Although I only heard snippets of yesterday’s Murtha speech the parts I did hear were unbelievably moving. Who could doubt a man with such a military track record?
President Bush, in South Korea, continued on Friday to be questioned by reporters about the debate over Iraq. His press secretary issued an unusually blistering statement responding to Mr. Murtha’s call for a pullout, declaring that the Democrat was “endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.” Page A16.
Hmmmmm excellent. Comparing a House member to Michael Moore is classy.
And then there was this:
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) accused Murtha of delivering “the highest insult” to the troops. “We must not cower,” Hastert lectured the old soldier.
And Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.) said the likes of Murtha want to take “the cowardly way out and say, ‘We’re going to surrender.’
Again, someone explain why our still being there is helping Iraqi people and the American people at all. Really. I’m actually asking for an explanation. Is it because if we pull out now the people behind our going to war in the first place won’t be seen as heroes? Do we need to wait until history allows us to look back on the administration and say, “Wow, good thing they did that?” When is enough, enough?
I really want a clear answer (preferably one that doesn’t say something about how we’re fighting terrorism.)
I love that Murtha made statements to mitigate these attacks. The best was something like, “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”
Murtha, for those who don’t know, is a highly decorated hawk of a Democrat. He’s a vet who has no qualms putting boots on the ground. He is about as right-leaning as a Democrat can be. He is almost always seen as a direct representative for all four branches of the armed forces.
I want to see Cheney or Bush or Rush tell Murtha to his face that he’s a coward. I bet you’ll see a little pee spot on Hastert’s britches next time he runs into Murtha.
I want to hear the entire speech. I heard that nearly half (or more?) of the floor had tears in their eyes.
And this gem by Blunt:
“Democrats undermine our troops in Iraq from the security of their Washington, D.C., offices.”
Um… Who, exactly, is the war hero and who is the fella with no military service? Gee… Talk about putting others in harms way from the safety of their office…
Sweet fucking irony, why do you turn my gut so fiercely?
Well, they were likely crying because they knew that, as typical Democrats, they’d have to act like giant pussies and run away and hide instead of actually showing any spine.
I can’t belive Pelosi wimped out.
“I really want a clear answer (preferably one that doesn’t say something about how we’re fighting terrorism.)” ….that’s hard…because some of the insurgents are actually “terrorist insurgents” coming from outside of iraq who don’t belong to a country per se, but an ideology?
Murtha’s point was that we have done all we can militarily and that this is now a policing matter for the Iraqis acting (with support) as a sovereign nation.
Pulling out a large portion of the forces will, in theory, lower the insurgent response and strike a blow to the ideological angle most are taking (such as the Jordanian bombers). Providing support without occupation to Iraq (the same as we have done with Israel, if you don’t count our base there as occupation) is the only long-term strategy.
Perhaps the only way to encourage the Iraqi leadership to take ownership of their country is to… well, give them ownership of their country?
As is, we don’t even have a plan to give them that ownership, nor have we hinted that it’s even being planned. I doubt the infantry can ever create a sovereign nation. At some point we have to relinquish control to the actual government there. The military role should be minimized and the diplomatic role should be at least imagined.
Remaining in Iraq to fight terrorism that is happening in Iraq as a response to our occupation is a tautological agenda and should therefore be tossed on the scrap heap.
the question that needs true discussion is this………is there terrorism in iraq because the US is there? or because there is an extremely weak and infantlike country that could possibly be overthrown if a big-brother-figure were to step asside? here lies the problem that we’ve created and the genesis of both side of the story. we could pull out, but we’ve created the weak country that could become a extreme muslim breeding ground. or we could stay until the country has a parliment and a military that can protect itself without our help. no matter what it’s our fault it has happened and it will be our fault whether it goes good or badly for them. i don’t know but personally i feel it’s still premature to pull the training wheels off just yet but that’s just me
That’s what I mean about lending support that is something other than soldiers. If we give a timetable by which we can equip Iraq with a military (excluding all officers from the previous army from active duty was a big mistake, IMO, and likely helped the insurgency big time) and internal police, then withdraw the majority of the troops and lend support in other ways, we will at very least nix the current rhetoric used by the zealous insurgency. If we’re not there, they can no longer say that they’re fighting against us. After all—the insurgency is defined as an opposition to our presence.
Given that many of the people who carry out missions are fairly common folks who are seduced by that rhetoric, it stands to reason that there would be fewer people carrying out missions were we to leave.
Most of the rhetoric is against the occupation and the fact that no one seems to have even a loose plan for sovereignty.
I think we agree on one thing: an immediate pullout and turning our backs would be stupid. The training wheels are important.
The real question is whether a few hundred thousand soldiers and no true political restructuring or assignment of power constitute training wheels for an infant nation or whether we’re carrying them and never letting them see the ground.
As is, there are no steps outlined…
Besides—if Iraq were to go to the shitter and become a haven for terrorists, we have white phosphorous and black sites and a bunch of dudes sitting in their safe DC offices willing to make the call to go back. That’s the reality of pulling out at any point ever. I can’t see any reason* not to start working on a plan now that in some way includes the American public.
Of course, I know that there are a million things going on under the radar and that the argument about a timetable somehow helping the insurgents is a mask for more serious issues. You work with what they give you, though.
I’m sure that there is actually something going on under the radar that can be the only real reason (and good one) for our not pulling out just yet. Not that I expected anyone reading this to know about said things. I’m hoping there is a reason and a plan behind all of this. Based on what was seen yesterday, it appears that not even our house leaders know about it, however.
P.S. For example, I have had this plan for months now to ask that my top CSS Advisor add spaces in between paragraphs on my comments section. Only I didn’t tell anyone (including him) until today. And now he’s completed project paragraph space. Go, Toby Joe.
i’ve been under the impression though, that we were allowing them to devise their own political workings and we were purposely staying out of that part of their structuring (as possible). we’re not trying to impose our political system, just freedom and democracy the rest is theirs
Giving them a timetable might light a fire under their asses, though…
i guess it could. i find it funny that one politician can say shit or get off the pot this democracy damnit.
An additional problem lies in the fact that there is immense hatred in the region for Israel. Even if we were to pull out and undermine a significant pillar of the insurgent ideology, the fact remains that Iraq will be an ideal incubator/host for terrorists. There is tremendous amount of arab $ willing to support such movements against Israel, and I have to suspect that future profits to be made from rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure that don’t go to US/Western companies will end up, in part, funding anti-Israeli groups.
History is never neat and tidy, and conflicts aren’t just us against them. I just don’t see how a “free” and sovereign Iraq is going to bring stability to the region when everyone else remains committed to Israel’s destruction (and who’s to say that a free and sovereign iraq will accept israel). Unless, of course, we plan to keep our troops there in perpetuity in order to assure a favorable outcome to an all-out war in the middle-east.
Oil and Israel: that’s what this is all about. Maybe we’re keeping our troops in Iraq in order to prevent Israel from attackng Iran?