John Murtha calls for US pullout in Iraq.

[BlackAdder]

Heres the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq

The last part about the guy who got crippled by friendly fire and then denied a purple heart made me angry :x

[Legend]

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," said Murtha, a former Marine. "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."

I agree with him on that and much of what he said,the guy whose two hands were blown off by freindly fire deserves the purple heart or some kind of medal.You have to give it up for him saying he would give that guy one of his medals.Bush should listen to this guy he knows war!

[GroobySteven]

How will he pin his purple heart on to his chest without hands?
I hope they give him enough of a disability pension to be able to get someone to do it for him!
seanchai

[chefmike]

Rumor has that while shrubya is at the summit meeting in South Korea, he plans on crossing the border and defecting to North Korea. Keep your fingers crossed.

[IWantATgirl]

I actually met Murtha when I was in 5th grade. I dont remember much about it, but I do know that we were in the Gulf War at the time and I wanna say he was heading over or just got back from visiting over there.

[yourdaddy]

Murtha makes two people in the world really happy when he says that. Al Zarqawi, and chefmike. How's your Arabic Mike? They could use another suicide bomber or two.

[Felicia Katt]

Murtha makes two people in the world really happy when he says that. Al Zarqawi, and chefmike. How's your Arabic Mike? They could use another suicide bomber or two.

A CNN USA Today Gallup Poll this week had 60 per cent of people saying it was not worth going to war.

60 per cent of 250 million is a lot more than 2.

FK

[BOATER]

John Mutha is a decorated war hero from Vietnam. His word means more that Mr. Chaney who had several deferments not to serve, our country.
I am a Gulf Vet, last tour in Afgahn, and they really do not have a true plan in Iraq.
I am very proud of my 6 1/2 years in. What do we get in return. I'll tell you what, here in NYC they are planning to close the biggest Veterans Hospital in the area that serves the bigest population. For those in NY, it is the one on 23rd and 1st Ave.
Why you ask? Because it is too expensive, too many people are coming back from the war needing treatment. So we get a thanks for serving but sorry we can't help you. We will have to travel further to get the services we need. In essence they want to discourage us from using the VA.
So I say they need a better plan and schedule to begin to bring my brother home. I agree we need to be aggrissive to stop terrorist, but that is not what we are doing in Iraq at this time.

[chefmike]

Well said....we are definitely creating more terrorists in Iraq, though. And CNN had some coverage about our Afghanistan fiasco, terrorist activity on the rise, 70% of the world's heroin comes from there, and we are collaborating with drug lords the same way that the CIA did in Vietnam. We have 17,000 in Afghanistan with 90 soldiers killed so far this year alone.

[fishman33]

John Mutha is a decorated war hero from Vietnam. His word means more that Mr. Chaney who had several deferments not to serve, our country.
I am a Gulf Vet, last tour in Afgahn, and they really do not have a true plan in Iraq.
I am very proud of my 6 1/2 years in. What do we get in return. I'll tell you what, here in NYC they are planning to close the biggest Veterans Hospital in the area that serves the bigest population. For those in NY, it is the one on 23rd and 1st Ave.
Why you ask? Because it is too expensive, too many people are coming back from the war needing treatment. So we get a thanks for serving but sorry we can't help you. We will have to travel further to get the services we need. In essence they want to discourage us from using the VA.
So I say they need a better plan and schedule to begin to bring my brother home. I agree we need to be aggrissive to stop terrorist, but that is not what we are doing in Iraq at this time.

Is that the big red brick one, Harbor Healthcare Center or something like that? I thought NYU more or less paid all the bills there, can't believe they would close it.

[chefmike]

this one is for bush isyourdaddy...

[chefmike]

and let's not forget what happened to tricky dick...deja vu...

[tsluver247]

I have problems with Bush's politics on the Iraq War, though I am with Bush on not pulling out of Iraq too early.

His rhetoretic of "we fight terrorists abroad, so we do not have to fight them here". I have two problems with that statement, don't say that to our friends in England or Spain and he boast that he foiled at least 10 plots in America (which means they are here already and planning or he is making up stories to make America feel safe). BTW, when are we going to strengthen our borders and cargo?

He does not want to pullout (I agree somewhat) and does not want a timetable (I agree somewhat). No one plans to fail, just they fail to plan (sums up the Bush Administration, IMHO). I think they should have benchmarks that we should achieve before reducing the troops. He used to boast about the Iraqi security being over 100,000+ and growing according to his rhetoretic, yet we only withdrawn a couple 10,000 troops since the beginning of the war.

Just my two cents.

[BOATER]

Is that the big red brick one, Harbor Healthcare Center or something like that? I thought NYU more or less paid all the bills there, can't believe they would close it.

Yes that is the one. The VA is affiliated with Bellvue and NYU. Many doctors rotate between the 3. It has been a good network that helps Veterans get the best care available. but the VA is founded by government.

[chefmike]

Murtha is live on CNN right now tearing the chimp a new asshole.

[chefmike]

Oh man, he shredded shrubya on the speach monkeyboy gave earlier today. I particularly like how he pointed out the difference between insurgency and terrorism for the repugs who don't know the difference.

[chefmike]

I'm waiting for the Bush Family Evil Empire to launch some "swift-boat-vet" style lies against John Murtha, just as they did with John Kerry.

[fishman33]

I'm waiting for the Bush Family Evil Empire to launch some "swift-boat-vet" style lies against John Murtha, just as they did with John Kerry.

personally, I hope to hell they don't. Not only was Murtha a fellow Marine(similar MOS infact), he never spoke out against the war while his fellows were still over there fighting it- and he deserves better. I really hate how politics tear apart veteran kinship in that way. And don't take that as a slap at Kerry. I refuse to pick sides in that little quarrel, just saying I think a little more highly of Murtha as a person than I do Kerry.

On Murhta's views, I think he still carries some of the bitterness of the pointlessness of Vietnam and the reception the veterans got on their return and he doesn't want the same thing happening to today's soldiers. I can see where he is comming from, but I don't think this compares to Vietnam in the slightest. We're talking 50,000 casualties versus 2,000 here. And not too shock you guys too much, initial estimates in the service were more than 2000 losses in the first year. I'm not going to debate or support Bush's motives, but the majority of Iraqis are much better off now, and they will tell that to you themselves. And anyone who has heard any of the testimony/accusations against Saddam has to realize the world is a better place without that maniac in charge of anything.

Besides, pulling out now only guarntees that those 2,000 died for nothing. Maybe the long run will prove that to be anyway, I don't now. But pulling out now would be just plain dumb.

just my $0.02

[yourdaddy]

Johm Murtha has gone senile.

[Legend]

Johm Murtha has gone senile.


Its "john" typical bush ass kisser spelling.

[chefmike]

I'm waiting for the Bush Family Evil Empire to launch some "swift-boat-vet" style lies against John Murtha, just as they did with John Kerry.

personally, I hope to hell they don't. Not only was Murtha a fellow Marine(similar MOS infact), he never spoke out against the war while his fellows were still over there fighting it- and he deserves better. I really hate how politics tear apart veteran kinship in that way. And don't take that as a slap at Kerry. I refuse to pick sides in that little quarrel, just saying I think a little more highly of Murtha as a person than I do Kerry.

On Murhta's views, I think he still carries some of the bitterness of the pointlessness of Vietnam and the reception the veterans got on their return and he doesn't want the same thing happening to today's soldiers. I can see where he is comming from, but I don't think this compares to Vietnam in the slightest. We're talking 50,000 casualties versus 2,000 here. And not too shock you guys too much, initial estimates in the service were more than 2000 losses in the first year. I'm not going to debate or support Bush's motives, but the majority of Iraqis are much better off now, and they will tell that to you themselves. And anyone who has heard any of the testimony/accusations against Saddam has to realize the world is a better place without that maniac in charge of anything.

Besides, pulling out now only guarntees that those 2,000 died for nothing. Maybe the long run will prove that to be anyway, I don't now. But pulling out now would be just plain dumb.

just my $0.02

Yes, without getting into the opinions on why shrubya got us into Iraq, I agree saddam is an evil person (as are numerous other tyrants around the world). You can't argue with that. But Murtha is doing the nation a service in reminding us that we entered the war with no practical plan for it's finish, and also bringing up the point that a great many Americans feel that we have a far greater mess on our hands than anyone ever imagined. And we have created a rallying point for Muslim fanatics around the world. And I hate that over 2,000 good citizens (and perhaps up to 100,000 Iraqui civilians) have died thus far...but many of us believe that any further deaths will also be in vain.

[tsluver247]

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, stated that they need more troops to secure the borders of Iraq to minimize the flow of foreign insurgents, but Bush rejected the notion for more troops. General Shinseki briefed Rumsfeld that "he can't win this war, if they insist on invading Iraq, he can't win this war with less than 300,000 soldiers." Rumsfeld reportedly ordered Shinseki to go back and find a way to do this with 125,000 to 130,000, but Shinseki came back and said they couldn't do the job with that number. "What did Rumsfeld do?" Karpinski asked rhetorically. "If you can't agree with me, I'm going to find somebody who can. He made Shinseki a lame duck, for all practical purposes, and brought in Schoomaker. And Schoomaker got it. He said, 'Oh yes sir, we can do this with 125,000.'" (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml)

Bush: No More Troops For Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/politics/main704654.shtml)

Now Democrats ask for reducing troops and he rejects the notion. He rejects timetable, while he said the oppose during his 2000 campaign issue. Asked Clinton to have an exit strategy and timetable for Kosovo. Sounds like he is continuing to play both sides. Sounds like a flip flopper.

I am starting to get sick of listening to Bush about rebuilding Iraq, when he should be talking about rebuilding New Orleans, if it is feasible. I am sick of listening to Bush talk about Iraq freedom, while he continues to deny U.S. basic freedoms to a U.S. Citizen (right to see his lawyer and right to a speedy trial - took 3 years to make an indict him and never mentioned anything about Al Qaeda or dirty bomb in the indictment), Jose Padilla, while he goes after the Adult Industry, while he wants to continue sneak and peek search warrant without notice or showing of probable cause, while he voids out the Geneva Convention, says America does not torture, yet threats a veto on McCain's bill on torture. Where are his priorities? They continue to sound like he cares more about Iraq than the American people that elected him.

Personally, I hope that they reduce the number of troops in Iraq gradually, since Iraqi forces are over 200,000 now. If they have a problem with their development of Iraq security forces, he should state the issue instead of continuing to deny with no explanation why we don't need to withdrawl troops or increase the number of troops. With the reduction of troops, they should use the same number of troops to hunt down the top Al Qaeda leadership, especially Osama Bin Laden. I continue to see the clip of him telling New Yorkers that the build that knocked down these building, we hear from us. Four years later I am still waiting to see some action. :lol:

[yourdaddy]

It's like you guys are hoping against hope, that Al Qaeda will win in Iraq, so you can say I told you so. With the Shiite Iranians on one side, and the Sunni Syrians on the other, and the rest of the world against them, it was just a matter of time before that country went into total civil war. A vacuum would have formed there, just like in Somalia. Give it a chance for the elections to happen. Live with it boys.....W ain't a quitter, like Slick Willie. 2 more years, 2 more years, 2 more years.

[tsluver247]

The national media focuses on polls and the rising deaths toll in Iraq.

Let's focus on the other Iraq news:
Growing GDP is good for those with access to the twin golden rivers flowing through Iraq—not the Tigris and Euphrates, but oil revenue and foreign aid. The rest of the economy is, on the whole, weak. Unemployment remains in the 30 to 40 percent range, and the psychologically most critical type of infrastructure—electricity—has barely improved since Saddam Hussein fell. Iraqi security forces are getting better, but they are also losing more than 200 men a month to the insurgency. Civilian casualties in Iraq from the war are as high as ever; combine that with the region's highest crime rates, and Iraq has clearly become a much more violent society since Hussein fell. Tactically, the resistance appears to be outmaneuvering the best military in the world in its use of improvised explosive devices. And politically, every move forward toward greater Sunni Arab participation in the political process seems to be accompanied by at least one step back.

[tsluver247]

House, Senate Agree to Extend Patriot Act (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act)

[InHouston]

Murtha makes two people in the world really happy when he says that. Al Zarqawi, and chefmike. How's your Arabic Mike? They could use another suicide bomber or two.

A CNN USA Today Gallup Poll this week had 60 per cent of people saying it was not worth going to war.

60 per cent of 250 million is a lot more than 2.

FK

CNN (Communist News Network)

[InHouston]

I'm waiting for the Bush Family Evil Empire to launch some "swift-boat-vet" style lies against John Murtha, just as they did with John Kerry.

Lies? John Kerry is a pussy. Just look at him. He shot a gook in the back, and then whined for the rest of his life about the war.

I have a Vietnamese friend who immigrated from Vietnam during the war and he said, "America could have easily won that war. America just didn't want it bad enough." He also said, "In my country, we kill the enemy. We kill all of them. That's how you win."

[chefmike]

faux news...we distort, you decide

[chefmike]

John Kerry, like John Murtha, is a decorated veteran who served his country in a time of war. shrubya, cheney, limbaugh, rove, wolfowitz et al are chickenhawks....aka draft-dodging war-mongers...

[BOATER]

It's like you guys are hoping against hope, that Al Qaeda will win in Iraq, so you can say I told you so. With the Shiite Iranians on one side, and the Sunni Syrians on the other, and the rest of the world against them, it was just a matter of time before that country went into total civil war. A vacuum would have formed there, just like in Somalia. Give it a chance for the elections to happen. Live with it boys.....W ain't a quitter, like Slick Willie. 2 more years, 2 more years, 2 more years.

I do hope we can come out of this with a victory and with a little US military loss as possible. I am against peole like Howard Dean saying we can not win. It's his honest opinion but as a Veteran, myself, it is not good for your moral as a soldier when you don't have support of the people that sent you.
I am far a Dubya fan. But he had the right intentions in acting to Iraq. He really believes it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately he is faily clueless, and was used by Cheney in making many decisions. Cheney has push his agenda through Bush. And Bush thinks it's his idea.
Did we go there for right reasons? I say Yes. Do we have a good and affective stratagy? NO. Will Iraq be better off after this? 10 years from now, we will say wow what a waste, when it is apparent that Iran has established its policy in Iraq.

[Felicia Katt]

Johm Murtha has gone senile.

Senile is when you lose your senses, not come to them. Its so typical of you Republicans to turn so quickly on someone when that person does something you will never do; admit to a mistake.

The entire war has been a horrible mistake. Its time for Bush and Cheney and the entire neocon movement to admit that, stop trying to save face, and start trying to save lives.

FK

[Felicia Katt]

Did we go there for right reasons? I say Yes. Do we have a good and affective stratagy? NO. Will Iraq be better off after this? 10 years from now, we will say wow what a waste, when it is apparent that Iran has established its policy in Iraq.

The question isn't whether we went there for the right reasons. Its whether we went there for the reasons we were told were the right reasons. We didn't. We were mislead into this war for all the wrong reasons and nothing can retroactively rationalize what we are doing there now. We are continuing to be mislead. Bush's recent speech tried to blame all the present problems with rebuilding Iraq on Saddam, ignoring that we destroyed that country. We burnt their house to roast the pig, trying to save our own bacon.

FK

[miatafan]

This was clearly a war of choice, now we know it was a bad choice to go gangbusters into Iraq and expend capital and lives for what.....no WMD, no capturing hearts and minds, no OIL (ironic isn't it that we don't even get good oil from iraq), etc

Bush has no conscience...even LBJ knew he had lied and done many things wrong and didnt run for that reason. Bush should resign but we know unless the Dems get the house back there will be no investigation that will bring out the truth on how much they lied...

Now we torture....This president has found a way to hit bottom and find a way to go further down,....this presidency has been a travesty for all of us

[chefmike]

Situation In Iraq Is Civil War

by Rep. John Murtha 01/12/2006

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the definition of a civil war is a "war between political factions or regions within the same country." That is exactly what is going on in Iraq, not a global war on terrorism, as the President continues to portray it.

93 percent of those fighting in Iraq are Iraqis. A very small percentage of the fighting is being done by foreign fighters. Our troops are caught in between the fighting. 80 percent of Iraqis want us out of there and 45 percent think it is justified to kill American troops.

Iraqis went to the polls in droves on December 15th and rejected the secular, pro-democracy candidates and those who the Administration in Washington propped up. Preliminary vote results indicate that Iyad Allawi, the pro-American Prime Minister, received about 8 percent of the vote and Ahmad Chalabi, Iraq's current Oil Minister and close associate of the U.S. Iraq war planners, received less than 1 percent. According to General Vines, the top operational commander in Iraq, "the vote is reported to be primarily along sectarian lines, which is not particularly heartening." The new government he said "must be a government by and for Iraqis, not sects."

The ethnic and religious strife in Iraq has been going on, not for decades or centuries, but for millennia. These particular explosive hatreds and tensions will be there if our troops leave in six months, six years or six decades. It is time to re-deploy our troops and to re-focus our attention on the real threats posed by global terrorism.



www.huffingtonpost.com

[chefmike]

It appears that the neocon chickenhawks are launching the swiftboats again...


Bush Admin. Launched Secret Smear Campaign Against Murtha...
The Huffington Post

The Huffington Post has learned the Bush administration recently asked high ranking military leaders to denounce Congressman John Murtha. Congressman Murtha has called for the Bush Administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Bush Administration first attacked Rep. Murtha for his Iraq views by associating him with the filmmaker Michael Moore and Representative Jean Schmidt likened him to a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives. When those tactics backfired, Dick Cheney called Murtha "A good man, a marine, a patriot and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."
Though the White House has backed off publicly, administration officials have nevertheless recently made calls to military leaders to condemn the congressman. So far they have refused.

Rep. Murtha spent 37 years in the Marine Corps earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and a Navy Distinguished Service Medal. His service has earned him the respect of the military, and made him a trusted adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents and leaders of the armed forces.

Unfolding...

Questions About My Record

Rep. John Murtha

This afternoon, CNSNEWS.com published an article entitled "Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question" on its website. The article questions the validity of my purple hearts. This is my response:

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."


"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

www.huffingtonpost.com

[chefmike]

Will yesterday's in-your-face decision by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Iraq's most influential Shiite leader, to renege on his pledge to amend the new Constitution in a manner acceptable to Sunnis be the shove in the back that sends Iraq over the brink into all-out civil war?

It certainly has that potential.

Before the constitution was put to a vote in October, Sunnis were threatening to boycott the referendum.

The problem? The charter contains provisions that decentralize political power in the country in a way that leaves the vast majority of Iraqi oil under the control of Kurds and Shiites -- and the Sunnis facing an impoverished future. See Juan Cole for more on this.

Desperate to avoid a Sunni boycott, the Bush administration twisted every Shiite arm it could find. U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad ultimately brokered a last-minute deal that would make it possible for Sunnis to substantially amend the constitution once the newly elected Parliament is seated.

That deal allowed the December elections to proceed -- and the Bush administration to use Sunni participation in those elections as a major PR talking point. (See this bloggingheads.tv debate between Mickey Kaus and Robert Wright about whether there's still a good chance that democracy will catch on in Iraq.)

Indeed, in his town-hall appearance yesterday, the president cited Sunni involvement as evidence of the "remarkable" political progress in Iraq: "In the last election, the rejectionists who had sat out the first couple of elections -- many Sunnis sat out; they said, we're not going to be involved in the political process -- got involved. Slowly but surely, those who were trying to stop the advance of democracy are becoming marginalized."

And, in previous speeches, he has described the agreement to allow changes to the constitution as a key element in keeping the political process moving forward. "Thanks to last-minute changes, including a new procedure for considering amendments to the constitution," he said on the eve of the December vote, "the revised constitution was endorsed by Iraq's largest Sunni party… Sunnis voted in large numbers for the first time. They joined the political process. And by doing so, they reject the violence of the Saddamists and rejectionists. Through hard work and compromise, Iraqis adopted the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world."

Now it is clear that the Shiites were just saying what the Bush administration wanted to hear, never meant it, and never intended to follow through. "We will stop anyone who tries to change the Constitution," said al-Hakim yesterday.

This belligerent stance could easily drive Iraqi Sunnis (in the words of today's New York Times) "into the arms of radical Sunni groups in neighboring lands" and "leave the Shiites even more dependent than they are now on Iran and American troops."

Sounds like a recipe for endless civil war -- and a foreign policy debacle of unimaginable proportions for America.

But, despite this looming disaster, with the exception of the Times' powerful editorial, the mainstream media are giving this major development hardly any play. Even the New York Times has its news story on al-Hakim's statements on page A-10 -- and at the very bottom of the page at that. In the Washington Post, the story appears on A-14, while the Los Angeles Times and USA Today do not cover the story at all! And a LexisNexis search didn't yield a single mention of the story on any of the broadcast or cable news shows.

So the match that could ignite an all-out civil war in Iraq was just lit and the U.S. media can barely muster a yawn.

by Arianna Huffington

www.huffingtonpost.com

[BlackAdder]

Sounds like typical right wing smear and coverups....theyve got it down to an elegant science.

[Felicia Katt]

Rep. Murtha spent 37 years in the Marine Corps earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and a Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Dick Cheney called Murtha "A good man, a marine, a patriot and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."

Thats for public consumption. Privately, administration officials have recently made calls to military leaders to condemn the congressman. So far they have refused.

The present smear attempt against Murtha is quoting an aide to a Republican senator who Murtha ran against, unsuccessfully. Guess who Murtha was able to defeat in a later election? That same aide.

Another of his present detractors is yet another politician that Murtha defeated in an election, back in 1982.

On Friday, Jan. 13, Murtha's congressional communications director provided a copy of a letter from the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, citing Murtha's request of Sept. 26, 1967, seeking Purple Hearts.

"The records of this Headquarters show that you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action against insurgent Communist Guerrilla forces on 22 March and 7 May 1967 in the Republic of Vietnam,"

Of course the actual facts and the readily apparent bias of the persons making these baseless charges won't stop the Republicans. Its utterly shameful how this veteran is being treated by this Administration and its cronys and puppet media outlets.

But if they are ready to mislead a Nation about the need for war, why should we be surprised when they do similarly about a warrior

FK

[Realgirls4me]

But, but, but, but ... Bill O'Reilly served in the frat houses of Harvard while others took his place in southeast Asia. Warriors such as O'Reilly have the right to condemn Murtha.


:(

[chefmike]

Iraq Soldiers Speak Out Supporting Murtha...
Posted January 14, 2006 02:17 PM

Reuters/Slahaldeen Rasheed

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).

The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.

Here are some excerpts.

John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:

Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.
I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.


John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:

The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?
Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:

My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?
C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.

C-SPAN link available at www.huffingtonpost.com

[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/arianna-huffington/civil-war-in-iraq-murtha_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-john-murtha/weve-lost-the-hearts-and_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/george-will-this-is-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/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp

[chefmike]

Bush Ratings At All-Time Low!:peanutbutter :claps

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.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-john-murtha/despite-another-67-billi_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. :violin

[Felicia Katt]

More ad hominem talking points courtesy of Felicia. :violin
I posted that almost two months ago. Given your last post (http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=95573&highlight=#95573)to me, why on earth are you responding to it now? The poll numbers are even more against the War in Iraq and Bush on the war and in general than they were then. And why would you claim my post was an ad hominem one?

ad hominem (Latin, literally "against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

My post you quoted doesn't do that. I don't do that. As I always do here, I addressed the merits of Yourdaddy's post, or rather the lack of them. Yourdaddy claimed it wasn't true that the majority of soliders supported Murtha or were against the war, and I provided facts to substantiate that.

Here are some examples of ad hominem points


Johm Murtha has gone senile.

Luckily, (Chefmike) and Felicia won't procreate. That would create one ugly little child.


Look in the mirror. Judging by your confident pictures, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. You DON'T look female. You look like a basketball player in drag.


The corporation would be responsible dipshit.

Felicia, why don’t you stick to a subject matter you know something of, like being a tranny and flipping pizzas or whatever you do for a living.
just a few choice examples.

So, while I have forgiven and forgotten those types of trespasses against me, please don't make an empty, and stale accusation against me of attacking the messenger At least in the past when you have chosen to personally attack me and not my facts or logic, you did so promptly LOL

FK

[InHouston]

And why would you claim my post was an ad hominem one?
ad hominem (Latin, literally "against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.


Blah blah blah … you got the Latin meaning correct, however try referring to the current definition of the term from a reputable dictionary instead of foisting your typical “Liberal Left spin” on its meaning. :smh

The Latin root meaning of ad hominem "against the person (Uh ... Bush)", as well as the term's current meaning and (more pertinent) usage "appealing to the prejudices (towards Bush) and emotions of one's self or others rather than logic" is the very basis of all your "ad hominem" posts where politics are concerned.

And … you know it.

[Felicia Katt]

Blah blah blah … you got the Latin meaning correct, however try referring to the current definition of the term from a reputable dictionary instead of foisting your typical “Liberal Left spin” on its meaning. :smh
The Latin root meaning of ad hominem "against the person (Uh ... Bush)", as well as the term's current meaning and (more pertinent) usage "appealing to the prejudices (towards Bush) and emotions of one's self or others rather than logic" is the very basis of all your "ad hominem" posts where politics are concerned.
And … you know it.

I know nothing of the kind. I didn't foist anything on anyone. I gave the correct definition of the term and some very clear examples of that kind of argument. But in the interest of furthering the discussion, here are some other definitions of ad hominem, none of which fit your attempted spin on the term

Ad Hominem
Rejection of a claim or argument on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

Ad Hominem
You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself

argumentum ad hominem
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

An ad hominem fallacy is an argument that is directed at the person defending the argument rather than the argument itself, and thus fails to address what is at issue

Ad Hominem ("to the person": an attack directed on the character of an opponent, rather than the issue at hand)

Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man," and an ad hominem argument focuses on the emotions and prejudices felt toward a person or group rather than on the logic of their arguments.

I don't agree with the current administration's positions on most issues. But I address them on those issues on the facts not by name calling, or character assassination or insults. Others may do that here, but I don't. If you don't like my arguments that's fine, but please don't mischaracterize them. Truth be told, I'm the victim of ad hominem attacks, from you and from others, not the other way around. Your claiming the contrary and victim status is not only yet another ad hominen attack, but is also a real non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)LOL

But seriously, sweetie, why bring this up two months later?? I'd say you missed me, but I think if you did miss me, you'd just reload ;)

FK

[chefmike]

The latest reality check from Big John...

Claims and Facts: The War In Iraq

03/14/2006

I sent the following to my colleagues in the House and Senate today.

Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection

CLAIM: "There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03




FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." [National Journal, 8/9/03]

Weapons of Mass Destruction

CLAIM: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush, 5/29/03

CLAIM: "We know where the WMDs are." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President Bush, 10/7/02

CLAIM: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03


FACT: "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March" and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]

FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. "Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere" made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, "CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference" removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]

FACT: "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

War on Terror/Bush Doctrine

CLAIM: "All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03


FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government "not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts."

Pre-War Cost Estimates

CLAIM: Iraq will be "an affordable endeavor" that "will not require sustained aid" and will "be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion." -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

CLAIM: "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03


FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.

FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.

Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates

CLAIM: "I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]


FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.

Post-War Planning

CLAIM: "I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]


FACT: "A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process" in which "officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq." [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]

Length of Military Operations

CLAIM: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." -- President Bush, 5/1/03

CLAIM: The war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]


FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after "major combat operations" supposedly ended than before.

Troop Deployment Needs

CLAIM: "What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03

CLAIM: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03


FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that "The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces" to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take "several hundred thousand troops."

FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.

FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.

FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.

Insurgency Strength

CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes." -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05

CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. "When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency." [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]


FACT: "Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased." [Newsweek 7/4/05]

FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years." [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]

Troop Withdrawal

CLAIM: "Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training." - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04

CLAIM: "Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." [NY Times, 6/29/05]

CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]


FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a "small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves" which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]

Situation on the Ground

CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on "Meet the Press" [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going "very, very well."


FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.

FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]

FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]

FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/claims-and-facts-the-war_b_17311.html