John Murtha calls for US pullout in Iraq.

[yourdaddy]

Hey waffle boy, that's two out of how many? If you libs wouldn't try so damn hards to supress the soldiers votes, you'd really see how many real men are ready to give their everything for America. Sorry, you wouldn't get it anyway.

[Felicia Katt]

Yourdaddy, given that Bush initially gained the presidency with less than 50 per cent of the popular vote, and then claimed a mandate at his re-election with less than 51 percent of it, you can be forgiven for confusion over what a majority is. But to make it simpler in the future, its generally more than half. For example, if there were only 2 solidiers voicing support for Murtha, then there were only 3 soldiers present. If 3 did, then at most there were 5 present and so on. If you watch the CSpan footage it was a full house and the moderator's first comment was to apologize to the people who had to be turned away. So there were a lot more than 3 people present, with the majority expressing support for Murtha. There were only 3 quotes included (not 2, as you claimed) because it was a story, not a transcript, so they reported using excerpts. Given that Fox apparently only included one quote and I doubt you have any problem with their reporting, I think you understand how this works.

As far as how the soldiers feel, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll, only a bare majority, 54 percent, of active duty military personnel now say they view Bush's performance on Iraq as favorable. But the majority of other people overall do not.

If the "it" you are talking about is our disastrous failure in Iraq, Murtha "gets it" 46 per cent of the Military "gets it. The rest of us"get it" You don't.

FK

[chefmike]

Murtha's Letter To The President..."Iraq Has Diverted Our Attention Away From The Fight Against Global Terrorism"...
The Huffington Post | Posted February 1, 2006 11:49 AM


We need more brave men like this in office, men who tell the truth.

The Honorable John P. Murtha's letter to the chickenhawk-in-chief-

Dear Mr. President,

This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.

Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.

Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network.

There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.


Redeploy

The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.

The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq's democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq's National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it... The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."

In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country's top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%.

The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.

Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.


Replace

The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.

The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."

Restoring the world's confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.

A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.

Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.

Reallocate

The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.

Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.

In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.


Reconstitute

The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.

Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.

Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.

Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."

But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.

I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.

During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.


Sincerely,


JOHN P. MURTHA
Member of Congress

[chefmike]

More thoughts from Rep. John Murtha on the State of the Union Address and his letter to the chickenhawk-in-chief-

Is The World Safer Today?

The President continues to use labels and rhetoric to define his national defense policy, but it simply isn't working. In his State of the Union Address, the President defended his position to both the American public and the world by saying "we will continue to lead" but this does little to repair the damage done by the President's failed policies.

We must insist that this Administration provide the facts behind its labels.

Spreading democracy does not equate to or ensure stabilization. A safe world is a stable world. STABILITY is what is key here. Is the world safer today with the gains of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon? Is the world safer with an emboldened Iran? Is Iraq or the region more stable as a result of our military intervention in Iraq? What proof to we have that the President's policies are working?

Iraq, the region and the United States and its neighbors will be safer, more secure and stable when we redeploy from Iraq and put the resources where they belong. Our country will be safer and more secure when we rebuild our overstretched military, so that we are able to decisively confront real threats in our future.

[chefmike]

Civil War In Iraq: Murtha Told Us So

Arianna Huffington

I was originally going to title this post "Jack Murtha's Crystal Ball." After all, he's been saying for weeks that "Iraq is not about terrorism; it's about civil war" -- and the bloody events of the last two days have proven his assessment all too true.

But Murtha isn't a soothsayer.

He's a truthteller. He wasn't reading the political tea leaves, he was reading the facts on the ground (and listening to what his wide range of military sources were telling him).

He was willing to see the inevitable -- unlike far too many of his fellow Democrats who continue to be blinded by the fear of not appearing strong on defense, and unlike President Bush who continues to be blinded by his fanatical belief that we're bringing democracy to Iraq. True, it's Fanatical Belief 4.0, since the earlier versions didn't pan out, but it's a fanatical belief nonetheless.

Mark Twain said: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

This describes Bush to a T. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he knows for sure that we're bringing democracy to Iraq.

After meeting with his Cabinet today, Bush was asked about "the danger of civil war in Iraq" but refused to even address the notion, insisting "the Iraqi people want to live in a democracy."

But try as the president might, there is no way of avoiding it: bombed out Shiite holy sites, over a hundred Sunnis killed in revenge, including prominent Sunni clerics, armed Shiite militias in the streets, prisoners dragged from jail cells and murdered, more than 90 Sunni mosques attacked. Civil war it is.

The rest of the truth here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann...a_b_16254.html

[chefmike]

Rep. John Murtha

02.23.2006
We've Lost the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People
I've said for the last few months it's a civil war and our troops are targets caught in the middle. If we had 100 Iraqis and seven Americans killed in the last couple days, that's just an indication of how bad things have gotten: we've lost the hearts and minds of the people.

They now have elected officials, it was their election, we've got to let them know we're going to get out, we're not going to be occupiers, and they have to settle this themselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jo...d_b_16257.html

[chefmike]

This article is from that commie conservative George Will-

George Will: “This Is A Civil War”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/26/...s-a-civil-war/

And this article is from that commie conservative William F. Buckley Jr.-

William F. Buckley Jr: "It Didn’t Work"

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckle...0602241451.asp

[chefmike]

Bush Ratings At All-Time Low!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1350874.shtml

[chefmike]

Another reality check from Big John-

Despite Another $67 Billion, Our Army is Broke and Badly Depleted

Rep. John Murtha 03/09/2006

This morning I spoke at a gathering of the National Newspaper Association regarding my strategy to redeploy our troops from Iraq on a scheduled timetable as soon as practicable. Iraq continues to be mischaracterized by the President as the center for the Global War on Terrorism. It is estimated that there are less than 1,000 Al Qaeda in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq is a civil war. It is Iraqis killing Iraqis and our troops are also targets.

We are depleting our resources in Iraq. Last night the House Appropriations Committee passed the President's supplemental request, providing an additional $67 billion for the continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this supplemental, Congress will have appropriated nearly $450 billion for the war, running our federal deficit higher and higher while this country had a surplus when President George W. Bush took office.

The latest reports show that the war in Iraq has badly depleted essential equipment. I am particularly concerned about the National Guard, who have only a third of the equipment they need to respond to a catastrophic event in our own homeland, and much of that equipment is antiquated and worn out. If something were to happen domestically in the near future -- and it's not an "if", it's a "when" -- the Guard will be severely hampered. I have said before that our army is broke, hollow, and stretched thin. I am not talking about the soldiers; they are well trained and have accomplished their mission. I say this in regards to the equipment and my particular concern regarding the National Guard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jo...i_b_17036.html

[InHouston]

Yourdaddy, given that Bush initially gained the presidency with less than 50 per cent of the popular vote, and then claimed a mandate at his re-election with less than 51 percent of it, you can be forgiven for confusion over what a majority is. But to make it simpler in the future, its generally more than half. For example, if there were only 2 solidiers voicing support for Murtha, then there were only 3 soldiers present. If 3 did, then at most there were 5 present and so on. If you watch the CSpan footage it was a full house and the moderator's first comment was to apologize to the people who had to be turned away. So there were a lot more than 3 people present, with the majority expressing support for Murtha. There were only 3 quotes included (not 2, as you claimed) because it was a story, not a transcript, so they reported using excerpts. Given that Fox apparently only included one quote and I doubt you have any problem with their reporting, I think you understand how this works.

As far as how the soldiers feel, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll, only a bare majority, 54 percent, of active duty military personnel now say they view Bush's performance on Iraq as favorable. But the majority of other people overall do not.

If the "it" you are talking about is our disastrous failure in Iraq, Murtha "gets it" 46 per cent of the Military "gets it. The rest of us"get it" You don't.

FK

More ad hominem talking points courtesy of Felicia.