Via Powerline, we can see precisely what Murtha (D-Deaniac) called for:
...his own words from a press conference a few days ago: "The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target." And: "My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops (consistent with the safety of U.S. forces)." Reference: here.
and
Murtha own website: "I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy." Reference: here.
The spin is one thing: the facts are above. Murtha's plan was defeated in the House, 403-3.
Actually, this is the Murtha resolution the Republicans refused to consider:
ReplyDeleteRESOLUTION
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The resolution does not compare to the words that have been broadcast across the world. The soundbytes alone of his talk weigh heavily.
ReplyDeleteI truly wonder, had this been 1941-1945, how many of our Senators/Congressmen, etc would be charged with treason by some of the things that they say, on both sides of the fence.
We, as a Nation, were targets long ago, by those who attacked the Embassies, the USS Cole (where WI lost one of her own) and two separate attacks on the World Trade Center, etc. To say that our men have just 'become the target of the insurgency' cheapens, im my opinion, the deaths of all those from those attacks, many of which could be considered an act of war. To say that Iraq was not involved still makes me wonder.
To leave immediately, and leave Iraq people with no defense while Iran sits and waits and watches reminds me of our leaving Vietnam, while the North Vietnamese sat and waited, and watched...and then rushed in. How many died then?
While we have the right to say anything we want to say, we have the duty to be cautious when at war. Every right has a corresponding duty, I was taught long ago in 8th grade Civics class. Some of the things being said on National and International television must give tremendous 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.