Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: Congressman John Murtha gets it right

  1. #1

    Congressman John Murtha gets it right

    John Murtha spent 37 years in the Marines, and rose to the rank of Colonel. He served in Vietnam, and while he is a Democrat is known as one of the most hawkish in all of Washington. He was actually the first Vietnam veteran elected to congress. This man has always looked at the issue in terms of MILITARY, what is feasible from this perspective. At points he choked back tears during the recitation of this speech.

    [url]http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html[/url]


    [QUOTE]The Honorable John P. Murtha
    War in Iraq


    [IMG]http://www.house.gov/murtha/images/1980/4.jpg[/IMG]

    (Washington D.C.)- 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.

    General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”

    For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

    We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

    I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

    The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

    Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

    Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

    I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

    I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

    Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
    I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

    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

    This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

    Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    another cut and run rat of the worst kind...

    you would figure after serving in Vietnam he realizes this does nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizes the troops-yet it is his complete hypocrisy- typical of today's rats, which is sickening:


    [QUOTE][B]News from Congressman Jack Murtha
    Murtha Supports Iraq Resolution with Reservations[/B]

    WASHINGTON, DC, October 9, 2002 -- Congressman John Murtha today said he would vote for the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq despite a number of serious reservations.

    [B]Murtha said, “Obviously we have reason to be concerned about Saddam Hussein -- [SIZE=3]there’s no question that he’s a real threat to us [/SIZE] and we need to make sure he’s not developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to use against us or against other nations in the Middle East.[/B] [B]We also need to make sure that Iraq does not resume Afghanistan’s former role as the host nation for terrorist training camps.[/B]

    “But I’ve urged great caution before we move forward with military action against Iraq. My concerns have been heard -- we’ve seen a major shift in the White House position, and the resolution that will come up before the House will address my two biggest concerns. The resolution will make clear that we need the support of other nations before we proceed, and that we need Congressional approval before we commit forces. So the resolution will demonstrate our national resolve to Hussein and increase the pressure on him to open the doors for full and unfettered inspections,” he said.

    The concerns previously expressed by the Congressman are:

    That it could sidetrack our war against terrorism. We rely on intelligence from sources in the Middle East, and if we go to war against Iraq without support from the region, we’d disrupt our intelligence network.

    That a war there would require at least 200,000 troops and would cost at least $40 billion. If we go in alone, we'll pay the whole cost ourselves, both in terms of dollars and lives.

    That we need strong support from neighbors of Iraq in order to have an area from which to land and refuel aircraft, to launch our attacks and so on.

    And that Iran is just as big as Iraq and in many ways just as unstable. Right now, Iran and Iraq tend to balance each other out and Iran has been relatively quiet. But if we destabilize Iraq, that creates a big opening for Iran to start throwing its weight around in the region.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.house.gov/murtha/news/nw021009.htm[/url]

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,440
    Obviously, there are no Dems that have any shame whatsoever. It used to be that "politics stopped at the water's edge", but no more. :steamin:

  4. #4
    i think it's a sign of intelligence when a man can make one statement, realize the ramefications of that statement a few years later and change midstream.

    We can talk about whether it was right to go to war until we are blue in the face what about winning the war? How feasible are these goals? When will Americans stop dying in Iraq?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=bitonti]i think it's a sign of intelligence when a man can make one statement, realize the ramefications of that statement a few years later and change midstream.

    We can talk about whether it was right to go to war until we are blue in the face what about winning the war? How feasible are these goals? When will Americans stop dying in Iraq?[/QUOTE]

    This is a sign of nothing. Murtha is on record a number of years ago calling for a full pullout from Iraq. His comments yesterday, while certainly media-savvy, are far from anything new in the issue.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish]This is a sign of nothing. Murtha is on record a number of years ago calling for a full pullout from Iraq. His comments yesterday, while certainly media-savvy, are far from anything new in the issue.[/QUOTE]

    even if true, what does that prove? How is he wrong?

    Please explain to me how an indefinate occupation/rebuilding of Iraq makes America safer. Please explain to me how infantry trained to kill are the best people to be training Iraqi soldiers and painting schools?

    When Clinton was in Kosovo it was all about "damn nation building" from the GOP. Now Bush is in Iraq it's the same thing but acceptable? I don't buy it.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bitonti - do you know what Schrodinger's Cat is?

    What do you think insurgents in Iraq do when they see guys like Murtha publicly grandstanding in this way? What is their reaction when people like Bill Clinton call the war a mistake, when Democrats slander Bush about lying? They think that they can just plant a few more bombs and then we'll go away. They know they cannot defeat us militarily, they know that they control no territory and that a bomb that kills 15 or 40 people does nothing except create headlines. However, this is where they are fightining the war. This is how they used the "useful idiots" in Vietnam. You like to rip on conservatives for thinking that Democrats aren't patriotic and don't support the troops, but it is impossible to conclude otherwise when you see them acting this way. These people are completely undermining the war effort with their reckless and irresponsible rhetoric, they are emboldening our enemies. (Clinton's comments are absolutely shameful and disgusting, in particular.) Hell, that party nominated a guy who lied before the Senate thirty years ago about his fellow soldiers, while they were still in country facing hostile fire. No, they are doing it again. It sickens me.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]i think it's a sign of intelligence when a man can make one statement, realize the ramefications of that statement a few years later and change midstream.

    We can talk about whether it was right to go to war until we are blue in the face what about winning the war? How feasible are these goals? When will Americans stop dying in Iraq?[/QUOTE]

    it is nothing more then a sign of beligerant partisan politics by a hypocrite on a day when the rats needed to steal the headlines because Plamegate is blowing up in their faces...

    Murtha is concerned the Iraq war is hurting the effort against terrorism...did any reporter have the balls to assk this guy just how pulling out of Iraq will improve the fight against terrorists?? That stratgey is very clintonesque.
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 11-18-2005 at 11:02 AM.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=bitonti]even if true, what does that prove? How is he wrong?

    Please explain to me how an indefinate occupation/rebuilding of Iraq makes America safer. Please explain to me how infantry trained to kill are the best people to be training Iraqi soldiers and painting schools?

    When Clinton was in Kosovo it was all about "damn nation building" from the GOP. Now Bush is in Iraq it's the same thing but acceptable? I don't buy it.[/QUOTE]

    A rebuilding of Iraq as a Constitutional, Represenatative Democracy makes America safer on two fronts. It gives the U.S. a Arabic Democracy in the contentios Middle East (and if you do not understand why that is a good thing, no one will be able to explain it to you). Second, it gives our Islamo-Facist enemies another target for their hatred and aggression, a target they will likely choose OVER domestic U.S. targets.

    Millitary Infantry is NOT best suited for the Police/Anti-Terrorism tasks required in Iraq today. However, we do not have a "Occupational Police Force" to utilize is such endeavors, and you and I both know the reason we don;t is because the Liberal Left would never allow the creation of such a unit, no matter how useful and important such a unit could be in todays "new" millitary environment. With thats said, the Millitary is the "best available", and are doing an admirable job given their obvious limitations.

    You're last question is irrelevant to me, as I don;t play the "Hypocritical Politics" game. I am neiother you (The Left) nor CBTNY (the right). Action are either correct or not correct, based on logic and fact as I see them. How we got into this war is irrelevant now, it is only how we finish it, and how we get out and what is left when we leave that matters now. Errors made in getting into the War are things to be addressed when the War os OVER, not while it is still being waged.

    We have made a comitment to Iraq that cannot, without severe repurcussions, be simply "walked away" from. Like it or not, it IS is the best interests of America dn the People of the U.S. to ensure that from here out we make the right choices and finish the job before we get out. I agree, a plan needs to be in palce foir such an endgame, but I disagree that the American Public needs to know the specifics. People yap, and there is no reason for our enemies to know our plans, as that knowledge will only allow them to "wait us out".

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish]It gives the U.S. a Arabic Democracy in the contentios Middle East (and if you do not understand why that is a good thing, no one will be able to explain it to you).[/QUOTE]

    This is a very blithe and somewhat snippy comment. There is no proof that establishing a democracy in ME will lessen terrorism. It is a theory nothing more. It's highly possible that if you give animals the right to pick their leaders they will pick animals as leaders. Also democracy is one of the most delicate forms of government in existence. It requires economy, security, opportunity and education to survive. It does not create these things it lives under protection of these things. We are giving universal sufferage to a culture that still requires their women to wear burkas. And somehow I'm the jackass for questioning the wisdom in this?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]
    Murtha is concerned the Iraq war is hurting the effort against terrorism...did any reporter have the balls to assk this guy just how pulling out of Iraq will improve the fight against terrorists?? That stratgey is very clintonesque.[/QUOTE]

    it is highly possible that neither staying or leaving will improve the fight against Terrorists. To protect against another 9-11 we need to make our country safer from the inside out, not the outside in. You'd think someone that spends all this time talking about Able Danger would realize this.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]it is highly possible that neither staying or leaving will improve the fight against Terrorists. To protect against another 9-11 we need to make our country safer from the inside out, not the outside in. You'd think someone that spends all this time talking about Able Danger would realize this.[/QUOTE]

    Your snippy comment is wrong on so many counts...

    the first problem is, due to liberal administrations which put people like jamie gorelick in charge nothing could be done with the info gathered in Able Danger....

    let's not forget for the most part the 9-11 hijackers were able to freely train in terrorist havens around the world and the ME...their planners freely strategized at the same time...not on the inside

    a criminal justice class I took at St. John's concentrated on security measures for a while...one fascinating topic was stadium\arena security, specifically at rock concerts....the professor, who worked as the security supervisor at Nassua Collessium in the 80's- brought out the point that, no matter how many security guards they had on stage during a concert, unless they had agents out in the crowd dispersing and breaking up fights\potential hazards before they got to the stage it was a losing battle...

  13. #13
    [QUOTE][B]you would figure after serving in Vietnam he realizes this does nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizes the troops-yet it is his complete hypocrisy[/B][/QUOTE]


    It is [U]because [/U] Murtha actually served in the military, unlike CBNY and the current members of this administration who have no clue as to what combat entails for our soldiers , that he can make this statement. This notion about protesting the war at home gives comfort and aid to the enemy is a bunch of bull$hit that is repeated over and over again in a pathetic and shameful attempt to silence those who speak out against the war. It is undemocratic to silence the protesting and those who question the war.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]It is [U]because [/U] Murtha actually served in the military, unlike CBNY and the current members of this administration who have no clue as to what combat entails for our soldiers , that he can make this statement. This notion about protesting the war at home gives comfort and aid to the enemy is a bunch of bull$hit that is repeated over and over again in a pathetic and shameful attempt to silence those who speak out against the war. It is undemocratic to silence the protesting and those who question the war.[/QUOTE]

    No one is "silencing" anyone. By your standards, you're "silencing" anyone who hasn't served in Vietnam or other wars, by saying they don't have the same credibility to speak out about war as those who served do. My father served in Nam and thinks Murtha is a j*cka$$...round and round we go.

    What is it like to confuse emotion with thought? Seems like an easy way to go through life. "I [I]feel,[/I] therefore I think...."

  15. #15
    [QUOTE][B]By your standards, you're "silencing" anyone who hasn't served in Vietnam or other wars, by saying they don't have the same credibility to speak out about war as those who served do.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Im not silencing anyone. Its one thing to argue for and against the war and its another thing to tell someone who speaks out against the war that he is hurting our troops (which is not the case!). By using that tactic you are in essence questioning one's patriotism and trying to discredit his argument by saying he should not have one b/c it is un-American somehow. If you really want to silence the "Bush Lied" crowed, the best way to do it is with a thorough bipartisan investigation into the questions that we are raising. But dont tell me I am hurting the troops, thats just plain BS!

  16. #16
    [QUOTE][B] My father served in Nam and thinks Murtha is a j*cka$$...round and round we go. [/B] [/QUOTE]


    No offense , but your father's opinion is meaningless here. Whatever he thinks of Murtha (im not sure what its based on) Murtha has the right to speak his mind w/o having his patriotism questioned by retards such as CBNY.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]No offense , but your father's opinion is meaningless here. Whatever he thinks of Murtha (im not sure what its based on) Murtha has the right to speak his mind w/o having his patriotism questioned by retards such as CBNY.[/QUOTE]

    That's what you don't get. OF COURSE Murtha has a right to speak his mind. No one is saying he doesn't, not me, not my dad. That's not the point and isn't even an argument or a defense of what Murtha said. Just because my dad thinks what he is saying is stupid doesn't mean my dad doesn't think he has a right to say it. Saying stupid things is an important right, one that we take seriously! If I said, publicly, that 2+2=5 and then you called me an idiot, my defense of "I have a right to speak my mind!!!!" would not be very persuasive, no? You'd say, "Yeah, no sh*t, you have a right to say it. Great. It's still wrong."

    BTW, CBTNY has a right to question Murtha's patriotism, if he wants to. The right to free speech is a two way street. Murtha doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants and not have people react the way they want to. You may think CBTNY is a "retard" for questioning the patriotism of Murtha, fine, that's your right. (See how this works?- everyone gets to say what they want and the fact that we all have that right has no bearing on the merits of what we actually say)

  18. #18
    [QUOTE][B]CBTNY has a right to question Murtha's patriotism[/B][/QUOTE]


    Fine, but when the Administration does this , it becomes very dangerous. It is a veilled attempt to silence him and all who raise questions about the war by smearing ones character. The way this silences people is by putting in their heads that if they express any questions about the war, they too will be accused by the Pres and VP of hurting our troops/helping the enemy which is NOT true.

    Again you fail to answer whether you think a bipartisan investigation into the questions that are being raised by the Dems, some Repubs, and 60% of americans should be started.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]No offense , but your father's opinion is meaningless here. Whatever he thinks of Murtha (im not sure what its based on) Murtha has the right to speak his mind w/o having his patriotism questioned by retards such as CBNY.[/QUOTE]

    the only retards on this board are the morons like yourself who come here half-azzed with no facts....

    I am not questioning Murtha patriotism, nor can you prove such- I am merely pointing his complete hypocrisy as well as the well known cut-and-run strategy consistently employed by the rats...

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Fine, but when the Administration does this , it becomes very dangerous. It is a veilled attempt to silence him and all who raise questions about the war by smearing ones character. The way this silences people is by putting in their heads that if they express any questions about the war, they too will be accused by the Pres and VP of hurting our troops/helping the enemy which is NOT true.

    Again you fail to answer whether you think a bipartisan investigation into the questions that are being raised by the Dems, some Repubs, and 60% of americans should be started.[/QUOTE]

    So, let me understand correctly...people can call Bush a liar all they want, that's "speaking your mind." But when Bush defends himself, he's "silencing" others amd "smearing" them. Got it. Works out pretty well for the Dems, huh? Calling Bush a liar isn't smearing him?

    It [I]has [/I] been investigated, you fail to ackowledge that. You'll spin away about how the manipulation issue has been investigated and not the "ignoring" issue. That is a joke. Intelligence often conflicts with other intel, consensus is usually never acheived and the closest thing to a consensus about the intel that existed when the decision was made supported the way Bush perceived the threat of Saddam's WMD. Choosing one set of intel and going acting on it doesn't mean you "ignored" other pieces. You know damn well going in that there is uncertainty. The risks of being reactive outweighed the risks of being proactive, post 9-11, in Bush's mind. You may think he was wrong, but to suggest that he did something nefarious is beyond the pale. It is the same way the previous administration understood the intel and why the official policy of the US towards Iraq changed from containment to regime change under Clinton, and why Clinton attacked Iraq himself. There were also other reasons given to invade Iraq, WMD was not the only reason. Regime change was a big reason too, Iraq's support for terrorists (indisputable to suggest that they had no ties to terrorists, sorry) was another. You are grasping at straws.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-18-2005 at 02:51 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us