The 'Cut and Run' Prescription for Iraq (UPDATED)

Getty Images

SCROLL DOWN FOR LATEST UPDATES

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has offered a resolution demanding a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq:

"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. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

Well, the House Republican leadership has taken him up on his challenge -- and had scheduled a vote on a resolution Friday by 7pm. Michelle Malkin is live blogging it. Hugh Hewitt is not surprised why John Kerry thinks it's all about him. The Political Teen has the video. Here is the Murtha Resolution.pdf. The Hunter Resolution.pdf in response was drafted by Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and was a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent. This is the Resolution that the House voted on.

OSM Media: "House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq."

"Let the Democrats stand up and be counted."

This vote is being billed as a major showdown on the War on Terror in Iraq. The suggested Democratic prescription is 'Cut and Run', or is it 'Vote and Run'.

Let's see who else can jump on the band wagon: "House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts , are asking the administration to declassify 35,000 boxes of documents maintained by Saddam Hussein's regime so that they can be translated and analyzed using non-governmental resources".

Kevin Aylward @ Wizbang is wandering: "What pray tell is the Murtha plan? He is refering to the plan after we pull out. Well Kevin I think the plan is, there IS no plan.

A Blog For All: "So, what's the real Democratic plan for Iraq? Cut and run."

Predictably, left-wing organizations and websites sent out their Alerts, telling their liberal troops to call Congress to vote for this resolution of retreat. A good example was this post on the Daily Kos: "Worry about the details of the withdrawal later. We all need to call our congressional reps and make sure they support Murtha." Really. And followed by the Daily Kos Christmas wish list which includes a simplified, no sorry I mean a simpleton's list of choices. Dream on....

This was a vote on what message Congress wants to send to our American troops: that we believe in their mission of fighting terrorists and we must not retreat, or that we'll cry "Uncle" and leave in defeat just as we're winning -- like in Vietnam. When the Soviet Union was fighting the Afghan people we trained and supplied the Mujahideen only to leave as soon as Gorbachev withdrew his ill fated campaign. That betrayal of the Afghan people being left in a total political vacuum was the cradle of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Are you seriously wanting to do this AGAIN? For what, for petty political gain,  so as not to let us run away with the laurels.

Hugh Hewitt:

"As the House GOP moved quickly to bring Congressman Murtha's proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq to a floor vote tonight, I was joined by Congressman J.D. Heyworth and House Rules Committee Chair David Dreier who explained what the House was doing and why. Kudos to both of them for getting this very important debate underway. I wish every American could see it. The contrast between the confident and energized GOp finally able to step up to a a national audience and debate the war versus the halting and often incoherent replies from the left --Dennis Kucinich was spectacularly unhinged as usual-- is exactly what the country needed to see and hear. Every Democrat who attempted to charge the Republicans as attacking Congressman Murtha's patriotism was instantly revealed as a fraud, and the Democrats who attempted to argue that Congressman Murtha hadn't called for immediate withdrawal are laughingstocks. It is a great way to rescue a dispiriting week, and an example to the Congressional leadership in both Houses on how to conduct this debate over the next 11 months leading to the 2006 elections: By engaging directly and at length every hard left demand to cut and run, and every conspiracy theory that asserts the president misled the country into war."

The Transcript on Radio Blogger.

Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit has more. John Hawkins @ Right Wing News is in a boisterous mood.  Matt Margolis @ Blogs for Bush has quotes from Commanders on the ground. No one is interested in the Iraqis, the agenda is still the same as it always was. Sigmund Carl & Alfred as usual tells it how it is:

"It is the apparent goal of the Democrats calling for our immediate withdrawel from Iraq to set a new record as to how many times we can screw the Iraqis over. That's right. We screwed them over at least a couple of times before, most notably in Gulf War one, when we promised the Shia we'd help them overthrow Saddam- and then we walked away and hung them out to dry. We were going to support the overthrow of a tyrannical regime. We promised to help- and we walked away. Look in the mirror- we did that. In the process, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

Do you know why the Democrats don't talk about that? Because that is exactly what they are now proposing to do. They are proposing that we walk away again and that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be killed."

A soldier's plea, via Mudville Gazette: "I am here to tell you that everyday we are winning over the hearts of the people of Iraq. If you could see the smiling faces that I have seen you would know that we are making a difference in this country. I volunteered for the military, no one made me sign on that dotted line. Let me stay here and finish what we have started Mr. Murtha."

And another: "..Personally, I don't want leave this country feeling like a coward. I want the hero image my wife has of me to never be diminished by having to hear people speak in the future of how we went into Iraq with great intentions only to abandon it's people, strengthening of Democracy, and the country's fledgling government we helped to establish. I love my country and everything it stands for. With that I must say I respect Murtha for all he has done... I can only hope he will see the hypocrisy in his latest criticism of the war."

The Anchoress: "You who want to play politics with this war, wishing to abandon the people of Iraq merely to shame a President you hate and do a bit of crowing, just be ready to take responsibility for what comes after. Understand that when the inevitable deaths occur in Iraq, and elsewhere, at the hands of these insurgents, and at the hands of a rejuvenated Al Qaeda, that the blood of every victim thereafter will then be on your heads, as will the blood of all 2065 of our service people whose sacrifice will be rendered meaningless by your action."

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters ended up doing C-Span live blogging at it's best, despite others promising live blogging that never materialized:

"8:52 - The House finally voted to continue to the actual point, despite the vote from every single Democrat to run away from it. If nothing else does it, this shows the Democrats as political cowards as well as military incompetents. Why should we trust the leadership of the military to a group of people who run away from merely taking a vote?"
[...]
"10:31 - I would be remiss if I failed to mention the great coverage from Michael and Joe at The Moderate Voice on this issue. Think centrism is easy? Ha! But these two make it look like it is.

What a joke. The Republicans made the right move -- instead of debating the issue through the media, they took the Democratic demands and introduced it as a resolution for debate where rhetoric actually counts, and where both sides get equal time. In the Democratic world, that equates to something vaguely unfair. They tried to hide behind a procedural block, and when that didn't work, they screamed and hollered in support of the idea of withdrawal -- and then promptly voted against it when it counted.

No honor and no shame have the Democrats in these times, to their everlasting discredit. So much for no-confidence votes. None will stand for one even when handed the opportunity on a silver platter.

And Matt Margolis @ Blogs for Bush makes blogging the right seem even easier, but then it is when you are always proved right:

"Democrats: How Dare You Make Us Vote! [...] Wow, talk about being able to dish it out, but being unable to take it themselves..."

LATEST UPDATE: Hot off the press from one of my readers 'Spirit of Ecstasy', Jay also has it:

"It is 11:38 EST Nov 18TH

The vote for "Immediate Troop Withdrawal from Iraq":

Yea: 3 Nay: 403"

HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the one time I love quoting The New York Times: "Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout" Really? With a vote of 403 to 3, that must have been absolute mayhem, I DON'T THINK.

AP: "Democrats said it was a sham and quickly decided to vote against the resolution in an attempt to drain it of significance."

WaPo AND AGAIN THE LATEST FROM AP via Britbart, Eleanor Clift for Newsweek

Kevin Aylward @ Wizbang: "The message is clear - "finish the job" or "cut and run." There's no middle ground. Guess which side of that equation takes home the trophy?"

Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom, named by me the Thomas Mann of the Blogosphere and a man of many words, has the perfect post that simply says: "Good. Now shut the hell up already."

The suggested Democratic prescription was 'Cut and Run', that turned out to be a 'Vote and Run' at 403 to 3 against. Jay @ Wizbang has a very good History Lesson:

"World War I:
Exit Strategy: Yes, come home as soon as it's over and start 20+ years of isolationism.
Consequence: World War II

World War II:
Exit Strategy: None.
Return date of troops: Still pending, 60+ years later
Consequence: Germany and Japan become staunch allies.

Korea:
Exit Strategy: None.
Return date of troops: Still pending, 50+ years later
Consequence: No resumption of war.

Viet Nam:
Exit strategy: Pull out after treaty signed.
Return date of troops: within a few years of signing.
Consequence: North reneges on treaty, conquers South, still Communist 30 years later.

Gulf War I:
Exit Strategy: ground troops out, enforcement of terms of surrender from air only.
Return date of troops: nearly all within a year or so of surrender.
Consequences: 12 years of "cheat and retreat," "Oil For Food" scandal, re-invasion 12 years later.

Balkans:
Exit Strategy: Too many to count, never fulfilled.
Return date of troops: "By Christmas," but still present.
Consequences: semi-permanent presence of US forces 10 years later.

The lesson is clear:

Exit strategies are for wars that you don't plan to win, and to win decisively."

FURTHER UPDATE: I was just alerted to the very poignant post from yesterday @  Media Lies who was angry and quite rightly said: "There's nothing like a politician to stab a military man in the back and make all his sacrifice and hard work worthless." HEH.

DO NOT MISS CHECKING MEDIA LIES (ANTI-MEDIA) IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW. A GREAT INSIGHT TO THE MILITARY COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO REALLY DOES KNOW!

Truth Laid Bear features this as one of the two hot posts on the subject today. (constantly updated) and so does Memeorandum.(constantly updated)

Weekend Links: The Political Teen Mudville Gazette  Right Wing News Stop The ACLU California Conservative  Don Surber Point Five Adam's Blog Basil's Blog

Comments

[jeff Stiles]

Thanks for the reminders, Spirit! :)

[spiritofecstasy]

I sent this to a partisan blogger this morning after rec'g some silly (endless again) tripe about...wait for it.....The Administration is bad but the world is good and some of us are smart cuz "we know all about it":

THE SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY VOTES LEADING TO THE WAR IN IRAQ. which imply oh so many things IF you do the math.

(The last is the most telling, ...again.)

H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq

Authorizing use of military force in dealing with Iraq

-0-

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

-0-

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1114-08.htm

Published on Monday, November 14, 2005 by the Charlotte Observer (North Carolina)

Former Sen. John Edwards' decision Sunday to so publicly repudiate his past vote authorizing the war in Iraq could help shape a Democratic race for president that's just beginning.

-0-

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

-0-

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040818.html

Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004

Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002.

-0-

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/

U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections

All 15 member states of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security," Negroponte said.

-0-

November 18, 2005: US House of Representative, "For Immediate Troop Withdrawal from Iraq"; Yea 3 Nay 403

[Huan]

Ghost

Iraq is not devolving into a civil war, Iraq is ending its civil war, one started when the monarchy was abolished and the baathist took power.

you keep perseverating on mistakes of the past, thus you still do not understand that "the enemy of good is perfect". and then you want to make a bigger mistake by advocating or supporting a pull out, cut and run. whatever mistakes of the past needs to be righted, not compounded. Iraqi are fare better off today than under saddam. If you think otherwise, then you really should be advocating that Saddam be returned to power. If you think they are better off, but not good enough, then you should be advocating continued engagement to make things even better. thus far, like you, the Dems have only complained about the errors and have offered no solution. i am fine with that actually as i don't expect any better of them. but what is appalling is when they advocate defeat and surrender through withdrawal.

[jeff Stiles]

I'm getting mighty tired of the liberal pacifists complaining that A) We didn't send enough troops into Iraq to get the job done, and B) We need to bring our troops home, even if our mission to establish a free government in Iraq has not been accomplished.

You folks cannot have it both ways, Ghost. Be a real man. Pick a position and stick to it!

And another thing is, I'd absolutely hate to live life as a pessimist who says that we're not "necessarily going to get anything much better in Iraq than Saddam." What????!! Whose side are you on anyway, Ghost? Thank the Lord President Bush is a Ghostbuster!

[Ghost Dansing]

"Murtha is a fraud, and your description of him again reveals that you just parrot whatever the news media tells you. He's been opposed to the war since before it began." I wasn't responding only to you Huan.

2000 soldiers dead for 25,000,000 liberated? What is "liberated"?

The war was a botch from the beginning. Mr. Bush never sent enough troops to get the job done, and he never provided enough armor to protect the troops that he did send. Thin-skinned, the president got rid of anyone who had the temerity to suggest he might be wrong about some of the decisions he was making.

Iraq is already devolving toward civil war.

A form of civil war is already going on, with the coalition forces doing most of the fighting. The least that may be said is that a civil war without American and British participation is better for everyone, including Iraq. If coalition forces go, responsibility for continuing the violence would rest entirely upon the Iraqis.

One isn't necessarily going to get anything much better in Iraq than Saddam. We've already seen evidence of Shia prisons in which Sunnis are tortured. Sunnis are certainly not unwilling to butcher Shia. And the Kurds want an autonomous region in the North, with oil rich Kirkuk in the boundaries, and with further aspirations of a free Kurdistan that includes portions of Syria, Turkey and Iran...that is of course if Kurdish tribes can stop fighting each other long enough to have a central anything.

Saddam, in many ways was a creation of the west, just as the country of Iraq, and much of the Middle East for that matter, was the creation of Western Colonial Gerrymandering designed to maintain economic imperialism where the real thing had failed.

[Huan]

Ghost, tell me how this guy's opinion stack against Murtha's? Does it count more because he is still serving now, on the ground, his life still at risk while Murtha's no longer serve and is safe at home?

"My fellow Americans,

I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.

I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it's true meaning or power. "For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know." I read that once and it couldn't be more true. It's not the average American's fault that he or she is "blind and deaf" to the taste of freedom. Most American's are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn't surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven't had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President's lawn and say that America isn't worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn't worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn't free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren't allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn't put shoes on your child's feet? You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The Iraqi's pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldier's in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet American's badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqi's. Yes there are bad one's here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country's future.

I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the "deaf and blind" be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, "All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country." For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone's right to have. Ironic isn't it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. PLease, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT Walter J. Rausch and 1st Platoon
Charlie Co. 2/327 Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)"

[Huan]

drop the rhetoric. never said Murtha was a fraud, that was a strawman construct of yours. i stated that his background does not give him more authority than a civilians. do we as a democratic nation really only want former soldiers to decide when we go to war and when we don't? while i respect and honor all those who have served our nation, military service is not the only service worthy of leadership. and certainly having been a soldier does not make one right, or wrong in politics. hence the irrelevent comment.

as to iraq, again, review the political accomplisments since liberation. 2000 soldiers dead for 25,000,000 liberated. we lost more soldiers on the first day of D-day. and the picture on the ground was much bleaker. even then there were those that cried we have no business waring against the Nazi, as it was Japanese that bombed pearl harbor. I am glad we did not cut and run then.

and yes, the iraqi must fight for their freedom as well. and that they are is a sign of victory.

the dems have the dubious distinction of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. read what the north vietnamese had to say about the dems cut and run strategy. the same sort of lasting victory that emboldened the terrorists leading up to 911, striking at the soft paper tiger of the united states.

you should contemplate the significance of "the enemy of Good is perfect"

[Ghost Dansing]

Murtha is a fraud. Right.

Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.

In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful." In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha."

Murtha, my friend, is the real thing. Republicans haven't seen the real thing in so long they don't know what it looks like.

I concur with Murtha in his response to Cheney: Murtha countered Cheney's attacks the next day, saying, ''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."

Same goes for "I hung out in the Texas National Guard instead of going to Vietnam" Bush.

As far as "winnable"... let's just say that as the liberator or occupier of Iraq, it was the responsiblity of the United States and Great Britain to re-establish peace and stability.

Forshadowing the problem, in 2004 Rumsfeld stated Iraqi's must defeat the insurgents.' This is after it has become clear that the United States, with by far the most powerful and technologically superior military in the history of the planet couldn't do just that.

Now, of course it is the usual pablum from this Republican administration that Iraq will have to defeat the insurgency.

According to administration officials in 2003, the United States planed for a military administration to rule Iraq until conditions stabilize. Authority would then transition to an Iraqi regime that would come to power on the basis of a new constitution and democratic elections. During the period of occupation, the U.S.-led coalition would be responsible for internal security, public order, and introducing the rule of law.

This wasn't just a nice thing to do. The U.S.-led coalition was responsible for restoring public order, providing security, and ensuring effective law enforcement as part of their obligations as occupying powers under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

Under the Geneva Convention, the Law of Occupation applies whenever a foreign military force is in a country without the government's consent. There is no exception and there does not have to be armed resistance. Occupying powers have the responsibility to maintain public order and respect human rights. They also have an obligation, subject to certain exceptions, to preserve existing laws and institutions.

Sir, by enshrining Iraqi responsibility to quell the insurgency as a cornerstone of US strategy for victory, and exit from Iraq, the Bush administration has tacitly conceded military defeat in a central area of primary responsibility.

And you can certainly discuss the "staggering" achievements of political goals in Iraq with Brent Scocroft. Perhaps you mean the political goals achieved are impressive to staggering drunks.

Republican learn nothing from mistakes. Vietnam went on for over a decade with the same "stay the course" type of rhetoric.

I think the American People have been bitten by the clue bug, and Republican smears and spin are getting flushed down the toilet.

[Huan]

The Iraq war is both winable and being won. I believe many Dems actually know and believe this. But for politics or ideology choose to broadcast otherwise. But note that my comments are not directed against those who are against the war, or even those under the mistaken belief the war cannot be won. My comments are directed at the politically self serving Dems who pushes for resolution they themselves won't vote for, whether it be to reinstitute the draft (just prior to 2004 election) or for withdraw now. That i find pathetic.

Of all the metrics used to gauge victory on the ground, body count is the poorest. That is because soldiers are there to kill and thus will be killed. The soviets lost more than any other in WW2. The North Vietnamese lost more than both the South and the US lost combined. That is because the military is a tool to achieve a political goal, and has always been throughout history. The political goals achieved thus far are staggering in Iraq.

What Murtha's background is is irrelevant. An exmarine against war is not any better than a civilians accepting of war. Most of our nations better war time presidents have been civilians. This is because they have the civilian interests at heart before the soldier.

[antimedia]

Ghost, you've got your facts all wrong. You write

The selection of Iraq as the next step in the war on terror was a strategic blunder. Then to compound that blunder, the Republicans totally miscalculated the force requirements for the war in terms of sustained manpower and resources, and miscalculated the enemies ability to carry on a protracted insurgency. Also, they miscalculated the effects of the war, i.e. providing Iraq as a substitute for Afghanistan with a cause, a safe haven of chaos, and a new battle ground upon which to train the next generation of Islamic extremists.

The strategic blunder comment is an opinion only. Only time and historians' study of the history of the war can determine whether it was or not.

The force requirement comment reveals your ignorance of the available forces. In order to get 150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, you need 300,000 more resting and training so you can have a sensible rotation. When you add up our commitments in Germany, Korea and other places around the world, there are no more available troops. In order to get to 165,000 on the ground for the elections we had to overlap deployments. You only get to do that a couple of times before you wear your troops out completely. (Thus Rumsfeld's comment, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like to have.)

The comment about miscalculating the "insurgency" and the attractiveness of Iraq to al Qaeda is a legitimate criticism of the administration. So what? We're there now. We have to finish the job. And btw, our troops are winning, despite what you think you know by watching CNN and CBS.

It is not a matter of if, but when the forces will have to withdraw. Iraq is going to have a big civil war. Iraq will most likely not emerge as a liberal, western-style democracy.

This comment merely reveals your complete ignorance of what's going on in Iraq.

Many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical. However, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Republican administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.

The administration doesn't have an open-ended commitment to the war. The President has said repeatedly that we will leave when the Iraqis ask us to leave and when they're ready to completely assume the security operations of their country. Iraq just petitioned the UN to require us to stay for another year. I guess it's OK now to ignore our UN commitments even though it supposedly wasn't before.

Murtha is a fraud, and your description of him again reveals that you just parrot whatever the news media tells you. He's been opposed to the war since before it began. He's changed his mind several times. Just 10 months ago he said we had to stay until the job was done. Now he wants to get out immediately. He's been to Iraq once, for 3 days, and while he was there he assured the Marines he visited with that Iraq would not be abandoned. Now he wants to abandon Iraq.

In short, Murtha is a politician, and his medals and service, while commendable, mean nothing compared to his actions. (And yes, I'm a vet, so don't even try the chickenhawk stupidity on me.)

If Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks, then so was FDR. I guess we should take back WWII and the New Deal and start over, huh? America isn't run by the military. It's run by civilians. We serve at the pleasure of the President. And a lot of us a damn sick and tired of the left's lies, backstabbing and complete lack of support for our service.

[Ghost Dansing]

The problem is that the Republican leadership for the past 5 years, has put this nation's military in an untenable situation. The selection of Iraq as the next step in the war on terror was a strategic blunder. Then to compound that blunder, the Republicans totally miscalculated the force requirements for the war in terms of sustained manpower and resources, and miscalculated the enemies ability to carry on a protracted insurgency. Also, they miscalculated the effects of the war, i.e. providing Iraq as a substitute for Afghanistan with a cause, a safe haven of chaos, and a new battle ground upon which to train the next generation of Islamic extremists.

The Republicans have, at minimum, demonstrated incompetence. They have created a double-bind, no-win situation.

It is not a matter of if, but when the forces will have to withdraw. Iraq is going to have a big civil war. Iraq will most likely not emerge as a liberal, western-style democracy.

The only question is what friendly body-count do you want in order to achieve the same results.

Many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical. However, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Republican administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.

The Republicans, on the other hand, including Dubya and Dick, are chickenhawks, and incompetent.

[Alexandra]

Ghost,

I appreciate your point. This is not a blog of rhetoric and therefore I truly do appreciate it, however I am trying to understand the relevance of it. As Jeff and Huan said YOU wanted the vote, then YOU ran away from it. If this is so important to the Democrats, why vote against, having a standing Murther ovation basically saying "we would if we could but we can't". Too many agendas are blurring your perspective, and even when you finally get to stand up for what you have been shouting for ALL THIS TIME, you back off. Why is that? That is the real question today, WHY?

[kristen]

A., I really love your use of visuals on your blog!

[Huan]

lets assume it was a lie, what are the dems doing about it other than crying?
lets assume it was a mistake, why did the dems vote for it then and voted for it now?
let the dems get some spine rather than continue to suckle at the teats of defeatism.

[jeff Stiles]

When all you can post are quotes from the liberal Washington Post (which is on a mission to slam our President), and which quotes for their assertions "unnamed senior intelligence officials," you totally lose me, Ghost. Try giving us something of substance!

[Ghost Dansing]

All a consequence of incompetent Republican leadership. They have the greatest fighting force in the world today, and they still managed to put it in a no-win situation.

Sept. 12, 2001: Germany. Seven members of Rumsfeld's brain trust meet at an airport in Frankfurt and board an Air Force refueling plane sent to ferry them back to Washington. Group includes Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy. On the flight back they sketch out a plan for the defense secretary according to which the U.S. would first topple the Taliban government of Afghanistan, then go after other terror states, including Iraq. Feith appoints David Wurmser to put together a secret intelligence unit in his Pentagon office that will bypass the normal channels and report directly to him; called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, its purpose is to find loose ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in order to **counter the CIA, whose analysts had found no credible links between the two**.

August 15, 2002
Brent Scowcroft was the source of major embarrassment for the administration when he authors an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing against the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He says that the toppling of Saddam's regime would destabilize the Middle East and thus “turn the whole region into a cauldron and destroy the War on Terror.” Noting that “there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks,” he calls on Bush to abandon his designs on Saddam Hussein and instead refocus his foreign policy on the war on terrorism. [Wall Street Journal] It is suggested that Scowcroft's criticisms probably reflect the feelings of the president's father. The Los Angeles Times reports: “Several former officials close to Scowcroft said they doubted he would have gone public with that posture without clearing the move first with the senior Bush, heightening questions about the latter's view on confronting Iraq. The former president has not commented publicly, which has only fed speculation.”

September 2002:
Senior intelligence officials tell the Washington Post that the CIA has yet to find solid evidence that Saddam Hussein has ties to international militant Islamic groups despite substantial efforts including analysis of surveillance photos and communications intercepts. [Washington Post, 9/10/02; Washington Post, 9/26/02 Sources: Unnamed senior intelligence officials]

They lied kid. And now they throw bits and pieces of information, out of chronology and out of context to counter a growing awareness that they lied.

[Huan]

redacted or not, the gist remain. despite all the political rhetoric and whining, the Democrats did not vote to cut and run. this means that all the blubbering was just that. i have more respect for the 3 that voted for it then the dems who dripped retreat out of one corner of their mouth.

[Craig McDonough]

Instead of crowing, why not look at the actual resolution that Murtha offered, instead of the redacted one that the pseaudo-conservatives on the House floor offered?

The one that actually gave some thought that both the Iraqi people, and our own soldiers' lives and honor had some value.

A value that the Cheney administration refuses to acknowledge.

[spiritofecstasy]

It is 11:38EST Nov. 18

The vote for "Immediate Troop Withdrawal from Iraq":

Yea: 3 Nay: 403