Posted on 07/25/2007 11:04:31 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago
A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he'll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.
A vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal likely will come in September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and members of Congress weigh some $600 billion in defense spending requested by President Bush.
Under his plan, Murtha, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said that he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete.
The House has passed similar proposals in the past, including one that Bush vetoed. But Murtha said he predicts this vote will be different because of mounting voter frustration with the war and a lack of progress in Iraq.
"This is big time," Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters of the upcoming war debate in September. "When you get to September, this is history. This is when we're going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out."
Bush has not given any indication he is open to a dramatic shift or a major redeployment of troops after September. He instead has talked at length about the need to remain engaged in Iraq to fight al-Qaida and has repeatedly appealed to lawmakers for more patience.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I think the guy you are referring to is named Burns. I read about him in one of Michael Yon's pieces.
token good reporting. it helps them keep up appearances.
From today’s Wall Street Journal...
House Committee Approves
$459.6 Billion Defense Budget
By DAVID ROGERS
July 25, 2007 11:24 a.m.
WASHINGTON — The House Appropriations Committee approved a $459.6 billion defense budget even as a leading Democrat proposed new options to try to reach some understanding with the White House on the future course of U.S. policy in Iraq.
Rep. John Murtha, the bill’s manager and outspoken critic of the war, said he has drafted a floor amendment that would require the administration to begin a redeployment of American combat troops by the end of this year but would set no final deadline for an end to the U.S. occupation.
The Pennsylvania Democrat made clear that he still wants all U.S. forces to be withdrawn, but he said he senses more openness in the Pentagon to change and is taking this approach in hopes of encouraging those in the administration seeking some compromise.
As drafted the amendment would require the administration to submit within 60 days a “regional stability plan for the Middle East” including a detailed description of the projected U.S., military force presence in the region for the five year period beginning October 2008.
In the same 60-day period, which most likely terminates in December, the administration would be required to begin an “orderly redeployment” of U.S. forces in line with the stability plan. Troops who have been serving more than a year already would be given priority coming home, but no firm date is set for the withdrawal being completed.
Mr. Murtha said antiwar forces in his caucus may oppose his language as not going far enough, but that he has discussed it with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who has been his strong ally. “Maybe we’ll start some movement. Get some time of agreement,” Mr. Murtha said.
The underlying bill reported from the panel yesterday covers the core Pentagon budget for the new fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Congress must later consider in September a supplemental spending request for war operations, but Mr. Murtha’s intention is to first test support for his approach when the larger $459.6 billion measure comes to the House floor before the August recess.
Write to David Rogers at david.rogers@wsj.com
IMO, the democrats know that we are winning and they want to pull the rug out from underneath the military before this happens. When we win the war the democrats will probably never be the majority or occupy the WH again. They fear this so much that they will sacrifice the military and the US to stay in power.
Has Murtha yet called a presser to apologize for publically rejudging and condemning the Marines involved in the Haditha incident?
Looking at that code pink photo, I am sure his underwear will be pink and lacy.
I think Murtha is always wrong. Why do people vote for a screwball like this?
The people in Pennsylvania should be ashamed of themselves for electing this guy. Yes, I said SHAME on you.
No more blood for votes!
Liberals hate America just as much (if not more)as they do the Military!!!.....
100% correct. See e.g. Tet offensive."
The problem is talk radio and the internet didn't exist back then, making it easier to fool most of the people. Do you think they'll make a move on both of those so that their media buddies will be able to cover for them just as they did back then?
Thanks, Smooth...So they approved the $460 billion defense budget in committee but murtha is going to try and get a withdrawal ammendment through later, am I getting this right? Sounds like he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Here’s a timeline of events.
The Exit/Entrance Plan: How to Buy Houses and Lose a War
2003 Dem make same statements as Bush (actually had said the same things long before Bush, and after the Clinton/Monica bombing of Iraq)
Enter How(in the world) Dean & Moveon.organization of idiots backed by $oro$. (aka in lib talk, “special interests money”)
No WMDs found, media guilt sets in about being perceived as pro war and wrong ++++ F911 Goebels Film
Polls begin to change
Kerry changes, and loses.
Moveon “we bought and own this party”
Party shifts hard left
Media + angry left continue to influence the polls
Code Pink aids terrorists. Dems, libs and terrorists share talking points
Cindy circus arrives on scene
“Bush lied” meme rackets up. (Bush lied by saying same things dems said for 5 years, including 2 prior to his taking office and after Clinton/Monica bombing of Iraq for same reasons)
Media continue pushing for DNC (kind of like a white guilt syndrome, here war guilt)
Clear empirically measured bias (corruption, Macca, foley, anti war coverage, ignore gold start families, etc.)
2006 elections won by MSM/DNC partnership (+ dissatisfaction with GOP re: immigration/spending/”corruption”, half of which [TN Senator + Delay not proven yet, but see Jefferson, Murtha, Reid, et al]
Post election: nothing accomplished, promises broken (corrupt people selected for committee positions, no real earmark reform, war continues on) + unpopular moves (immigration, corruption - tuna wage increase, use intelligence funding for global warming research, etc.) People realize not only more of the same, but worse.
Polls turn on Dems. Dems desparately overtly lie (no progress, no Al Qeada in Iraq, surge failed [before it began]).
Polls turn on war (slightly).
Dem introduce the Exit (and entrance) plan. Begin withdrawal now (”look we’re doing something!” [at any cost]) and finish just in time for a Democrat to ride into the White House right on time for the end of the war a “hero” to those too stupid to realize this is Sommalia x10000 again and to our enemies who have waited for this day, hoped for this election turnout, and now have anew Afghanistan to faciltiate a new and much worse 9/11.
There you have the, “exit [the war]/enterance[into the white house and house of congress] “plan” that “picks up seats” for the dems (quoting Reid) and emboldens our enemies. With the bonus of blaming Bush all the way to the ballot box.
And they did it without having to accomplish a single thing (i.e. SS - still broke), nor put forth a viable plan for any of our problems at all!
[I own this timeline]
10 Reasons It's Not A Civil War
1. The two main factions alleged (by those who wish it to be true) to be fighting a "civil war," the Sunnis and Shias, are still serving in Iraqi government positions, working together in the halls of government.
2. Neither party has withdrawn from the government to form a rump, competing, or rebel government. The Sunnis would be the logical party to withdraw, since they are in the minority.
3. Sunnis and Shias recently attended a mass funeral procession together for victims of AQ violence.
4. Millions of Sunnis and Shias are happily intermarried in Iraq, especially in Baghdad.
5. Suicide bombings of innocent Iraqis is not a civil war. It is a failed attmept to start a civil war which so far has failed.
6. So called sectarian violence, which in some cases is actually the killing of AQ members and/or supporters, is not a civil war. Such killings have decreased. This will not end yet, some Shias have 30 years of oppression to avenge. This is not civil war, this is vigilantism.
8. There has not been a single instance of a pitched battle at even the platoon level between Sunnis and Shias with both sides organized and fighting under commanders, etc. There is no area under control of "rebels" who have announced a rump government.
9. The Sunnis greatest fear is that the USA will withdraw from Iraq before a political reconciliation is accomplished. Why? See below.
10. Sunnis can't fight a successful civil war when they only number 15% of the population (down from 20%, due to death and fleeing of the country).
Conclusion
If the USA withdraws, a civil war of sorts could begin. It will be short and bloody, and the Sunnis will lose. That war would be a humanitarian problem, and a geopolitical problem if other countries become involved, which is likely.
From commenter steve-o: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/omar/6328526618717211112/#674653
I don't know what happened to 7
NO! And the MSM has not called him on it.
when will all troops be out under the plan? Nov. 2008. What big event in America takes plance then?
This has nothing to do with rationality or our troops. It is about votes
“The problem is talk radio and the internet didn’t exist back then, making it easier to fool most of the people”
Most of the people were fooled in 2006 despite both.
Do a search on a search engine using Iraq, Iraq war, bush plan, surge, etc. even democrat corruption. Notice that the results are mostly left leaning? You have to know where to go to get non-left biased stuff. Most do not.
And to answer your question, yes, hence, fairness doctrine. They don’t need to anyway. The positive results about the surge will never reach the people. There’s too many filters.
Gee, I always thought GW Bush was the current Commander-in-Chief. Well, I guess I was wrong, it must be John Murtha.
Exactly, that's my take on these two articles as well.
Here's the kicker from the WSJ article, IMO....
As drafted the amendment would require the administration to submit within 60 days a “regional stability plan for the Middle East” including a detailed description of the projected U.S., military force presence in the region for the five year period beginning October 2008.
In the same 60-day period, which most likely terminates in December, the administration would be required to begin an “orderly redeployment” of U.S. forces in line with the stability plan. Troops who have been serving more than a year already would be given priority coming home, but no firm date is set for the withdrawal being completed.
Mr. Murtha said antiwar forces in his caucus may oppose his language as not going far enough, but that he has discussed it with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who has been his strong ally. “Maybe we’ll start some movement. Get some time of agreement,” Mr. Murtha said.
So for AP reader consumption, he's playing to the moonbats, but for the WSJ, he's playing to a more moderate crowd. A sorta limited cut and run from his cut and run.
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.