Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge
by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly
empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about
conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in
Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?
It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the
mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Washington Post canes Murtha
Via the Instapundit and Captain's Quarters, the WP had this to say about Mr Murtha:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If the Americans ignobly pull out of Iraq, if they 'cut and run', as they did in Vietnam, if they again abandon the Kurds in Iraq, no one will ever trust the American government again.
Not only will the Middle East become a genuine "quagmire", but there will be no one to put an end to it. No country would dare try and bring stability to the Middle East on their own once the Americans pull out.
If the USA once again abandons something they started then they are finished as a world Superpower. A vaccuum will also have been left behind for another group to fill.
There probably are Americans who feel they'll be safer if they withdraw from the Middle East by using some trumped up euphamism such as "redeployment, or by blaming it all on the Iraqi people, but that will not guarantee their safety either. Instead they will be recognized as bullies who know how to pick a fight but lack the stomach to finish it.
Those Americans who do recognize the danger, almost exclusively the Republicans, are going to have to get their message to the American people that to leave Iraq before there is a stable government in place will prove long term misery for that area of the world, serious consequences for world stability, and countless continuing problems for the American people.
If Americans think they had enemies prior to 9/11 they have no idea what lies in store for them if they walk away from the Middle East now. They will be easy pickings for anyone, and will be seen as a big helpless giant who performs well in distributing foreign aid, which gets them no real respect, but have little else to offer.
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment