Posted by
on Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:00:58 PM
John Murtha isn't hiding his plans and intentions any longer. Yesterday, the Hot Air piece stated he was moving behind the scenes quietly. Today, the Washington Times allows him to hang himself with his own words:
House Democrats today outlined their plan to restrict President Bush's use of war funding, with the goal of gradually ending the war in Iraq.
"This legislation will force the administration to consider alternatives rather than escalating," said Rep. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, during an interview that was aired this morning, in a unique twist, on a Web site: MoveCongress.org.
Mr. Murtha detailed, during a 24-minute interview, his plan to use the appropriations process to hamstring the president's use of war funds. Mr. Murtha's plan is supported by House Democratic leaders, and is thought to be the less politically risky alternative.
Mr. Murtha repeatedly emphasized that his strategy "supports the troops" by requiring adequate training and equipment, as well as forbidding the president from sending soldiers to Iraq who have not been home, away from combat, for at least a year.
"What we're saying, it would be very hard to find fault with. The troops have to be equipped, they have to be trained, they can't be sent back without a year at home," Mr. Murtha said. "People have to understand we're supporting the troops, we're protecting the troops, but on the other hand, we're going to stop this surge."
The House is in their third day today of a four-day debate over a non-binding resolution that would express disapproval of the president's plan to "surge" around 27,000 U.S. soldiers into Iraq. But both Democrats and Republicans agree that the resolution is a prelude to the real battle in March over the appropriations for the war.
"The real vote will come on the legislation we are putting together. This nonbinding legislation is an opinion, but the legislation I am putting together first of all puts restrictions on the president," Mr. Murtha said.
Mr. Bush yesterday said that he hopes Congress does not restrict funding for the war, and House Republicans are working to publicize statements by hardcore anti-war House Democrats who are calling for all war funding to be cut off immediately.
Cutting off all funds for U.S. soldiers in harms way is a move that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is determined to avoid, but many Democrats are receiving intense pressure from constituents to take more dramatic action against the war.
Still, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, labeled Mr. Murtha's plan "a plan to cut off funding for troops in harm's way."
"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements, and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Mr. Boehner said in a press release. "The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face the enemy without our full support."
Mr. Murtha also said that pressure must be placed on the Senate to vote up or down on the House resolution.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, tried to schedule the House resolution for a vote on Feb. 27th, when Congress returns from next week's week-long recess. However, Senate Republicans went into an uproar when Mr. Reid tried to bar them from offering amendments to the resolution.
"Aren't we allowed to have competing resolutions to debate and discuss?" said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. "I've never seen the Senate work this way. I have never seen the Senate only allow one proposal to be debated and voted on."
"I am astonished," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.
"This is a defining moment for the Senate," said Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican. "I don't intend to stand by and see the Senate lose its role under the Constitution ... This is not just the rubber stamp of the House. That is what we will be if we follow the intention of the majority leader right now."
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, warned his fellow senators that the Senate is in danger of becoming "irrelevant."
"What we have here is that we're close to anarchy. We have been debating the debate all week," said Mr. Specter, who said Mr. Reid should work with Mr. McConnell instead of shutting Republicans out.
The Democrats, or should we call them "Defeatocrats," are going to do everything within their power destroy everything we've done over the last four years. They're sick of playing second fiddle to the Commander in Chief, and they're not just pulling the rug out from under the troops, but the president, as well. And what will they do a year from now, five years from now or even ten when our enemy revisits their violence on our shores? They'll blame the troops for not getting the job done in Iraq; the same job they're trying to stop right now. Pres. Bush will be as reviled as Pres. Nixon was when the Vietnam War ended. Remember, it was the Democrats who started that war and escalated it. When Nixon came into office, he had the full intention of winning it, until the fifth column Democrats started scaling him back, and eventually killed the funding for the war.
That's what they're doing now. They're trying to end this war--not started by us, but rather our enemy--and it's for partisan gain alone. And when, not if, but when, our enemy hits us again, they'll play the same games they've played since September 11th. We look back to the Clinton years for intellugence and prosecution failures, and they accuse us of living in the past. What they fail to grasp is that history doesn't just start at one point--January of 2001--and move forward. The lessons of history have to be listened to lest we end up revisiting them. Nothing illustrates this concept better than the law. We see cases go before the Supreme Court that seemingly are a one-shot deal, yet because of precedent, that history comes back to haunt us.
The same can be said of foreign policy. Neville Chamberlain negotiated an accord with Hitler's Nazi Germany--one that was broken just a little under a year later. The breaking of that accord led to World War II. When we retreated from Vietnam, humbled by the Democrats in congress, it sent a clear message to the world that America could be driven from the field of battle. And look where it led us. We ended up retreating from our ally, the Shah of Iran. We retreated from Beirut. We retreated from Somalia. And now they want us to retreat from Iraq. And I do agree wiuth Thomas's evaluation that if we are forced from Iraq by the politicians, it will only be a matter of time before we're forced to withdraw from Afghanistan; ceding the field of battle to our enemies, and emboldening them.
This isn't just a case of "we're losing; let's leave" (which we're not losing, nor have we lost), this is a matter of a childish party playing partisan political games with our national security and ignoring the fact that our enemies won't stop coming after us. It's time the GOP in the House and the Senate located their spines, and put Murtha and the Democrats in their place. Yes, they may have the majority, but they don't command national policy. That's the president's job, and he says we go in with the additional troops. If they're going to cut the funds, then have the courage of your convictions and do it. Quit tip-toeing around the issue, and do it. SHOW america where you stand, and let your constituents make their minds up in 2008. I can guarantee that quite a few aren't going to be too pleased with these defeatists.
Sabrina McKinney