digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation

thinkprogress.org — In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. President Bush is widely expected to announce a plan next week to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 20,000.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -58/+26So much for "supporting the troops"


    • yakimushi, on 10/12/2007, -30/+50Soooo adding more troops to an awful situation where more troops will be killed is supporting them? Murtha is saving lives.
    • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -54/+20Murtha is just cutting off supplies to them. He is stabbing us in the back. AGAIN.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -15/+31Is that based on some sort of reality, or are you just spinning the story to suit your purposes? Of course, it's ridiculously easy to make the Murtha proposal look bad, since he's taking a side door to preventing escalation by disallowing funding for it.

      All people like sonofdy have to do is leave out the part about how he's blocking funding going to escalation of the troop levels, and emphasize cutting of funding, and perfecto-- the perfect conservative spin to fit their "Democrats hate the troops" nonsense frame.
    • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -49/+17That is the reality of it. Cutting off funds simply denies the troops the supplies needed to do thier jobs. The democrats do hate us. We feel it. Kerry was a good example of the DNC's "support" for the troops. Follow this up with murthas threat to cut off our supplies, and the picture is quite clear.

      Democrats do not support the troops and this only proves it.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31Thanks for putting the nonsense frame to use-- it makes for a good case study.

      Notice the entire lack of acknowledgement that this proposal is to block funding for war escalation. He mixes in even more nonsense about Kerry and the DNC, none of which has anything to do with the issue at hand.

    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34He's not cutting off funding for current troops, he just doesn't want new ones to be sent to war.

      Also, John Kerry is a bad politician, but he's also a veteran and a patriot, even if he's a horrible joker.
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Bush has said that he doesn't care what the American people want he will not correct his failed Iraq policy. His words, "if Laura and Barney are the only ones who support me". Well since he's declared himself dictator this is the only way to begin to fix the mess he's made in Iraq.

      It's NOT stabbing troops in the back!
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Good thing he is in the vast minority on this subject.
    • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -25/+15Some of you guys are idiots. Democrats have long said that one of the biggest foul-ups with Iraq was sending too small of a force in, since the soldiers were stretched thin, chaos ensued without anyone to police over the populace.

      Go to any military history forum or read several books written by generals; most say the same thing:

      "The less troops, the higher the casualties."

      Lets say we had only 100 troops in Iraq, they'd get quickly overwhelmed and killed by the end of the month. Lets say we had only 10,000, they'd be so stretched out it they would get slaughtered anyway. With more troops, its more likely the enemy surrenders or gets overwhelmed. We need to send in more troops, eradicate certain problems, and then bring them back as soon as possible, otherwise the army, underpowered as is, will never be able to get the job done.

      Finally when Bush is doing what a bunch of generals have said the President has got wrong, people have this knee jerk reaction to go against what leaders of their own party have said early on.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Time to pull the plug on the Blank Check-book that Bush has grown so used to.

      In the absence of a realistic plan, I'd refuse further funding too.
    • countmandible, on 11/15/2007, -4/+27The best thing we could do to support the troops is bring them home to be with their families.
    • zelig, on 10/12/2007, -24/+12Time to check the brains. It was MURTHA who wanted to escalate just weeks ago. It was MURTHA who wanted a draft. Now it's MURTHA who wants just the opposite. What has he been doing, taking cues from that poll-reading wizard, John Kerry?

      ready to be dugg and I don't care.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25150,000 troops from Iraq on Disability
      3000 Dead

      In a war with a country that was never a threat to us For a president who lied to us about the justifications for war as HIS ADMINISTRATION wiretapped the entire United States, engaged in torture and rendition, did away with Habaes Corpus, and gave 10's of Billions of Dollars in No Bid Contracts to his Campaign Contributors.

      I'd say Murtha is doing more than standing up for the troops, he's standing up for the United States. Its really long past time someone pulled the brake on this runaway train.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Democrats have long said that one of the biggest foul-ups with Iraq was sending too small of a force in, since the soldiers were stretched thin, chaos ensued without anyone to police over the populace."

      Sources? As far as I know, John McCain is the only one that's been saying that.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10"The best thing we could do to support the troops is bring them home to be with their families."

      Thing is, capping funding is NOT going to accomplish this. It's just going to short-change the troops that are already there by depleting their resources. In effect, put them in GREATER danger than they already are in.

      Thanks Murtha!
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13ShrimpCrackers: Because it worked in VietNam, right? I mean, sending hundreds of thousands of troops there reduced casualties, right? This was is just like that one. We fight like the British fought us, and the enemy fights like we did when we fought for our freedom.

      We cannot win, and even if we did, we are the bad guys in this war. We are the dark men wearing black hats riding into a small desert town with our gang. The closest thing the town has to a handsome man in a white hat is the terrorist leaders who promise to get rid of the evil men.

      Send in more, and more will die. Bring them all home, and no more die. It's a civil war that we caused. All we can do is let them resolve their own futures, and when stability returns, we can pay reparations in the multi-billions. That's it. American troops cause tension in the region, fueling more death.
    • reugeneg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Bush has has a blank check and control of both houses and he still couldn't pull together a "winning strategy." What have the generals been saying all this time? "Let's get more boots on the ground." Now Bush as a last resort 3+ years later, is offering that as his new winning strategy. So the American taxpayers should keep throwing more good money after bad? At some point, someone has to say "enough!" to Bush and Cheney's stupid spreading democracy cluster-*****.

      Mission NOT Accomplished! Until my kid, and her kids, and their kids try to pay for this debacle.
    • sathias, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The fact of the matter is that Bush doesn't have the political capital or mandate to make such decisions in contrary to what the voting public want. After the 2004 election he said that he had the political capital and he intended to spend it... well he doesn't have it anymore, and he should damn well act like it.
    • kyledavis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@sonofdy
      "Supporting our troops" means bringing them home to be with their families.
      "Supporting our troops" means relieving them of the burden of fighting for a failed cause.

      "Supporting our troops" does NOT mean supporting the prick who wants to use them like militant dogs of war until they break under the strain. The way I see it, YOU are a total dick for NOT "supporting our troops".
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Some of you guys are idiots. Democrats have long said that one of the biggest foul-ups with Iraq was sending too small of a force in, since the soldiers were stretched thin, chaos ensued without anyone to police over the populace."

      You see, ShrimpCrackers, the thing with problem solving is that solutions only work if they adapt to changing circumstances. Solutions that take into account only past circumstances are not effective in the present, nor are solutions to future problems effective in the past.

      For instance, let's say I was to put you in a temperature-controlled padded cell. As I gradually turned the thermostat down to below freezing, you would ask me to turn the temperature back up. I could oblige and increase the temperature to 120 degrees. You would then beg me to lower it again. By your logic, I could respond, "You asked me make it hotter, now you're asking me to make it colder. Pick a side and stick to it!"

      A larger invasion force at the outset would have gone a long way toward stabilizing the country before many key Iraqi institutions had been destroyed beyond repair. I'm personally of the opinion that this war would have failed eventually anyway, but here we have a unique case of an error in concept AND an error in execution. Now we've lost the war. Sending more troops will only forestall the inevitable, which is massive sectarian violence, the partitioning of Iraq, and a humiliating withdrawal of our troops. That's the reality now -- due to a combination of bad thinking, bad planning, and bad management, the United States has now suffered one of its worst defeats. Keep pretending it's not getting hotter in your padded cell. Frogs will boil to death without flinching if you just turn the heat up gradually.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Two reasons why we should finish what we started in Iraq:

      First, whether or not you agree that Iraq was part of the War on Terror when we ousted Saddam, Iraq is now unquestionably the front line on the War on Terror. Islamic terrorists have flooded into Iraq from other nations to fight US forces. Are we ever going to have a better opportunity to kill these guys than right now?

      Second, pulling out now will undoubtably cause the collapse of the newly elected government in Iraq, and the nation will be taken over by Islamic extremists (Shiites) from Iran. The nation will be in worse shape than before, and Iran will almost double the amount of oil that they control in the world market -- almost 20% of OPEC. It is in America's (and everyone else's) strategic long term interest not to let Iran have that much influence over the world economy.

      We've got to win this thing, and it's the opinion of most military strategists that we simply didn't send enough troops into Iraq post-war to establish the peace.
    • graycat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yes - let's support them by sending more into the meatgrinder! There are soldiers who we are sending into combat who are on their third tours over there (like my sister's bf) and they really need to come home.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The blood of over 3,000 dead American soldiers and the countless number of dead Iraqis is on hands of George W. Bush. Because of George W. Bush, we falsely accused and attacked without provocation another sovereign nation. Now, we find our troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. And George W. Bush's solution is to send more troops in the middle of this civil war. And for what? So more troops can die. That's all that is going to happen.

      The American soldiers are no longer wanted in Iraq. The various groups in Iraq have taken this opportunity of chaos to attack one another. They all want power. And our troops are in the middle of it all. I say, let them settle their own mess without our troops there. And which ever group is left standing, is who we get to follow our rules and ways of doing things. Until then, we are just sending our troops to their death in a lost cause.

      So if you support our troops, then support Murtha and get our troops out for now. Again, when things clear up. There will be a lot less of them to deal with. And we can support or put in power whom ever we want. Like all of the hundreds of times we've done this in the past. Why isn't the CIA really doing its job?
  • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2bury.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Yeah, wouldn't want people to see just how much the Democrats "care" about the troops, now would we?
  • yatoobin, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8Sorry, Bush. You go to war with the army you've got.
  • whtnoise, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Are you guys not reading the article, Murtha isn't saying he wants to abandon the troops that are there:

    Quote: He says he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard was on the Daily Show recently, and he had an interesting take. He said that, basically, our troops can do nothing but watch right now as the sects tear each other apart, and Iraq apart. Both he and Stewart (who has been to the Green Zone as well) said that they felt like babysitters with their hands tied behind their backs. It really does sound like they don't have the numbers or resources to quell the sectarian violence.

      Face it: If we pull out, it all goes to ***** over there. While I don't like the idea of sending *more* people, I also don't want my country responsible for yet another geopolitical implosion. Because that means a backlash that could lead to more loss of life than we've seen during the entire occupation. Their idea is to risk more now in order to avoid having to risk too many, later.

      It is an ugly, unpopular choice, and it will probably be denied, if for no other reason than it was Bush's idea.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19"it all goes to ***** over there"

      650,000 dead civilians in 36 months isn't "gone to *****?" The army has lost control of everything but the green zone. The largest contracting firms have withdrawn all US personnel. The number of journalists has gone from 1000+ to 15-. You can no longer distinguish between Iraq police and roving death squads. How bad does it have to get before you believe it has gone to *****?

    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13I love the moonbats who still quote that "study" that claimed 600,000 civillians had been killed, even when the most radical anti-war organizations out there have said it's complete ***** and an embarassment to their efforts to stop the war.

      To reitterate: that study did not count casualties. None at all. All they did was randomly ask individuals if they knew people who were killed, then "estimated" how many MUST have died as a result of those "patterns" across the country.

      What a joke.
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7"How bad does it have to get before you believe it has gone to *****?"

      Way to avoid my central point by debating a point of communication.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11650,000 Iraqi dead is currently the only statistician supported number out there.

      Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's peer reviewed, scientific study (oct 06): http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
      http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1012/dailyUpdate.html
      http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0E16FF3B540C728DDDA90994DE404482

      I'd love to see other peer-reviewed, scientific studies on Iraqi casualties (really!). If you think the numbers are wrong, let's see what you've got.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8So he wants to deny them backup? That's even worse.
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5It weighs on my soul that so many people have died, and because of decisions my President's administration has made. I think it will take decades to undo the damage.

      But pulling out will certainly not end the bloodshed.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Even if it's only 1/5 of the quoted 650k people, that's 70000 people too many.

      I guess the whole war backs the Republican way of thinking. They are the ones who want abstinence taught in school.. effectively ***** for virginity like they're waging a war for peace.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8
      It's years too late to say that increasing our troop levels by 10 of 15% will turn the whole situation around. It's time to stop ***** around and pretenting we're somehow going to "win" something there. We're past the point of doing anyone any good.
  • smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Denying funding for an escalation PREVENTS the escalation, it does not permit an underfunded escalation to continue.

    The obvious stawman argument that will come out of Bush supporters on this will be thatt Murtha doesn't support the troops, and wants to see them put in harms way by being under funded/supplied.

    Murtha, nor any other democrat, would support the idea of underequipping the troops, or not providing them with the weapons/armor needed for combat.

    Murtha wants to PREVENT the escalation of troops.
    • derjazzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5so if you have an infection, the best thing to do is take LESS antibiotics to keep the bacteria from escalating?
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13More like, if an infected patient hasn't responded to tetracycline in 3 years, and their condition has gone steadily from stable to critical, consistantly worse with every passing dose, maybe you should stop the tetracycline and try something else. Not up the dosage.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1So to fight crime in a bad neighborhood you use less cops ?
  • KWhat, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7What the ***** does anything Arianna Huffington has to say in regards to politics have any weight what so ever! This woman has her ***** nose in everything that has nothing to do with her.
    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11no more than you have your nose in things you know nothing about
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I suppose the difference is that Arianna Huffington is actually paid for her opinion, whereas you just get dugg down for free.
  • jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6murtha is the man.
  • derjazzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12What short memories we have! Just a few months ago, the Dems were outraged with Rumsfeld in part because he stubbornly would not release more troops to Iraq. Now Rumsfeld is gone, and Bush, undoubtedly with the advice of his new Secretary of Defense, sees the wisdom in sending more troops. The response of the Democrats? Politics first, spite a close second, the health and morale of the troops a distant last. What idiots.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"Just a few months ago"

      Try a few *years* ago. When it might have made a difference. Before we lost control of the country completely.
    • xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6That's kind of like saying "I have to study for a test" that was 3 years ago. Sometimes things can be so mismanaged that it can't be fixed no matter how many resources you throw at them. Iraq can not be "won". It was too mismanaged. It might not have been possible to win in the first place. The challenge now is to minimize the damage both to the US and to the Iraqi people.

      Democrats did not lose this war. Republicans did, and they will work very hard to try to place the blame on anyone but themselves. The neocon ideas (that were held before 911) failed. Now the country has to clean up their mess. And it will take both democrats and non-neocon republicans to do so.
  • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Who's going to block all the funding thats going into Abscam's pockets?
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11The only reason you haven't been dugg down is because most diggers are so ignorant beyond what they see on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report to know that the Abscam scandal was damaging for Democrats, specifically Murtha, not Republicans.
    • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I know. Sad isn't it?
    • dagobah77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
  • Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8It's much smarter to do something like put a "War Tax" into place, on the reasoning that the US of A shouldn't have to go into debt to pay for the war. Then you'll see the troops home a lot sooner.
  • mtomovich, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14I feel ashamed that Murtha is my rep...
  • Micfri, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1It sounds so easy but with King George in office with the power to disapear people...I don't expect much, anyone remember the congress people who disapeared after 9/11?
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7... You don't seriously believe this, do you? With a media cycle that is 24 hours a day, which is actively looking for anything that can be a juicy news story, do you really think people can just disappear? ... The Kremlin allegedly tried that last year. It didn't work.
  • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Headline should read: "Murtha Plans to Deny American Troops Body Armor, Weapons, and Other Necessities".

    But, hey, if you can leverage anything to get a "win" against Bush, who cares who it hurts, right?
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8That would be a lie, but I guess that is what got us into this war in the first place? Right? Lies and headlines?
  • billjackson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9So, Murtha is going to cut off funding before debating anything, listening to ideas in "not staying the course", ect... I guess there goes bi-partisanship in the first hundred hours...

    Digg down the truth....
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8they didn't overwhelmingly defeat the disgraced corrupt, inept Republican incumbents by saying that they'd compromise every issue that came their way, now, did they?

      The People asked for a change.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I guess that's why they voted in mostly new-blood centrists, many of whom ran on Conservative-leaning platforms, right?
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"many of whom ran on Conservative-leaning platforms, right?"

      No... The republicans ran on the conservative-leaning platforms. They lost. Badly. Almost unilaterally.

      I do appreciate the amazing level of denial you have to be in to call a massive democrat rout of nearly every republican seat up for election a victory for the conservatives though.
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8No, the Republicans lost all their seats that were in danger due to leaving incumbents, weak positioning, and scandal. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the Senate and every single house member was up for election in 2006. When put in that perspective, the narrow margin of victory for the Democrats comes into clearer focus.

      Are those elected conservative leaning? I wouldn't know. But they do answer to Pellosi and Byrd at the end of the day. So we'll see if Murtha's "fiscally conservative" (as opposed to militarily conservative) stance here will fly. I doubt it.. and I am willing to bet Pellosi is going to come to seriously regret going into league with Murtha.
  • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5biases aside (and boy, do a lot of biases show in this), the thing I worry about most is a scenario where funding is cut off, and the influx continues anyways.. Because that is what leads to poor support, old equipment, and the like. The defense budget will get stretched thinner, and mistakes will be made. The Republicans will be painted as having enacted a failed counter-offensive, and the Democrats will be painted as having not supported the troops.

    No, the Commander in Chief position is not a blank slate to do whatever you want (although he does have final say in military tactics, something I'm sure many in the legislature don't like).. but not adjusting the military budget to accommodate military decisions is a very, VERY bad idea. There are better ways to do this.
    • skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5When 'adjusting the military budget' means bankrupting your country, I would think you may have bigger issues to worry about.
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Supporting 10,000 troops and the support staff to move them isn't going to bankrupt the country. If it did, then we've got a LOT more pressing issues to worry about than military spending.

      The United States has operated in a debt-based economy for a long while now. It keeps a "good" credit rating, as it were, and does pretty good paying off its obligations (except with the UN, it seems, but I'm not sure how much of that is dues and how much of it is things they have voted that we should pay). With this kind of situation, money can be borrowed relatively easily and applied where needed. A balanced budget is the ideal, of course (and the Reps have sucked at it lately, but the dems are no fiscal conservatives either), but its not locked in stone for the federal gov't like it is for most states.

      With that said, this gesture does imply that Murtha is making the president do more with the same money, which isn't a good idea when we are already talking about the military being underfunded.
    • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They didn't win by much---a thousand here or there. Not exactly a landslide. You libs are going to be very disappointed in your elected leaders. They are going to break every promise they made and make huge issues of non-issues to try and deflect the fact that they don't know what the hell to do about Iraq or anything else for that matter. They are acting like spoiled children----just like they acted today. Not even allowing a discussion on bills or amending them. That shows a total lack of character and respect for the other half of Americans who voted for Republicans.. Good Grief, how many hours did Kennedy and Murtha drone on about their viewpoints before a vote.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It would be like our insane President to not admit defeat of his craptacular plan and bring the troops home. He probably would send more troops eve without funding. That wouldn't be the Democrats fault. It would be Bush's fault. He has shown he doesn't care about the troops. That would be further proof.....as if anyone but the densest person would need more proof.
  • zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This isn't really as cut and dry down party lines as people think.
    Lieberman, a prominent centrist Democrat is in favour of an increase.
    Christopher Shays, a republican, is against it (citing an independent study that says it will further increase the Iraqi gov's dependence on us and prolong the situation)
    Colin Powell, while (to my knowledge) hasn't expressed a specific opinion, stated in a BBC article dated December 18:
    "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work," he said. He added that such was the overstretch of the US military, there were no additional troops that could be sent.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6188693.stm

    A similar article dated December 16 states:
    Military commanders, however, have been expressing scepticism that extra troops on their own will have much effect, our correspondent says.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184965.stm

    So, don't equate one persons opinion to represent their entire political party.
    • Kalibah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5nice except Lieberman is an independent not a democrat- they ran him out of town so to speak
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3He caucus's with the Democrats, and that is what is important.. for now.

      Really, he was just protesting their running him out of town. It'll cause issues down the line, but for now they are okay.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4They beat up Lieberman for supporting Bush's "Stay the course" Doctrine.
      They were right to do so. "Stay the course, now with 10% more troops *" isn't a substitute for a realistic plan either. Thank God Murtha has the cojones to stand up to this worthless flag-waving Bush proposal.
  • shig, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I wrote him a nice email thinking him for his actions and asked if he would call for impeachment, I'd recommend you all do the same.
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6If I may ask, what in your opinion counts as an impeachable offense?

      and if you quote WMD's, keep in mind he wasn't the only political leader who believed Saddam had WMD's, so you'd have to prosecute quite a bit of the Western Hemisphere's leaders.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"and if you quote WMD's..."

      Well, you seem to have answered your own question, in part, haven't you?
      Oddly, there are parlimentary discussions of possible war crimes charges being brought up against Blair for exactly this reason.

      But no need to stop there.
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2For violation of the 1996 War Crimes Act Perhaps prosecute him under the RICO act. That's my opinion.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8So Democrats, who were complaining about "staying the course", don't want to change course.
    • concertina, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4uh, democrats can't change course. They aren't commander-in-chief, they have no control over the military.

      The most they can do is deny funding, make a lot of noise, and create congressional inquiries. Oh, and impeach the president. But they can't order the troops around.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"uh, democrats can't change course. They aren't commander-in-chief, they have no control over the military."

      Exactly, so why are they trying to control the military by withholding funding?
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1All three branches of government constantly fight over who controls what, despite what the Constitution says. It's how they stay balanced, by fighting each other.

      Although lately, the Congress has emerged as the dominant branch, followed by the Judicial. They are out of whack (political parties aside), and I hope to see that corrected before my life is over.
    • rjl252, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Athenor:
      Congress hasn't just become the dominant branch recently (in fact, the executive is still overly strong) but it was designed to be the strongest branch. It is the People's branch, and there is a reason why it is Article I.

      As for the Judiciary, it is weak, as it should be.
    • kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0>> uh, democrats can't change course. They aren't commander-in-chief, they have no control over the military.

      > Exactly, so why are they trying to control the military by withholding funding?

      Because congress has no control over the military per se but DO have control over the military's budget?

      For hypothetical country X:

      Congress can't stop the military (under the control of POTUS) from sending the troops into country X.
      Congress CAN make sure they don't get the money to KEEP the troops in country X.
    • concertina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Exactly, so why are they trying to control the military by withholding funding?"

      Let me get this straight here.

      You say the democrats ran on a position of changing the course in Iraq, but are not delivering, strongly implying that they have the power, but not the will, to do so.

      Then you suggest that that they do have the will (they state they will deny funding), but lack the power (because they do not have final authority).

      So what you're really bothered by is not that the democrats are going against the will of the people (they're not), or that they're hypocrites on this issue (they're not ...yet), but that they're interfering with what most people believe to be drastically overinflated presidential authority?

      Feel free to correct me if I've misstated your position.
  • SgtAl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's the only way they can get the point across to the republican ideologs that it is time to start drawing down and planning the exit. Theres no way to make the situation better over there especially with a short term increase. Thanks to Cheney and Rumsfeld cutting troop strength under the original President Bush in the 80's and 90's the military as a whole is no longer large enough to sustain this sort of occupation.
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Give em Hell Rep. Murtha!!!
  • CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Stonedonkey has it right. Murtha, if his position were policy, would not be "saving lives." He would be plunging Iraq into further chaos and causing the deaths of thousands more innocent Iraqis... just like hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were killed after we pulled out of Vietnam. But hey, they have brown skin, and the South Vietnamese have yellow skin; ergo, they don't matter as much as Americans, right?
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this is quite negative.. but I do think we can pull something out of Vietnam:

      ALL traditional thoughts on warfare need to be re-evaluated. A straight pull-out won't work, a troop escalation won't work, ignoring the problem won't work.

      So what -will- work? When someone finds that answer, and people start listening to him, then we'll be getting somewhere.


      .. I will never forget the story my dad told of the Vietnamese attendant he had when he was over there.. and how he still wonders if she survived the fall of Saigon.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2And it's worse this time since the US started this war.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I still haven't heard a single explanation about how increasing troop levels by ten percent, 3 years into a steadily declining situation will somehow regain us control over a country where the only thing the civilian population can agree on is that they want the US to leave.

      We lost the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people three years ago. Without their support, the occupation wouldn't regain control of the country if we added fifty thousand troops. Staying another month or another year just isn't going to help anyone.
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The belief of the people, as I understand it, is that Iraq is the inverse of Afghanistan. Iraq's outlying countries are largely violence free, save for the Bathist stronghold (Saddam's hometown) and such. Hell, the Kurds in the north just want to break off and make their own country, and they're pretty much autonomous already.

      No, the problem is Baghdad, and the low-income areas that ring it. This is where the majority of the violence is... and there aren't enough troops to properly do a citywide search (well, they aren't exactly allowed to do a house by house search, but you know what I mean).

      And I wouldn't say jack to what the Iraqi people believe. After all, we aren't Iraqis... and just look at how the "hearts and minds" of Americans are portrayed. It swings, WILDLY, depending on who you ask.

      As for your final comment, that I cannot attest to.
  • Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I tend to agree that putting more boots on the ground would be pointless...pretty much everyone is a potential enemy....more troops just means greater change for harm...

    Congress should exercises its power and freeze additional funding... at the same time boosting funding for vet programs..its the right thing to do..

    the belief that these wars somehow deter people from doing us harm is far fetched...we have been actively messing with them for more than 60 years.. let them figure things out for once...if the region blows up into a larger war so be it....at least they would come to a balance on thier own...
    • Athenor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Vet programs?! Erm.. where'd that come from? Domestic spending hasn't entered this discussion anywhere.

      And I agree, wars don't deter radicalists. But we aren't over there to deter Radicals anymore. We're over there to help the Iraqi people take their lives into their own hands after a generation of not knowing what that means.

      ... Side note, I cannot advocate the "let them kill each other" mentality you just laid out. Israel or not, standing by and letting people die needlessly, no matter who they are, just goes against my moral code.
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@Athenor: "We're over there to help the Iraqi people take their lives into their own hands after a generation of not knowing what that means."
      Hands that built the buildings bombed by coalition forces, hands the hold thier children, hands that wield AK47's, hands which are clasped in prayer, hands that wire IED's, 90% of Iraqis raise their hands when asked if they believe Iraq was better before the U.S.-led occupation, but it's been alot longer than a generation since the very lives of the Iraqi peoples have not been in the hands of the United States.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Athenor since when to we go to war to nation build? Bush said we were there for imaginary wmd's and terrorists. Make up your mind. Either way, we shouldn't be there. The death is an answer to death strategy isn't working. Duhhhhhhh.
  • bbear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Bush is a special kind of idiot. He ignores almost all of the Iraq study group recommendations. He's unwilling listen to reason or debate of any kind. He won't admit any mistake. And he never changes his mind. The only way to fight him is to fight dirty. Hopefully the democrats are up to it.
  • jdheiden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And I thought diggers were a smart people in general......guess I was wrong. It's no surprise that 90% of the comments that were in disagreement with Murtha's comments were buried then.

    WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??????

    Yes, we are in a war, like it or not. The fact of the matter is, that now, Iraq needs to be SECURED. period. The only way to do that is to send in more troops to help do the job. Plain and simple. Pull them all out now and there will be a total collapse. This should be more than obvious, whether you're a 'publican or a democrat.
  • dp1mat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It dont matter what we do over in Iraq. Soon as we leave some other group will take over period. I cant see us leaving at all because its about OIL!!! My buds son was in Iraq when we first went there. He had some jacked up pictures I might ad. His son said they didnt even have the right equipment to start with. Driving around in hummers with soft tops, no body armor etc. His son said its a lose lose situation there. I mean if we stay we are not liked and soon as we leave were screwed.
  • sdub1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Now the Bush sympathizers are going try to blame the democratic congress for the failure of the Iraq war! They'll say that we needed more troops but the Democratic congress denied the funding. Can't wait to see how Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are going to talk about this.
  • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1As the mother of a Marine let me say, our entire family has been against this illegal occupation from the start. God bless Murtha and anyone else who supports our troops by trying to save their lives and fighting our terrorist president.

    .
  • punkrawkintrev, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0obama for president
    mutha for vp
    makes sense to me
    if america wants a change
    we have a choice we can vote left or we can vote reich thats right riech not right
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lolz u makes teh n@zi joke u r teh 1337!1!!

      Shut the ***** up.
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The only way to win is with a massive surge of US forces and creating Iraq into a policed state instead of a democracy.. for now at least. If you disagree please go ahead on your plan on how you would like this situation to be handled. Do you guys have any idea how crazy extremists are? The sunni and shia extremists kill themselves over the most minor occurance in Islamic history, who takes over the arabs after muhammed? Ali or muhammed's relatives? Yes that is their reason to kill eachother, something not even specified in the Qu'ran but an after event which has nothing to do with Islam.

    You guys want ***** like moqtada al-sadr in power? This guy takes US troops to torture for his sick pleasure imagine what he'll do if he has an army behind him. It needs to be turned into another germany after WW2, then people in Iraq will realize what it means to be together instead of being apart.
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The next best executive officials would be Wesley Clark and Robert Gates imo
  • jpsucks3999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0More troops were needed initially, to PREVENT the problems we're experiencing today. Adding troops now is akin to adding airbags to a car AFTER the accident already happened. Iraq is in full civil war, an additional 20k troops is not going to stop that. I highly doubt we posses a fraction of the troops necessary to "secure" Iraq at this point.

    It's lost, we f*d it up and we're going to be paying for it for years and years to come. The longer we take to come to that realization, the higher the price goes

  • xsecretfiles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0That soooo Unexpected...NOT
    Typical liberal. ..."we are not going to impeach Bush...we are going to drive him out"
  • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ABSCAM Jack! Democrat member of the "Most Ethical Congress" ever!
  • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1All you whiny liberal asswipes need to pay attention to the news....
    The Iraq Commission stated that more troops where needed...pulling out is not an option...having too few troops puts the troops there in danger. You can not control a check point with 2-3 troops, and that is what is happening too few troops to do the job right...
    It is this politically correct ***** that keeps us from fighting the war...we need to bomb Tirkrit and any other stronghold until the attacks/bombings/etc stop. This is how you fight a war...a war is not between soldiers only, civilians will and should be killed...this would be a deterant to elect assholes like saddam...the people that live in Iraq bear the responsibility for its problems and allowing assholes like saddam into power...they will also bear the death that it brings...



  • GLSmyth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those of us who were around during the Vietnam era, the commonalities are just continuing. This is exactly what began the end of our involvement in Vietnam, a refusal to continue funding it.
  • kokerup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It anyone thiks that the US will end what they call terroriasm simply by bombing stronghold out of existance then they are repeating the mistakes of history. WHY are these people doing this? They feel disempowered in a world where the US and the West have everything and they have very little. Put yourself in their place. For instance try living as a Palistinian for a while.
    The suicide bombers and their like are certainly not right but how do they get to keep their cause going?
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is how they keep thier cause going.

      Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

      Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

      Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.
  • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Wow.. all these comments from all this Leftist Wizards and NOT ONE of them have looked at the situiation from the POV of the Jihadis.

    beyond suicidal.. all of you. You say your against death yet your cowardise will result in the loss of entire contitents.
  • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I dont care what anyone else thinks, if we give up in Iraq we'll be handing over an oilfield to the radicals. If we actually invest time, money, and manpower (while untying that hand they've had behind their backs) this might turn into a VERY good thing. Imagine if we had a South Korea in the middle of the turmoil that is the middle east. I'd rather have foreign capital poured into a stable Baghdad than, say Saudi Arabia or Dubai.

    I support a change in direction just as much as I oppose withdrawing the troops now as so many short sighted people have been advocating. I wish our troops were given more leeway over there. This could turn into a very good thing for the world.
  • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0jcm: All that doesn't matter. The Left must see Bush fail.
  • 1angrychristian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2he's probably giving those funds to his campaign financiers.

    :-)

    Next time Murtha try not to get caught on tape ... ok?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.