John P. "Jack" Murtha

[Pale Rider]

My point about his druggie kid was, Ol' Jack can't take proper care of stuff in his own home, let alone proper care of everyone else's business. Yeah, lots of politico's have problems w/ their kids, the Bush's also. The stuff about HIS kid happened a long time ago, I just never forgot it, and threw some extra "stuff" into his mix. BTW- Yeah he was cleared in ABSCAM, but face it- he was caught on tape, and was o so close to taking the money handed to him. He really wanted to. At least at the time he had enough integrity to refuse it.

[LionPride]

[quote="Lemmy";p="112041"]Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 11:34 p.m. EST (04:34 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.[/quote]

Murtha's rant was nicely timed around the fact that the administration has been saying a reduction in troops is likely following the December elections.

So, here's a known fact that troop numbers are going to decrease after the election, the Dems jump in with their whipping boy to cause a stir, early next year troop levels decrease, and the Dems take the credit and call their stunt a success. And in the process, they did absolutely nothing. Sounds about right.

[once a runner]

Where was the news of Bush and company calling for troop reductions prior to Murtha's statement? Faux News perhaps? And IF there was a call for reducitons by the administration, why was Murtha's statement received so poorly by the Republicans? Why did Jean Schmidt call those who want to "cut and run" cowards? Wouldn't Murtha simply be siding with Bush if that were the case?

And yes, Jean Schmidt did call Murtha a coward. Follow the logic. Cowards cut and run. Murtha proposed a redeployment and reduction of troops in Iraq (republican translation...cut and run). Therefore, Murtha is a coward. It's Logic 101. I also had the impression that the Marine colonel she mentioned was some decorated war veteran. Truth is, he's a lawyer who spent his career in the reserves. Despite over 25 years in the Corps, he never once served in any US engagement.

The republicans know that if they want to hold the majority of seats in the 2006 elections they must reduce the US presence in Iraq.

[LionPride]

[quote="once a runner";p="112102"]Where was the news of Bush and company calling for troop reductions prior to Murtha's statement? Faux News perhaps? And IF there was a call for reducitons by the administration, why was Murtha's statement received so poorly by the Republicans? Why did Jean Schmidt call those who want to "cut and run" cowards? Wouldn't Murtha simply be siding with Bush if that were the case?

And yes, Jean Schmidt did call Murtha a coward. Follow the logic. Cowards cut and run. Murtha proposed a redeployment and reduction of troops in Iraq (republican translation...cut and run). Therefore, Murtha is a coward. It's Logic 101. I also had the impression that the Marine colonel she mentioned was some decorated war veteran. Truth is, he's a lawyer who spent his career in the reserves. Despite over 25 years in the Corps, he never once served in any US engagement.

The republicans know that if they want to hold the majority of seats in the 2006 elections they must reduce the US presence in Iraq.[/quote]

Murtha didn't call for reductions - he called for a full pullout. There's a big, big difference there.

The administration had said that following the December elections they hoped to be able to cut the troop size from 160,000 to around 120,000 (I think that was the number). I don't remember where I heard it, but I heard it before Murtha's tirade.

Intrepret Schmidt's comments anyway you want. But the truth is, anytime politicians have cut and run in the past, the long term results have been dire. Vietnam, Afghanistan (pre-Taliban), Somalia, and to a degree, Korea. In all these cases, military victory could have been assured had there been a unity amonst the politicians and public. You can't argue that.

[Pale Rider]

The general strategy from day 1 of the Iraq invasion has been "the troops will come home when the Iraqi's have been trained sufficiently to be able to hold their own". Some postulated this would be a couple years, some longer. Does anyone have anything to say about pulling our troops out of GERMANY? JAPAN? How long has it been- SIXTY YEARS NOW! How about KOSOVO? Did you folks think that would be over in a few months? It's just like our pastor has said about prayer. GOD does things, including answering prayer, according to HIS timetable, which is infinite, NOT TO OURS! The troops will come home when the U.S. military and Iraqi military leaders think it's time and not before!

[once a runner]

Murtha did NOT call for a complete withdrawal. Here is his proposal:

# 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.

If you don't believe it, here is the transcriptof his speech.

So really, the difference between what Murtha proposed and apparently what you say Bush proposed isn't that much different. Which again, makes me wonder why the Republicans had such a negative reaction to what Murtha said.

The US is going to begin to come out of Iraq soon, and it has nothing to do with waiting for Iraq to stabilize. It has to do with the 2006 elections. The republicans are just like the Democrats....they want to keep their jobs and they will follow the polls. Bush's ratings are way down and the biggest reason is Iraq. Therefore, something must change in the next year. The best solution from a political point of view is to pull troops out....and of course claim victory.

[Pale Rider]

Which was the original plan anyway....with your spin on it.

[aeosman]

A little side note to all of the previous posts on this subject is this. Murtha "OWNS" the TD and WJAC. The coverage in favor of Murtha was dang near sickening. I don't recall one interview in opposition to "OUR" representative.

Doesn't that make you go HMMMMMMM!!!!!

[once a runner]

Pale, what spin? I gave you the link to his press conference. Those were his words....that is what he said. The plan that the house voted on was written up by the Republicans. That plan called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The house never voted on Murtha's plan.

[LionPride]

[quote="once a runner";p="112128"]Murtha did NOT call for a complete withdrawal. Here is his proposal:

# 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.
[/quote]

Redeploy where? Outside of Iraq? Isn't that withdraw?

Quick reaction force in the region? How many troops are needed for this quick reaction force? Where is it based?

Diplomatically pursue security? Isn't that currently being done anyway? Let me understand this. You want us to remove the hammer from the equation, then ask the Sunnis and terrorists from outside the country to pretty, pretty please stop their insurgency. In the meantime, without our troops present, Iran and Syria have total and complete access to shape Iraq however they want. And you don't think for a minute that will put us in the same situation we were in when Saddam was running the show? Or possibly even worse.

Why is it that it is always the Democrats without a backbone to bear down and get the job done? Why is it that at the first sign of something difficult, it's the Democrats that want to get out? Let me spell it out again - Vietnam and Somalia. Those areas are doing great now, aren't they? Which political party was it that prematurely wanted out of those conflicts?

We've all heard that history repeats itself, and I believe it. We need to look no further than those 2 fairly recent historical examples to see how well the policy of cut and run works. And here we have the Democrats once again trying to employ that policy in the face of global terrorism.

How have we gone from a nation that supported single invasions for the greater good that cost tens of thousands American lives, to a nation that can't back 2 years and 6 months of an entire WAR that has cost 2,000 lives? I don't like to see American lives lost either, but in comparison to previous conflicts, the number of casulties in this war pales in comparison to those.

And speaking of 2 years and 6 months, didn't Murtha vote for this war? So why is he now saying in his speech that he has been concerned about this for 2 and half years? If he was that concerned about it then, he should've never voted for it.

Maybe some of these Democrats would have more credibility today if they had spoke up 2 and half years ago with their vote against the war. But that wasn't the popular vote at the time I guess.