US Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) made several debatable assertions in a Nov. 17 speech calling for the immediate "redeployment" of American troops in Iraq (the speech in its entirety can be found here).
The gist of his speech can be found in his opening and closing paragraphs:
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 can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...The congressman gives many reasons for his conclusions and I encourage you to read them. Unfortunately, his reasons are based far more on public emotion and partisan political aspirations than on any objective reality... especially in Iraq or among our troops.
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the US can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. (emphasis Murtha's)
Rep. Murtha is a veteran with 37 years service in the US Marine Corps. He is to be commended and respected for his service.
His military service does not, however, categorically give his opinions on US military involvement in Iraq any more weight those of anyone else who is in elected or appointed office with authority over US foreign policy and defense.
The point he makes may be worthy of debate, but the evidence he musters in support of that point is shaky at best and dead wrong at worst.
For example, he states,
...[T]he intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a US intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.Now no one is going to argue that the US intelligence on pre-war Iraq was anything but a total failure. It is wrong, however, to say that, "It (was) not a world intelligence failure." US intelligence was gathered from many allied sources including Italy, United Kingdom, Germany and many other intelligence agencies. All came to similar conclusions. Even the United Nations was convinced that the intelligence was accurate and did not dispute it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Liberal
"Especially when a soldier cannot even tell when his side is winning....."
And exactly how can one tell if this "war" is being "won"?
Is a war "won" when the enemy government is removed from power?
Or is it over when the President says, "mission accomplished"?
Is it "won" , as the President said, when "a peance, freeance Iraq" (or whatever the bumbling idiot meant to say) exists?
What exactly is the goal of this war?
2 - Upright Simian
Damn you've got some good data in that article. The accurate info on US wounded was a revelation and I sure don't see a lot of discussion of that poll you link to in the MSM. Good job. Our most powerful weapon is the truth.
3 - tommyd
I find absolutely nothing wrong with Rep. Murtha's demands. The congressman is right on the money. Iraq is nothing but a bloody and deadly debacle with even more severe consequences yet to be seen. America's attempt at GLOBAL EMPIRE is failing and unsustainable. Fix your own house before you attempt to "fix" other people's houses where you don't even belong anyway.
Go Murtha!!!
US OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
4 - Georgio
I agree with Murtha 100% and so do the stupid 70% of Americans who believed the Bush lies but now see him for what he is ..a Liar...Tex Ridder should get a medal for being more knowledgeable than the CIA when he said Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction...You and your kind can back this insane war all you want but the tide has changed..Americans have finally seen Bush for what he is ...A total failure...His dream of an Empire in the Mid East and control of oil is now Americas nightmare..You can stay there another 10 yrs and nothing will change..the troops will still be sitting ducks for the insurgents and Iraq will be led by someone worst than Saddam ...maybe Chibaldi..oh God what an improvement...
5 - volt
great post. when will the dumb democrats ever understand that their words demoralize our soldiers?
but i do have one question. if you are a soldier, which would demoralize you more?
the words of 1 of 435 congressmen that you have never heard of or the actions of the bush white house including:
1. trying to cut imminent danger pay and family separation pay while you are in a war zone by $75 and $150 respectively, and
2. cutting $3 billion from the VA at a time when thousands of soldiers are returning from war wounded, and
3. adding a $250 surcharge to veterans seeking medical help unrelated to the military, and
4. closing 19 commissaries that help military personnel save money on regular household items, and
5. blocking American soldiers who won judgments against Saddam from the first gulf war from collecting, and
6. charging sick soldiers $8/day for food while on the base, and
7. charging wounded soldiers for unreturned supplies lost on the battlefield, and
8. not providing troops with kevlar body armor which forces the parents of the troops to buy it for them, and
9. not providing troops with enforced humvees thus enabling troops to watch their friends die unnecessarily, and
10. making soldiers who returned from the war zone wait months before they can see a doctor, and
11. lying about the reasons why we went to iraq and the evidence supporting those reasons
yeah, its a tossup. just curious.
6 - volt
i should add that all the cuts mentioned are directly related to the tax cuts which have saved the richest 1% of Americans billions of dollars. and those same people are enjoying a windfall (see record profits at oil companies) from the efforts of our soldiers.
yeah, i doubt the soldiers even think of stuff like that. and if they did, it would not be as demoralizing as the words of that damn rep. from PA who has the audacity to want to bring them home. if anything is gonna piss a soldier off it is that.
7 - RedTard
volt,
If you want to know what the soldiers think look at their voting statistics; strongly Republican. The same people who have actually been to Iraq and have risked there lives to defend this country are largely responsible for Bush being in office in the first place.
The actual combatants vote for and support Bush.
Anti-American liberals sitting behind a computer thousands of miles away with no sense of the reality but what their compatriots in the media feed them are against Bush and the war.
Who has more credibility?
8 - Liberal
So "demoralizing the soldiers" is a greater crime than sending them off to die based on lies?
9 - RedTard
That is a false qustion because they were not sent off to die based on lies, they were sent off to defend the USA against foreign powers. Powers that had contributed to the 9/11 attacks. Powers that had manufactered and used chemical weapons.
Liberals exacerbate the problems, lengthen the war, and cause unknown numbers of death's with their anti-American rhetoric. That rhetoric is used overseas with great success to stoke hatred against the US and keep the hope alive for the insurgents. In the past soldiers have been tortured extensively to try and force them to repeat the anti-American lies that spineless Democratic senators will spread openly today.
10 - Nancy
Labelling your opponents as 'traitors'& 'cowards' who give aide to the enemy & demoralize Our Troops is an old, old, hoary trick, used by Joseph McCarthy, Hermann Goerring, Machiavelli, & Sun Tsi, among others. In continuing this long-standing tradition among true cowards & bullies, Cheney & Bush & their apologists prove what kind of moral & ethical company THEY keep!
I'm glad someone with unimpeachable credentials like Murtha finally stood up & said to Cheney's face & in public what everyone has been thinking for the past 30 years, & gave that sick, slick bastard a dose of his own poison. Good for Murtha! I hope he inspires others to stand up against the tyranny & agressive lies & smears of BushCo.
11 - RedTard
Nancy,
You choose to believe the words of one old vietnam vet and I'll take those of the hundreds of thousands of active duty Bush supporters who have actually served in Iraq.
Millions of people have served in the armed forces, you found one of them who agrees with you. Great job!
12 - Nancy
There are a helluva lot more of us out there than you - or Bush - or Cheney - want to believe. Cheney is a 5-deferment coward & hypocrite who's sent thousands to mutilation or death for his financial greed & obsession with power, in company with that pitiful would-be Macho Man, Dubya Bush. It's about time someone named them in public for what they are, although to date, no one's gone far enough. Murtha was being polite; had he called Bush & Cheney what they deserved, it should have been traitors, cowards, hypocrites, warmongers, and liars. As I said in my previous post, Cheney & Bush stand in good company with other such scum in history. Their methods & actions expose them all by themselves.
13 - ss
RedTard (apt) says:
'If you want to know what the soldiers think look at their voting statistics; strongly Republican. The same people who have actually been to Iraq and have risked there lives to defend this country are largely responsible for Bush being in office in the first place.'
But the military leaned strongly to the right before the war.
I haven't been to Greyhawk's blog, but the milblogs I have been to are particularly right wing. You could say they still support the war, and are inclined to believe the reasons for it, based on their own political leanings.
Everything Murtha is accused of is just as true of the vets you quote to counter to his arguements.
Maybe everyone should make there own arguements based on facts instead of trying to find cover in the pronouncements of whatever vet leans in thier particular political direction.
14 - td
Are there positive things that can/have been accomplished by going to war in Iraq? Yes. Are these accomplishments enough to justify the war? No.
Ousting Saddam was a very positive accomplishment, but sadly, it was one of the only accomplishments that could be achieved out of the many promised by the administration.
Stopping terrorims? Iraq has done nothing to stop terrorism. In fact, terrorism has increased everywhere except in the states since the war began. And the reason why the states has not been hit is becuase of the increased funding to intelligence and border security. Both of which would have happened regardless of Iraq.
Eliminating a Threat? Yes he supported terrorist groups. But so does 50% of Saudi Arabia, and we aren't bombing them. As far as WMD's, North korea is a much more dangerous enemy and we aren't bombing them either. Bush made Saddam out to be a giant threat to the region. BS, he barely had enough troops and equipment to occupy a defensless Kuwait. Then the majority of that force was wiped out. What kind of a threat was he to other in the region?The only thing Saddam was really a threat to was a small portion of America's Oil supply. But had the money that has been spent on the war been spent into developing non-arab oil reserves and alternative energy this threat would have been negligable.
A democratic Iraq? Iraq will be democratic as long as the troops stay. Once they leave it's up to the people. Maybe the current leadership holds onto power, maybe they don't. But the political divisions aren't going away, and the insurgents aren't going away, so whether you leave now or 2 years from now it's still a roll of the dice.
Ousting Saddam gives Iraq a chance to start over. Which is good.
Other than that though, there is nothing else the war can accomplish. Therefore, if their is nothing left to accomplish, why not bring home the troops.
15 - RedTard
If you had truth and logic on your side why would you need to sink to angry name calling?
"traitors, cowards, hypocrites, warmongers, and liars."
That sounds like the desperate rantings of deranged conspiracy theorist. Our Commander-In-Chief has the good sense not to sink to that level in response. Your sides obnoxious ranting for the last few years aided by the media, and without a like kind response from the President has put a dent in public opinion and polarized the nation.
Facts:
The US is winning Iraq. Whatever happened to all that resistance in Sadr City? Why hasn't America been attacked by the terrorists again? Because we are winning. Iraqi forces are taking up new roles daily and even Sunni tribes are starting to expel the insurgents and take part in the Democracy. Casualties haven't dropped much yet, but insurgents are not nearly as likely to show their faces as they used to. Their strength of numbers have dwindled but they have become more efficient, sneaking around at night placing roadside bombs rather than fighting. Electriciy and water supplies are above prewar levels in all but the insurgent strongholds.
The economy is great. 4 1/2 year highs on S&P and Nasdaq recently. Despite wars, Katrina, and 9/11 the US economy has remained surprisingly resilient. Unemployment is down below historical averages. Oil prices are even returning to 4 month lows.
16 - tommyd
An unorganized bunch of Iraqis with nothing but sheer guts, old AK-47's, homemande bombs and cell phone detanators have already defeated the most powerful army in the world. Moral authority is with the Iraqis fighters who refuse to be subjugated by a foreign power. America has not a shred of moral authority in doing what it did to Iraq.
That's where wars are won and lost and all the Keyboard Commando Fighting Units here on the blogs better get over themselves and admit they were wrong to support such a doomed project as America's illegal adventure in Iraq.
Go ahead admit you were wrong! You'll feel much better! Being so constipated like y'all are must really suck!!
17 - RedTard
"An unorganized bunch of Iraqis with nothing but sheer guts, old AK-47's, homemande bombs and cell phone detanators have already defeated the most powerful army in the world."
The ONLY people who can 'defeat' the US military is the US congress. If America were to withdraw at any point it will be because of the combined pressure of domestic liberals and foreign terrorists. What great allies they make.
18 - tommyd
"The ONLY people who can 'defeat' the US military is the US congress. If America were to withdraw at any point it will be because of the combined pressure of domestic liberals and foreign terrorists. What great allies they make."
And ONLY the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT can take away the rights and freedoms and security of the AMERICAN PEOPLE not some cave-dweller 15,000 miles away or a rag-tag bunch of Iraqi desert fighters who the US government claims "they hate us for our freedoms and democracy".
19 - SonnyD
It seems this thread has gone way off track. I thought it was about Rep. Murtha and his speech. Does anyone have any thoughts about that? Could it be that the Democratic party has started trial runs of people who may be possible candidates in '08? Murtha has a long military career and can deliver a powerful speech. He even does a pretty good imitation of Ted Kennedy. And, truth be told they really don't want Hillary as their candidate. Any opinions?
20 - MCH
Re comment #13 by RedTard; For more info on Iraq Veterans Against the War, go here
...or for Veterans Against the Iraq War
21 - DA
Wow, alot of words, but the only reference to factual sources appear to be from right-wing bloggers. Do you have anything more substantial, or was this just as it appears ... your personal perspective and rant?
For instance, how can you claim that Murtha has angered most military folks? Do you have some poll data to support that claim?
You might find this resource to be informative:
That URL will take you to "Operation Truth" which characterizes itself this way:
"Operation Truth is America's first and largest nonprofit, non-partisan advocacy organization for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars."
Those active duty & Iraq Vets don't seem to support your claims.
And I wonder if you have considered the professional research presented by recent poll numbers.
Contrary to challengers, those polls have been proven very accurate. And the polls also seem to contradict your misguided, and misinformed opinions.
Regards,
DA
http://www.bloggerradio.com
22 - DA
Uh-oh, this has gotta sting all-ya-all:
"Now retired U.S. Navy Admiral, and ex-boss of the CIA, Stansfield Turner is embarrassed about Cheney."
Wow, better call out the Swift-Voters, err, I meant the not-so-Swift-Boaters to try discrediting the Admiral before the Admiral makes your supposition look a tad silly.
listen to this
23 - Georgio
last night Lou Dobbs on CNN took a poll on weather or not we should withdraw our troops or stay and do what it takes to win...the votes where 80% to take the troops out..
24 - Dave Nalle
It's not really a poll when it's just guys logging into your website or calling you on the phone, Georgio.
Dave
25 - Georgio
I know Dave and I agree with you but I was still surprised