1989 defense budget during the final Senate-House Appropriations conference at the request of Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania. The $10 million item was specifically targeted for a Philadelphia businessman (and contributor to Murtha's campaign) who was to manufacture the truck in Murtha's home district. The only problem was that the U.S. Army had clearly said that it had "no known requirement" for the handler. In response, Murtha was reported to be "mad as hell" at the "nitpicking" by the army. He pushed ahead anyway and used his position on the Appropriations committee to freeze a series of military budgeting requests until he got his pet project approved.
And Murtha is not alone. Rep. Les Aspin of Wisconsin got the Defense Appropriations committee to include $249 million to continue making a certain ten-ton truck (in Wisconsin, naturally) that the army was trying to phase out. It, too, was unneeded, but Aspin wanted the project for his home district. Is this legal? Yes? Is it ethical? That depends upon your point of view (Morgan, 1989). Clearly, Murtha and Aspin thought it was appropriate, given the realities of today's private and public organizations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.